Seven stupid things the gov’t spent money on during the shutdown

[davidtaylorjr]

He did not change the law, he directed the justice department to delay enforcement of the law. Granted that's basically the same thing and has the same effect, but its not illegal. Also I didn't see Republicans making a stink about it, and its not as if you or others wanted them to.

Actually the Republicans have been legally challenging him on that, but the media doesn't cover that.....

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

He did not change the law, he directed the justice department to delay enforcement of the law. Granted that's basically the same thing and has the same effect, but its not illegal. Also I didn't see Republicans making a stink about it, and its not as if you or others wanted them to.

Actually it is illegal for him to decide what parts of a law to enforce and what parts to ignore. His job is to see the law is enforced as enacted.

 

[Deuce]

Then you ought to send a thank you note to the taxpayer who is paying the difference, whether they wanted to or not.

I am not eligible for a subsidy.

 

[Deuce]

It's not that simple.

The PPACA was passed with ZERO Republican support in the House and only coerced support in the Senate. Furthermore the SCOTUS ruling declared the individual mandate unconstitutional based on the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. It was only upheld on the basis of the right of Congress to tax but even then only because it hadn't been challenged on those grounds.

The fight over the PPACA is far from over.

"Zero Republican support" but 161 Republican amendments.

SCOTUS did not declare the individual mandate unconstitutional in any manner. They upheld it under Congress' taxing authority. Period. And no, not "only because it hadn't been challenged on those grounds." Those are just straight fabrications.

PPACA passed the legislative process. Deal with it.

 

[Deuce]

Tell Obama that. Why did he move the employer mandate? Republicans do it legally, yet he gets to do whatever the heck he wants???

The employer mandate was moved because the mechanism for enforcing it was not in place. This is not the case with the individual mandate. Also, the individual mandate is much more crucial to the operation of the bill. Delaying the individual mandate would significantly hurt insurance companies in a way delaying the employer mandate does not.

Why do you want to hurt the insurance industry so badly?

 

[Henrin]

"Zero Republican support" but 161 Republican amendments.

SCOTUS did not declare the individual mandate unconstitutional in any manner. They upheld it under Congress' taxing authority. Period. And no, not "only because it hadn't been challenged on those grounds." Those are just straight fabrications.

PPACA passed the legislative process. Deal with it.

Except that the taxing and spending clause can not be used outside of the enumerated powers. Where does it say anything about forcing people to take part in commerce? Let me guess, you're going to use the commerce clause, right? If so, where is the trade dispute between the listed members when there is no commerce taking place? Even if we go with the modern definition of the word regulate there is no commerce taking place to regulate. Sorry, but the supreme court just straight up fabricated the legal standing here.

 

[Deuce]

Except that the taxing and spending clause can not be used outside of the enumerated powers. Where does it say anything about using forcing people to take part in commerce? Let me guess, you're going to use the commerce clause, right? If so, where is the trade dispute between the listed members when there is no commerce taking place? Even if we go with the modern definition of the world regulate there is no commerce taking place to regulate. Sorry, but the supreme court just straight up fabricated the legal standing here.

Nobody is forced to take part in commerce. A tax of $695 was placed on all Americans, waived if you have adequate health insurance or income below a certain level.

 

[Henrin]

Nobody is forced to take part in commerce.

You besides the fact that if they don't buy insurance they will be acted on by the state and if they fail to pay the fine they will be acted on again? Is that about right?

 

[Deuce]

You besides the fact that if they don't buy insurance they will be acted on by the state and if they fail to pay the fine they will be acted on again? Is that about right?

A tax was levied on all Americans, waived if your income is below a certain level or you possess adequate health insurance. No criminal penalties can be applied for failure to have health insurance. (i.e. "go to jail for not having insurance" is yet another lie)

 

[Henrin]

Nobody is forced to take part in commerce. A tax of $695 was placed on all Americans, waived if you have adequate health insurance or income below a certain level.

Oh, so believe that if they waive the tax if you do as the government demands that they aren't forcing you to follow their demands? Haha...right.

 

[Henrin]

A tax was levied on all Americans, waived if your income is below a certain level or you possess adequate health insurance. No criminal penalties can be applied for failure to have health insurance. (i.e. "go to jail for not having insurance" is yet another lie)

Yeah, except if I don't pay the fine that was levied by the state on all Americans that don't do as the government desires.

 

[Deuce]

Oh, so believe that if they waive the tax if you do as the government demands that they are forcing you to follow their demands? Haha...right.

I am taxed at a higher rate because I am not married and have no children. I do not consider this the government forcing me to get married and/or have children.

 

[Henrin]

I am taxed at a higher rate because I am not married and have no children. I do not consider this the government forcing me to get married and/or have children.

That is a benefit for taking part in a government institution, not a tax that is levied for failing to comply with the government demands.

Technically, the tax cut you're taking about is unconstitutional as well.

 

[Deuce]

That is a benefit of taking part in a government institution, not a tax that is levied for failing to comply with the government demands.

The result is identical.

 

[Henrin]

The result is identical.

Except that in this example the entire tax is not levied, while in your example your taxes are just not cut.

Btw, supporting one unconstitutional law with another unconstitutional law is a pretty crappy argument.

 

[Deuce]

Except that in this example the entire tax is not levied, while in your example your taxes are just not cut.

This hardly seems like a major, ideology-switching difference to me. :shrug: And it certainly doesn't seem like the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional.

 

[Henrin]

This hardly seems like a major, ideology-switching difference to me. :shrug: And it certainly doesn't seem like the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional.

I never said cutting peoples taxes because family matters was constitutional. The state should not be concerning itself with marriage or if someone has children or not.

 

[Deuce]

I never said cutting peoples taxes because family matters was constitutional. The state should not be concerning itself with marriage or if someone has children or not.

edit: wait, I read that wrong. I see what you mean now.

But why wouldn't cutting peoples' taxes be constitutional? Do you think progressive tax brackets are also unconstitutional?

 

[Henrin]

edit: wait, I read that wrong. I see what you mean now.

But why wouldn't cutting peoples' taxes be constitutional? Do you think progressive tax brackets are also unconstitutional?

Yes, progressive taxation is unconstitutional. The point I was making is that the federal government has no authority to award people for having a family or taking part in a certain kind of relationship.

Regardless, what the government does in marriage and children is award behavior while what they do here is punish behavior. The added tax is a punishment in this example, while in marriage and children the tax cut is a award.

Furthermore, in marriage the government is awarding you for taking part in commerce, while in this example the government is punishing you for not taking part in commerce. Just like the government can not award someone for taking part in commerce they can not punish them for not taking part in commerce.

Even if it has no basis to be used with the Constitution you could argue with the modern definition of the word regulate they can award commerce that is taking place, but you can not argue with that use of the word that they can punish people for not taking part in commerce.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

The employer mandate was moved because the mechanism for enforcing it was not in place. This is not the case with the individual mandate. Also, the individual mandate is much more crucial to the operation of the bill. Delaying the individual mandate would significantly hurt insurance companies in a way delaying the employer mandate does not.

Why do you want to hurt the insurance industry so badly?

Hurt the insurance companies? They were doing FINE before Obamacare.