On June 29 2012 06:46 xDaunt wrote: I'm reposting this here because this thread is more appropriate and the Obamacare thread is a mess:
The more that I think about the Obamacare ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
As an update, some other conservative writers have come to similar conclusions:
From George Will:
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
At first I thought this ruling was actually a gift to Republicans. But there are some 'experts'/pundits that are speculating that Romney will hammer Obama for a week or two about Obamacare but his campaign's focus and stump speeches will largely remain unchanged -- he will go back to the narrative that the economy is in the shitter and it's all Obama's fault.
The reasoning is that by making Obamacare an issue, it opens him to the following counter attacks:
1) It's easy to critique the cost of Obamacare, but also gives Obama an opportunity to promote it's legitimate benefits. This would ...
2) force Romney to outline an alternative plan or policy, which he doesn't have. The primary grievance Republicans have is that it's mandate punishable by a tax/penalty which ...
3) Romney has fiercely defended at one pont or another in the past, including during the Republican primary. Romney's has argued convincingly that as long as health care providers are forced to provide emergency care, an individual mandate is actually a truly conservative idea, because it forces everyone to contribute something.
I'll try to find the references later, at work right now. :\
Sure, Romney was always going to have problems with Romneycare. That's no surprise, and today's decision doesn't change it. Really, the issue is whether voters will take Romney at his word when he promises to repeal Obamacare. If they do, and if a majority of voters still want to get rid of Obamacare, Romney should be fine.
xDaunt United States. June 29 2012 07:22. Posts 4534
On June 29 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote: Yea, it's nice to see xDaunt dealing with the ruling so well. It's definitely true that his hindsight is ridiculously accurate.
...and you used to be such a good poster that I enjoyed responding to.
Oh, don't be crusty just because Obama dunked ALL OVA YO FACE!!!!!
BOOYAH!
Seriously, DoubleReed is an OG in this thread. He reserves the right to smack talk.
Lord knows I don't mind smacktalk, but some of his more recent responses to my posts have been fairly ridiculous, such as the one above.
DoubleReed United States. June 29 2012 07:23. Posts 3150
On June 29 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote: Yea, it's nice to see xDaunt dealing with the ruling so well. It's definitely true that his hindsight is ridiculously accurate.
...and you used to be such a good poster that I enjoyed responding to.
Aw come on. Have a sense of humor :D
You were all ready to tell us all "I told you so!" if they ruled to strike the whole law down. They did the opposite, and you immediately explain why it's not a true loss and how this is somehow still beneficial for the republicans. If I pulled that shit, you would be all over me.
Baby, you want to make like Stravinsky and perform a Rite of Spring?
On June 29 2012 06:46 xDaunt wrote: I'm reposting this here because this thread is more appropriate and the Obamacare thread is a mess:
The more that I think about the Obamacare ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
As an update, some other conservative writers have come to similar conclusions:
From George Will:
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
At first I thought this ruling was actually a gift to Republicans. But there are some 'experts'/pundits that are speculating that Romney will hammer Obama for a week or two about Obamacare but his campaign's focus and stump speeches will largely remain unchanged -- he will go back to the narrative that the economy is in the shitter and it's all Obama's fault.
The reasoning is that by making Obamacare an issue, it opens him to the following counter attacks:
1) It's easy to critique the cost of Obamacare, but also gives Obama an opportunity to promote it's legitimate benefits. This would ...
2) force Romney to outline an alternative plan or policy, which he doesn't have. The primary grievance Republicans have is that it's mandate punishable by a tax/penalty which ...
3) Romney has fiercely defended at one pont or another in the past, including during the Republican primary. Romney's has argued convincingly that as long as health care providers are forced to provide emergency care, an individual mandate is actually a truly conservative idea, because it forces everyone to contribute something.
I'll try to find the references later, at work right now. :\
Sure, Romney was always going to have problems with Romneycare. That's no surprise, and today's decision doesn't change it. Really, the issue is whether voters will take Romney at his word when he promises to repeal Obamacare. If they do, and if a majority of voters still want to get rid of Obamacare, Romney should be fine.
The counter-narrative from Liberal and Conservative media outlets will be that Obamacare will be much more difficult to repeal now that SCOTUS has signed off on it's constitutionality.
