Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

As the votes keep coming in, Gardner's win percentage in CO keeps creeping closer and closer to 2%...

It's so aggravating that Udall and Hagan came so close to winning yet fell short. Especially if Begich ends up winning - then Democrats would have 49 seats instead of 46.

Braley was a shit candidate - one would think someone better (Vilsack maybe) could have won. Oh well, woulda shoulda coulda.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm not sure that's true. The federal government certainly doesn't think so:

Oh, so now you agree with the government's argument?

But the IRS doesn't have to do it, either. Your own quote says it's within their power to choose. So technically they would have to pay it back, unless the IRS makes a change.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Oh, so now you agree with the government's argument?

But the IRS doesn't have to do it, either. Your own quote says it's within their power to choose. So technically they would have to pay it back, unless the IRS makes a change.

It's a different argument. This isn't a cartoon where you have to agree, or disagree, with everything someone says.

And you're right. Assuming the government's argument regarding IRS authority is right, the IRS has discretion concerning whether an adverse ruling would be applied retroactively. So, if an adverse ruling is applied retroactively, you'll have only the IRS to blame.

 

[Black Mamba]

It's a different argument. This isn't a cartoon where you have to agree, or disagree, with everything someone says.

And you're right. Assuming the government's argument regarding IRS authority is right, the IRS has discretion concerning whether an adverse ruling would be applied retroactively. So, if an adverse ruling is applied retroactively, you'll have only the IRS to blame.

No, I'd have the SCOTUS to blame too. IRS wouldn't have a decision without them.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No, I'd have the SCOTUS to blame too. IRS wouldn't have a decision without them.

What a ridiculous position to take. While you might complain that SCOTUS is responsible for the rule going forward, there's simply no role SCOTUS would play in the rule being retroactively applied. The IRS would have the choice to apply it retroactively, or not, with no input from the Supreme Court.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i'm pretty sure the only truly "ridiculous position" here is one that tanks the US insurance market on the basis of a typo, but then i'm not a lawyer

 

[benjipwns]

sometimes you gotta break a few legs to make a single payer omelette

 

[speculawyer]

Wow, I thought the days of anti-gay marriage amendment, flag-burning, and Terry Schiavo were pointless. The GOP is bringing new meaning to 'useless'.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Holy shit at my local paper's columnist piece this week. Easily the most racist op-ed ever.

 

[Wilsongt]

Holy shit at my local paper's columnist piece this week. Easily the most racist op-ed ever.

Please share.

 

[speculawyer]

Is it just me or are the racists out & proud these days after an electoral win.

Here's a great diet racist post regarding the AG nominee:

Craig S 45 minutes ago 0 6
Doesn't Obama know any middle of the road lawyers? Does he have to pick a lefty like himself? Especially after the shellacking he got Tuesday night, you'd think he'd meet in the middle a little bit. What about an Asian or a Latino? Guess not.

Edit: Actually, nothing diet about that. That's just straight racist.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Please share.

Will do, I just have to type it because they don't have a real website

 

[NYCmetsfan]

With to more years to go with our "Muslim-in-Chief" and now up to $18 Trillion in debt, we desperately need a Congress that must cut spending and increase solid employment. Especially, with the 90 million plus who have stopped looking for a job. As the president with three names- Barack Obama III, Barry Soetoro and Barack Hussein Obama, it is difficult to ascetain just who gets the honor of usurping Jimmy "The Whimp" Carter's title of "Worst U.S. President in History"

Of course, where "The Whimp's" 20% approval rating in August 1979 was the lowest ever recorded for a president, most of this came from a 21% interest on home mortgages, a doubleing of oil prices and run-away federal spending, but, chum change compared to Obama. Conversely, the president with three names, Soetoo's, uh, Obama's rating has managed to stay at twice "The Whimp's" 20%, thanks to 50 million families on food stamps, welfare and vast extensions of unemployment payment time to a year or more.

just the beginning, its gets MUCH MUCH better

 

[Wilsongt]

http://www.thestate.com/2014/11/07/3798306/haley-wilson-file-motion-to-stop.html

Are states allowed to continue ignoring a circuit court judge like this?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

90 million people stopped looking for work? Obama must be hiding all the tent cities and soup lines.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

90 million people stopped looking for work? Obama must be hiding all the tent cities and soup lines.

there are more made up facts. the article decends into him saying everybody around obama is muslim and friend with hamas, we should impeach him and put biden into office who will finally realize all the muslims around him, while he doesn't like biden he "feels more comfortable with him"

 

[Oblivion]

Oh, since you're here Metaman, I thought I'd ask about the jerbs numbers.

Nine months of straight job growth over 200k, the most we've seen in 14 years despite Obama's job killing tax hikes and Obamacare. How is such a thing possible?

 

[Jooney]

just the beginning, its gets MUCH MUCH better

Reads like a freep comment.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Oh, since you're here Metaman, I thought I'd ask about the jerbs numbers.