Man, I can't wait until the debates. That should be REALLY interesting.
xDaunt United States. June 29 2012 07:29. Posts 4534
On June 29 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote: Yea, it's nice to see xDaunt dealing with the ruling so well. It's definitely true that his hindsight is ridiculously accurate.
...and you used to be such a good poster that I enjoyed responding to.
Aw come on. Have a sense of humor :D
You were all ready to tell us all "I told you so!" if they ruled to strike the whole law down. They did the opposite, and you immediately explain why it's not a true loss and how this is somehow still beneficial for the republicans. If I pulled that shit, you would be all over me.
No, I understand what you're point is, but what I am saying is that my prediction was only incorrect with regards to ultimate outcome because I did not consider the tax argument. I was 100% correct about the commerce clause argument, which is really the bigger deal for the reasons previously explained. Hell, basically no one was even talking about upholding the law under the tax power because 1) Obama said it wasn't a tax, and 2) the law doesn't refer to any of the "penalty" provisions as taxes. As you have probably gathered looking around the legal commentary landscape, this outcome is a surprise to everyone.
So no, I'm not guilty of doing the 20/20 hindsight routine. I've even explained where I went wrong.
xDaunt United States. June 29 2012 07:31. Posts 4534
On June 29 2012 06:46 xDaunt wrote: I'm reposting this here because this thread is more appropriate and the Obamacare thread is a mess:
The more that I think about the Obamacare ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
As an update, some other conservative writers have come to similar conclusions:
From George Will:
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
At first I thought this ruling was actually a gift to Republicans. But there are some 'experts'/pundits that are speculating that Romney will hammer Obama for a week or two about Obamacare but his campaign's focus and stump speeches will largely remain unchanged -- he will go back to the narrative that the economy is in the shitter and it's all Obama's fault.
The reasoning is that by making Obamacare an issue, it opens him to the following counter attacks:
1) It's easy to critique the cost of Obamacare, but also gives Obama an opportunity to promote it's legitimate benefits. This would ...
2) force Romney to outline an alternative plan or policy, which he doesn't have. The primary grievance Republicans have is that it's mandate punishable by a tax/penalty which ...
3) Romney has fiercely defended at one pont or another in the past, including during the Republican primary. Romney's has argued convincingly that as long as health care providers are forced to provide emergency care, an individual mandate is actually a truly conservative idea, because it forces everyone to contribute something.
I'll try to find the references later, at work right now. :\
Sure, Romney was always going to have problems with Romneycare. That's no surprise, and today's decision doesn't change it. Really, the issue is whether voters will take Romney at his word when he promises to repeal Obamacare. If they do, and if a majority of voters still want to get rid of Obamacare, Romney should be fine.
The counter-narrative from Liberal and Conservative media outlets will be that Obamacare will be much more difficult to repeal now that SCOTUS has signed off on it's constitutionality.
Man, I can't wait until the debates. That should be REALLY interesting.
Well, really the issue is whether the fact that the Court signed off on Obamacare's constitutionality will improve the public's perception of Obamacare.
DoubleReed United States. June 29 2012 07:38. Posts 3150
On June 29 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote: Yea, it's nice to see xDaunt dealing with the ruling so well. It's definitely true that his hindsight is ridiculously accurate.
...and you used to be such a good poster that I enjoyed responding to.
Aw come on. Have a sense of humor :D
You were all ready to tell us all "I told you so!" if they ruled to strike the whole law down. They did the opposite, and you immediately explain why it's not a true loss and how this is somehow still beneficial for the republicans. If I pulled that shit, you would be all over me.
No, I understand what you're point is, but what I am saying is that my prediction was only incorrect with regards to ultimate outcome because I did not consider the tax argument. I was 100% correct about the commerce clause argument, which is really the bigger deal for the reasons previously explained. Hell, basically no one was even talking about upholding the law under the tax power because 1) Obama said it wasn't a tax, and 2) the law doesn't refer to any of the "penalty" provisions as taxes. As you have probably gathered looking around the legal commentary landscape, this outcome is a surprise to everyone.
So no, I'm not guilty of doing the 20/20 hindsight routine. I've even explained where I went wrong.
...yea, that's kind of the whole deal, now isn't it?
And I'm sorry, but you don't get to use the "this is a total surprise to people" argument. If I recall correctly, when SCOTUS started to take a hard look at the constitutionality of Obamacare, the legal landscape was similarly surprised, as they thought it would immediately go through. And then you were saying "Of course this would happen. I don't understand why everyone is surprised."
But let's face it, I'm just trying to score some cheap shots on you here. So w/e.
Baby, you want to make like Stravinsky and perform a Rite of Spring?
On June 29 2012 06:46 xDaunt wrote: I'm reposting this here because this thread is more appropriate and the Obamacare thread is a mess:
The more that I think about the Obamacare ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
As an update, some other conservative writers have come to similar conclusions:
From George Will:
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
At first I thought this ruling was actually a gift to Republicans. But there are some 'experts'/pundits that are speculating that Romney will hammer Obama for a week or two about Obamacare but his campaign's focus and stump speeches will largely remain unchanged -- he will go back to the narrative that the economy is in the shitter and it's all Obama's fault.
The reasoning is that by making Obamacare an issue, it opens him to the following counter attacks:
1) It's easy to critique the cost of Obamacare, but also gives Obama an opportunity to promote it's legitimate benefits. This would ...
2) force Romney to outline an alternative plan or policy, which he doesn't have. The primary grievance Republicans have is that it's mandate punishable by a tax/penalty which ...
3) Romney has fiercely defended at one pont or another in the past, including during the Republican primary. Romney's has argued convincingly that as long as health care providers are forced to provide emergency care, an individual mandate is actually a truly conservative idea, because it forces everyone to contribute something.
I'll try to find the references later, at work right now. :\
Sure, Romney was always going to have problems with Romneycare. That's no surprise, and today's decision doesn't change it. Really, the issue is whether voters will take Romney at his word when he promises to repeal Obamacare. If they do, and if a majority of voters still want to get rid of Obamacare, Romney should be fine.
The counter-narrative from Liberal and Conservative media outlets will be that Obamacare will be much more difficult to repeal now that SCOTUS has signed off on it's constitutionality.
Man, I can't wait until the debates. That should be REALLY interesting.
The 'debates' will be 90 seconds of stump speech, followed by a 60 second stump speech response, followed by a 30 second stump speech rebuttal. The decider in debates has always been how the candidate 'looked'.
The debates are interesting, and I expect Obama to mop the floor with Romney, but lets not pretend that they have any content at all. US political discourse is utterly depressing and there's more factual content in a random shouting match.
On June 29 2012 06:46 xDaunt wrote: I'm reposting this here because this thread is more appropriate and the Obamacare thread is a mess:
The more that I think about the Obamacare ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
As an update, some other conservative writers have come to similar conclusions:
From George Will:
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
At first I thought this ruling was actually a gift to Republicans. But there are some 'experts'/pundits that are speculating that Romney will hammer Obama for a week or two about Obamacare but his campaign's focus and stump speeches will largely remain unchanged -- he will go back to the narrative that the economy is in the shitter and it's all Obama's fault.
The reasoning is that by making Obamacare an issue, it opens him to the following counter attacks:
1) It's easy to critique the cost of Obamacare, but also gives Obama an opportunity to promote it's legitimate benefits. This would ...
2) force Romney to outline an alternative plan or policy, which he doesn't have. The primary grievance Republicans have is that it's mandate punishable by a tax/penalty which ...
3) Romney has fiercely defended at one pont or another in the past, including during the Republican primary. Romney's has argued convincingly that as long as health care providers are forced to provide emergency care, an individual mandate is actually a truly conservative idea, because it forces everyone to contribute something.
I'll try to find the references later, at work right now. :\
Sure, Romney was always going to have problems with Romneycare. That's no surprise, and today's decision doesn't change it. Really, the issue is whether voters will take Romney at his word when he promises to repeal Obamacare. If they do, and if a majority of voters still want to get rid of Obamacare, Romney should be fine.
The counter-narrative from Liberal and Conservative media outlets will be that Obamacare will be much more difficult to repeal now that SCOTUS has signed off on it's constitutionality.
Man, I can't wait until the debates. That should be REALLY interesting.
The 'debates' will be 90 seconds of stump speech, followed by a 60 second stump speech response, followed by a 30 second stump speech rebuttal. The decider in debates has always been how the candidate 'looked'.