Nine months of straight job growth over 200k, the most we've seen in 14 years despite Obama's job killing tax hikes and Obamacare. How is such a thing possible?

I think your question would be better directed to someone who has ever referred to Obama's tax hikes and Obamacare as "job killing."

But how 'bout them elections Tuesday, eh?

 

[Oblivion]

I think your question would be better directed to someone who has ever referred to Obama's tax hikes and Obamacare as "job killing."

But how 'bout them elections Tuesday, eh?

Wait, what? You...don't have a problem with Obama's tax hikes and regulations?

 

[RustyNails]

I think your question would be better directed to someone who has ever referred to Obama's tax hikes and Obamacare as "job killing."

But how 'bout them elections Tuesday, eh?

Americans are stupid. We voted for Reagan over Carter.

 

[kehs]

Wait, what? You...don't have a problem with Obama's tax hikes and regulations?

"I said I never "referred to Obama's tax hikes and Obamacare as 'job killing.', rabble rabble"

 

[Diablos]

RIP Obamacare.

Seems like the Court ignored traditional guidelines for scheduling an appeal for this one. I WONDER WHY. I think it's a huge red flag. I think the conservative wing wants to torch this law. We know four justices think there is some pressing reason to hear the case. That in and of itself is pretty alarming. It would tell me they listened to the plantiffs when they said they wanted this resolved quickly so as to leave little doubt about the validity of their lawsuit.

If the subsidy gets shitcanned for the federal exchanges, ESPECIALLY if people have to pay back their subsidies, Democrats are fucked for a generation.

Honestly I'm feeling 50/50 about it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Wait, what? You...don't have a problem with Obama's tax hikes and regulations?

Of course I do. But why make me answer for a claim I never made?

"I said I never "referred to Obama's tax hikes and Obamacare as 'job killing.', rabble rabble"

I'm glad to see you have an easier time reading things.

 

[kehs]

Of course I do. But why make me answer for a claim I never made?



I'm glad to see you have an easier time reading things.

*having

 

[Metaphoreus]

*having

Nah, "have" works just fine.

 

[kehs]

Nah, "have" works just fine.

No room for ambiguity.

 

[Diablos]

Oh, so now you agree with the government's argument?

Glad I'm not the only person who instantly noticed that as well...

 

[Oblivion]

Of course I do. But why make me answer for a claim I never made?

So you don't agree with said tax hikes and regulations, but you don't agree that they hurt economic growth.

 

[RustyNails]

Friday's two-hour meeting was tense at times, according to a senior House Republican aide. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, about to lose his grip on the upper chamber, barely said a word, the aide said. The aide said at one point as House Speaker John Boehner was making an argument on immigration, Obama responded that his patience was running out and Vice President Joe Biden interrupted to ask how long Republicans needed. Obama angrily cut Biden off, the aide said.

.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

.

Needs more bourbon

 

[Diablos]

I'd ask them how much time they needed too, knowing they just spent the better part of two hours talking about things they will never act on.

 

[kehs]

.

"How long they need"? 8 years + 1 day. That's how long they need.

 

[Videoneon]

I came across this Washingtonpost article, it was interesting.

I taught my black kids that their elite upbringing would protect them from discrimination. I was wrong.

It comes from the perspective of someone who had to deal with integration growing up, and the naive, sad lengths he as a parent went just to give his kids a childhood clean of bull.

just the beginning, its gets MUCH MUCH better

This has to be one of the most aggressively douche-y and stupid things I've read this week. And it's not been a fun week.

 

[ivysaur12]

.

We really need more stories of throwing things into fireplaces.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So you don't agree with said tax hikes and regulations, but you don't agree that they hurt economic growth.

I haven't said, one way or another. And I wouldn't, either, without first taking the time to look into it.

 

[Wilsongt]

Ben Carson might actually try to run in the primaries for president?

 

[Sirpopopop]

RIP Obamacare.

Seems like the Court ignored traditional guidelines for scheduling an appeal for this one. I WONDER WHY. I think it's a huge red flag. I think the conservative wing wants to torch this law. We know four justices think there is some pressing reason to hear the case. That in and of itself is pretty alarming. It would tell me they listened to the plantiffs when they said they wanted this resolved quickly so as to leave little doubt about the validity of their lawsuit.

If the subsidy gets shitcanned for the federal exchanges, ESPECIALLY if people have to pay back their subsidies, Democrats are fucked for a generation.

Honestly I'm feeling 50/50 about it.

If people have to pay back their subsidies, I shudder to think of what will happen next to our country. There is no way the Court will let that happen.

 

[B-Dubs]

If people have to pay back their subsidies, I shudder to think of what will happen next to our country. There is no way the Court will let that happen.

Dear god, the economy would implode overnight. We'd be sent headfirst into a depression.

 

[Drakeon]

Ben Carson might actually try to run in the primaries for president?

He won't be as comically hilarious as Herman Cain though

 

[B-Dubs]

He won't be as comically hilarious as Herman Cain though

God, I hope Herman Cain runs. I want him to be the very best, that no one ever was.