The debates are interesting, and I expect Obama to mop the floor with Romney, but lets not pretend that they have any content at all. US political discourse is utterly depressing and there's more factual content in a random shouting match.
On June 27 2012 02:16 farvacola wrote: Also this just in, another victory for the Obama administration via the courts, this time in regards to EPA regulations. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/usa-co2-ruling-idUSL2E8HQAY620120626 Although the healthcare decision will certainly be the lynchpin, I'm surprised at how favorably the courts have been ruling for Democrats thus far.
That's not surprising really.
CO2 emission control by the EPA is hardly "arbitrary and capricious."
To meet that standard, the court would have to basically rule that there is no evidence that CO2 is destructive to the environment to some extent, which I think even non-global warming people wouldn't be on board with.
Yeah, the only way to fix it is to have Congress remove CO2 from the EPA's jurisdiction.
Why would removing CO2 from the EPA's jurisdiction be a good thing?
Because I'd rather the EPA not pass bullshit CO2 regulations that unnecessarily hamper the American economy.
Yes, because accelerating global warming is a great long-term plan for the American economy.
Generally it is a good idea to address long term concerns when things are going well and when things are bad you focus on fixing the current situation.
So yes, it is a reasonable concern that the EPA will clamp down on CO2 at a really inopportune time.
farvacola United States. June 29 2012 08:13. Posts 5750
On June 29 2012 06:46 xDaunt wrote: I'm reposting this here because this thread is more appropriate and the Obamacare thread is a mess:
The more that I think about the Obamacare ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
As an update, some other conservative writers have come to similar conclusions:
From George Will:
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
At first I thought this ruling was actually a gift to Republicans. But there are some 'experts'/pundits that are speculating that Romney will hammer Obama for a week or two about Obamacare but his campaign's focus and stump speeches will largely remain unchanged -- he will go back to the narrative that the economy is in the shitter and it's all Obama's fault.
The reasoning is that by making Obamacare an issue, it opens him to the following counter attacks:
1) It's easy to critique the cost of Obamacare, but also gives Obama an opportunity to promote it's legitimate benefits. This would ...
2) force Romney to outline an alternative plan or policy, which he doesn't have. The primary grievance Republicans have is that it's mandate punishable by a tax/penalty which ...
3) Romney has fiercely defended at one pont or another in the past, including during the Republican primary. Romney's has argued convincingly that as long as health care providers are forced to provide emergency care, an individual mandate is actually a truly conservative idea, because it forces everyone to contribute something.
I'll try to find the references later, at work right now. :\
Sure, Romney was always going to have problems with Romneycare. That's no surprise, and today's decision doesn't change it. Really, the issue is whether voters will take Romney at his word when he promises to repeal Obamacare. If they do, and if a majority of voters still want to get rid of Obamacare, Romney should be fine.
The counter-narrative from Liberal and Conservative media outlets will be that Obamacare will be much more difficult to repeal now that SCOTUS has signed off on it's constitutionality.
Man, I can't wait until the debates. That should be REALLY interesting.
The 'debates' will be 90 seconds of stump speech, followed by a 60 second stump speech response, followed by a 30 second stump speech rebuttal. The decider in debates has always been how the candidate 'looked'.
The debates are interesting, and I expect Obama to mop the floor with Romney, but lets not pretend that they have any content at all. US political discourse is utterly depressing and there's more factual content in a random shouting match.
Whose to say public debates were ever even supposed to be issue-centric? Here's a fun game. Who said this and during what debate? Don't search it now!
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed."
"Hey colaboy, you made the same exact post to me in the 2012 election thread. I am so glad that TL has thread constables!"
On June 27 2012 02:16 farvacola wrote: Also this just in, another victory for the Obama administration via the courts, this time in regards to EPA regulations. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/usa-co2-ruling-idUSL2E8HQAY620120626 Although the healthcare decision will certainly be the lynchpin, I'm surprised at how favorably the courts have been ruling for Democrats thus far.
That's not surprising really.
CO2 emission control by the EPA is hardly "arbitrary and capricious."
To meet that standard, the court would have to basically rule that there is no evidence that CO2 is destructive to the environment to some extent, which I think even non-global warming people wouldn't be on board with.
Yeah, the only way to fix it is to have Congress remove CO2 from the EPA's jurisdiction.
Why would removing CO2 from the EPA's jurisdiction be a good thing?
Because I'd rather the EPA not pass bullshit CO2 regulations that unnecessarily hamper the American economy.
Yes, because accelerating global warming is a great long-term plan for the American economy.
Generally it is a good idea to address long term concerns when things are going well and when things are bad you focus on fixing the current situation.
So yes, it is a reasonable concern that the EPA will clamp down on CO2 at a really inopportune time.
If the long-term concerns can only be addressed by acting now instead of later (such as is the case for global warming), then no, it's certainly not an inopportune time to act on them - in fact, it's the only possible time to act on them if we want our actions to matter.
On June 27 2012 02:16 farvacola wrote: Also this just in, another victory for the Obama administration via the courts, this time in regards to EPA regulations. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/usa-co2-ruling-idUSL2E8HQAY620120626 Although the healthcare decision will certainly be the lynchpin, I'm surprised at how favorably the courts have been ruling for Democrats thus far.
That's not surprising really.
CO2 emission control by the EPA is hardly "arbitrary and capricious."
To meet that standard, the court would have to basically rule that there is no evidence that CO2 is destructive to the environment to some extent, which I think even non-global warming people wouldn't be on board with.
Yeah, the only way to fix it is to have Congress remove CO2 from the EPA's jurisdiction.
Why would removing CO2 from the EPA's jurisdiction be a good thing?
Because I'd rather the EPA not pass bullshit CO2 regulations that unnecessarily hamper the American economy.
Yes, because accelerating global warming is a great long-term plan for the American economy.
Generally it is a good idea to address long term concerns when things are going well and when things are bad you focus on fixing the current situation.
So yes, it is a reasonable concern that the EPA will clamp down on CO2 at a really inopportune time.
If the long-term concerns can only be addressed by acting now instead of later (such as is the case for global warming), then no, it's certainly not an inopportune time to act on them - in fact, it's the only possible time to act on them if we want our actions to matter.
I don't see how relaxing regulations during a recession and tightening them during a boom wouldn't work. During a recession you are already naturally using less energy and because of that producing less CO2.
Whatever though, the EPA's control over CO2 is not a big deal in my book
On June 29 2012 06:46 xDaunt wrote: I'm reposting this here because this thread is more appropriate and the Obamacare thread is a mess:
The more that I think about the Obamacare ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
As an update, some other conservative writers have come to similar conclusions:
From George Will:
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
At first I thought this ruling was actually a gift to Republicans. But there are some 'experts'/pundits that are speculating that Romney will hammer Obama for a week or two about Obamacare but his campaign's focus and stump speeches will largely remain unchanged -- he will go back to the narrative that the economy is in the shitter and it's all Obama's fault.
The reasoning is that by making Obamacare an issue, it opens him to the following counter attacks:
1) It's easy to critique the cost of Obamacare, but also gives Obama an opportunity to promote it's legitimate benefits. This would ...
2) force Romney to outline an alternative plan or policy, which he doesn't have. The primary grievance Republicans have is that it's mandate punishable by a tax/penalty which ...
3) Romney has fiercely defended at one pont or another in the past, including during the Republican primary. Romney's has argued convincingly that as long as health care providers are forced to provide emergency care, an individual mandate is actually a truly conservative idea, because it forces everyone to contribute something.
I'll try to find the references later, at work right now. :\
Sure, Romney was always going to have problems with Romneycare. That's no surprise, and today's decision doesn't change it. Really, the issue is whether voters will take Romney at his word when he promises to repeal Obamacare. If they do, and if a majority of voters still want to get rid of Obamacare, Romney should be fine.
The counter-narrative from Liberal and Conservative media outlets will be that Obamacare will be much more difficult to repeal now that SCOTUS has signed off on it's constitutionality.
Man, I can't wait until the debates. That should be REALLY interesting.
The 'debates' will be 90 seconds of stump speech, followed by a 60 second stump speech response, followed by a 30 second stump speech rebuttal. The decider in debates has always been how the candidate 'looked'.
The debates are interesting, and I expect Obama to mop the floor with Romney, but lets not pretend that they have any content at all. US political discourse is utterly depressing and there's more factual content in a random shouting match.