 

[Averon]

If people have to pay back their subsidies, I shudder to think of what will happen next to our country. There is no way the Court will let that happen.

This is the only reason I think Roberts may vote for the subsidies. Throwing out the subsidies will create utter chaos that Roberts may not want his court to be responsible for.
Then again, I can easily see him justifying throwing out the subsidies saying Congress can easily fix this. Washing his hands of the chaos the ruling will create.

 

[BSsBrolly]

RIP Obamacare.

Seems like the Court ignored traditional guidelines for scheduling an appeal for this one. I WONDER WHY. I think it's a huge red flag. I think the conservative wing wants to torch this law. We know four justices think there is some pressing reason to hear the case. That in and of itself is pretty alarming. It would tell me they listened to the plantiffs when they said they wanted this resolved quickly so as to leave little doubt about the validity of their lawsuit.

If the subsidy gets shitcanned for the federal exchanges, ESPECIALLY if people have to pay back their subsidies, Democrats are fucked for a generation.

Honestly I'm feeling 50/50 about it.

Democrats are fucked? Haha, no. If the Supreme Court screws this up the democrats will propose a very simple change and it will be struck down by republicans. Effectively shifting blame to the people responsible. Republicans will be fucked for a generation.

 

[B-Dubs]

This is the only reason I think Roberts may vote for the subsidies. Throwing out the subsidies will create utter chaos that Roberts may not want his court to be responsible for.
Then again, I can easily see him justifying throwing out the subsidies saying Congress can easily fix this. Washing his hands of the chaos the ruling will create.

If he does that then everyone will be sure that the court is out of touch, which he seems to want to avoid.

 

[thepotatoman]

RIP Obamacare.

Seems like the Court ignored traditional guidelines for scheduling an appeal for this one. I WONDER WHY. I think it's a huge red flag. I think the conservative wing wants to torch this law. We know four justices think there is some pressing reason to hear the case. That in and of itself is pretty alarming. It would tell me they listened to the plantiffs when they said they wanted this resolved quickly so as to leave little doubt about the validity of their lawsuit.

If the subsidy gets shitcanned for the federal exchanges, ESPECIALLY if people have to pay back their subsidies, Democrats are fucked for a generation.

Honestly I'm feeling 50/50 about it.

I agree about that red flag. This seems almost certain to go through given that weird move to take up a unanimous ruling. What other reason do they have?

So, the battle will stand as such: Democrats can't let the individual mandate stand in states without subsidies, while republicans won't accept fixing it as "a fundamentally broken law", and wont accept conditional repeal of the mandate as "it'd be unfair to give some states the luxury all states should have".

So, basically, given a choice between having an extremely broken law in red states, or repealing that law as a whole, what will democrats do? Can they appeal to public opinion like during the shutdown? That could be hard if the fight is framed simply over whether the mandate should continue, could be easy if it's over fix or repeal.

Meanwhile, Roberts can wipe his hands clean of actually being the one that killed Obamacare. Calling the mandate unconstitutional would basically take the issue completely out of congress's hands. Calling out a typo basically throws it back to congress to fix it, and anything that happens after that is safely congress's business. And no new precedence needed, just a difference of agreement about what congress actually intended.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Dear god, the economy would implode overnight. We'd be sent headfirst into a depression.

Not like Repubs would care - they'd blame Obama and that gives them a fighting chance against Hilary: "Hey we have a Repub House and Senate - for real progress, get a Repub president! Look what a dem president did!"

I mean, they're already for trying to kill Obamacare in the first place and attempted to do just as worse shit before and it's like nearly forgotten by the average person (again, TERRIBLE job by democrats on keeping this ammo fresh). Oh well.

 

[Oblivion]

I haven't said, one way or another. And I wouldn't, either, without first taking the time to look into it.

You're a very strange duck, my good man.



So here's an interesting article that talks about Obama's biggest economic mistake: not caring a lot about the Fed.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6219247/obamas-biggest-economic-policy-mistake

I'm quite surprised about this. If I were Obama, I'd be doing every goddamned thing I could to help the recovery. Especially since his options became a lot more limited as time went on. Yet he left two vacancies at the fed? This goddamned president...

What do you guys think? I see that Empty Vessel came back. Would like to see his thoughts on this.

 

[Diablos]

If people have to pay back their subsidies, I shudder to think of what will happen next to our country. There is no way the Court will let that happen.

Even if they don't, throwing out the subsidies on the federal exchange would hurt the economy too...

I just hope one of them realizes that by siding with the four justices who presumably are inclined to side with the plantiffs that they would literally be taking health insurance away from millions of people.

 

[slit]

I just don't know how Roberts could justify pulling the rug from under the law now after he allowed the law to stand and gave all these people health insurance. He would have to be one evil prick to pull the subsidies now when he could have stopped the individual mandate before. I assume it'll come down to his vote.

 

[Diablos]

I wish we could know the four justices who wanted to take this up.