Whose to say public debates were ever even supposed to be issue-centric? Here's a fun game. Who said this and during what debate? Don't search it now!
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed."
I didn't say charisma wasn't an important quality in a leader, which as far as I'm concerned is another reason Romney will fail. All I was saying is that the political debate around obamacare won't be very important when it comes to the debates on TV. TV debates are all about how a candidate looks, not about what's actually said. It's been that way ever since the first nixon-kennedy debate.
On June 27 2012 02:16 farvacola wrote: Also this just in, another victory for the Obama administration via the courts, this time in regards to EPA regulations. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/usa-co2-ruling-idUSL2E8HQAY620120626 Although the healthcare decision will certainly be the lynchpin, I'm surprised at how favorably the courts have been ruling for Democrats thus far.
That's not surprising really.
CO2 emission control by the EPA is hardly "arbitrary and capricious."
To meet that standard, the court would have to basically rule that there is no evidence that CO2 is destructive to the environment to some extent, which I think even non-global warming people wouldn't be on board with.
Yeah, the only way to fix it is to have Congress remove CO2 from the EPA's jurisdiction.
Why would removing CO2 from the EPA's jurisdiction be a good thing?
Because I'd rather the EPA not pass bullshit CO2 regulations that unnecessarily hamper the American economy.
Yes, because accelerating global warming is a great long-term plan for the American economy.
Generally it is a good idea to address long term concerns when things are going well and when things are bad you focus on fixing the current situation.
So yes, it is a reasonable concern that the EPA will clamp down on CO2 at a really inopportune time.
If the long-term concerns can only be addressed by acting now instead of later (such as is the case for global warming), then no, it's certainly not an inopportune time to act on them - in fact, it's the only possible time to act on them if we want our actions to matter.
I don't see how relaxing regulations during a recession and tightening them during a boom wouldn't work. During a recession you are already naturally using less energy and because of that producing less CO2.
Whatever though, the EPA's control over CO2 is not a big deal in my book
Because even during recession times, our actions are accelerating the problem :-)
Signet United States. June 29 2012 13:48. Posts 1664
I agree that this will help Romney in 2012. Running against Obamacare is the best thing he has going for him. Now he still has that, and Republicans will have the sting of this ruling fresh on their minds.
Although... I'm not sure if this really motivates GOP voters that much more than they already were motivated to vote Obama out of office. However, it may sway some moderates who don't like the Republican platform but also don't like the health care bill. That may be where we really see the effects of this.
It's not much, but Obama's chances dropped from 55.0 to 54.4% on Intrade today...
farvacola United States. June 29 2012 14:02. Posts 5750
On June 29 2012 06:46 xDaunt wrote: I'm reposting this here because this thread is more appropriate and the Obamacare thread is a mess:
The more that I think about the Obamacare ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
As an update, some other conservative writers have come to similar conclusions:
From George Will:
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
At first I thought this ruling was actually a gift to Republicans. But there are some 'experts'/pundits that are speculating that Romney will hammer Obama for a week or two about Obamacare but his campaign's focus and stump speeches will largely remain unchanged -- he will go back to the narrative that the economy is in the shitter and it's all Obama's fault.
The reasoning is that by making Obamacare an issue, it opens him to the following counter attacks:
1) It's easy to critique the cost of Obamacare, but also gives Obama an opportunity to promote it's legitimate benefits. This would ...
2) force Romney to outline an alternative plan or policy, which he doesn't have. The primary grievance Republicans have is that it's mandate punishable by a tax/penalty which ...
3) Romney has fiercely defended at one pont or another in the past, including during the Republican primary. Romney's has argued convincingly that as long as health care providers are forced to provide emergency care, an individual mandate is actually a truly conservative idea, because it forces everyone to contribute something.
I'll try to find the references later, at work right now. :\
Sure, Romney was always going to have problems with Romneycare. That's no surprise, and today's decision doesn't change it. Really, the issue is whether voters will take Romney at his word when he promises to repeal Obamacare. If they do, and if a majority of voters still want to get rid of Obamacare, Romney should be fine.
The counter-narrative from Liberal and Conservative media outlets will be that Obamacare will be much more difficult to repeal now that SCOTUS has signed off on it's constitutionality.
Man, I can't wait until the debates. That should be REALLY interesting.
The 'debates' will be 90 seconds of stump speech, followed by a 60 second stump speech response, followed by a 30 second stump speech rebuttal. The decider in debates has always been how the candidate 'looked'.
The debates are interesting, and I expect Obama to mop the floor with Romney, but lets not pretend that they have any content at all. US political discourse is utterly depressing and there's more factual content in a random shouting match.
Whose to say public debates were ever even supposed to be issue-centric? Here's a fun game. Who said this and during what debate? Don't search it now!
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed."
I didn't say charisma wasn't an important quality in a leader, which as far as I'm concerned is another reason Romney will fail. All I was saying is that the political debate around obamacare won't be very important when it comes to the debates on TV. TV debates are all about how a candidate looks, not about what's actually said. It's been that way ever since the first nixon-kennedy debate.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, I was merely pointing out that even since the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 the very idea of the publicized US political debate seemed more about a play on portraying the Greek ideals of persuasion rather than a pointed discussion of issues.
^Keep in mind a sizable portion (around 15-20%) of those who claim disfavor with Obamacare do so out of a desire to see more dramatic reform, meaning their voting likelihood is arguably going to be Obama at the end of the day.
Last edit: 2012-06-29 14:04:30
"Hey colaboy, you made the same exact post to me in the 2012 election thread. I am so glad that TL has thread constables!"
Epocalypse, could you maybe try posting less youtube videos and quotes from mises.org/the Ayn Rand center, and use your own words more? In this case, the Supreme court made the choice of calling it a tax and of discarding the possibility of defending the ACA's constitutionality based on the Commerce clause. A different court - say, with one less Republican-appointed justice and one more Democratic-appointed justice - could have ruled the opposite way and declared that the Commerce clause meant the ACA was indeed constitutional. As per naming it a tax, the ruling does not mean that arguments cannot be made to dispute calling it so. It simply means that it is legally considered a tax. Calling him a "liar-in-chief" for making that argument is moronic.
Last edit: 2012-06-29 18:04:53
Omnipresent United States. June 29 2012 20:20. Posts 871
On June 29 2012 13:48 Signet wrote: I agree that this will help Romney in 2012. Running against Obamacare is the best thing he has going for him. Now he still has that, and Republicans will have the sting of this ruling fresh on their minds.
Although... I'm not sure if this really motivates GOP voters that much more than they already were motivated to vote Obama out of office. However, it may sway some moderates who don't like the Republican platform but also don't like the health care bill. That may be where we really see the effects of this.
It's not much, but Obama's chances dropped from 55.0 to 54.4% on Intrade today...
I really don't get how this is supposed to be good for Romney like I keep hearing. I don't usually like to get into who benefits politically from this sort of thing, but the answer in this case seems pretty clear. It's Obama.
The mandate is now officially constitutional, unlike his opponents have been running around claiming for the last couple years. Sure, the decision was 5-4, but it was 5-4 with Roberts, not Kennedy. That's pretty huge for how this will ultimately be received.
Romney can run against the Affordable Care Act all he wants, but he's going to have a couple real problems. The first is obvious. Romney passed an almost identical law in Massachusetts which worked really well. His old line on Obamacare was that it was unconstitutional, and that's obviously no longer an option. It's difficult for him to run against the substance of the law without looking hypocritical. The second problem is a lot more interesting to me. Americans already oppose Obamacare by a fairly significant margin, but they don't actually oppose the substance. They just don't know what's in it. If Ronmey keeps hammering Obama on the Affordable Care Act, Obama more or less has to respond. It forces him to justify a bill that, when explained to people, is actually popular. This is something he should have done from the beginning, and can still do if he tries (or is forced to).
The only other point I'd like to make is that, to the extent that this decision helps or hurts anyone politically this year, it does so only slightly. This election is going to be decided largely on the strength of the economy and unemployment numbers in particular. Even smaller economic factors over which the president has little to no control, like gas prices, are likely to have a more significant effect on the election than Obamacare. The main reason is that the economy is on everyone's mind, while Obamacare is largely an abstraction for now. Most of the good stuff doesn't even kick in until 2014. It doesn't really help that many people right now.
Store
WCS
SC2Links Mobile App …
