I guess that was my point. We can't guess what these fools do any more, and have no idea why they do them any more.
I just got a letter from John Conyers... I'll post it.
Printable View
This is from the NRSC and they are trying to get money (of course):
http://d14dire9a60ubx.cloudfront.net...mailHeader.png
Rick,
The stakes just got higher.
With the Supreme Court upholding the legality of ObamaCare in a 5-4 decision today, Americans are now on the hook for the law’s billions in new taxes, job-destroying regulations, and trillion-dollar price tag.
President Obama’s assault on our liberty is now one step closer to being complete . . .
. . . but this is not over – not by a longshot.
Click Here: https://www.nrsc.org/donation/supremecourtrapid/ to contribute $25, $50, or $500 to help send a message to Democrats that this fight is not over!
Because while the Supreme Court may have ruled (mistakenly) that the law is legal, there’s one thing this law will never be: popular.
In fact, the American people are even more opposed to ObamaCare now than they were two years ago.
It's because as Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." And find out we did... premiums are skyrocketing, doctors are retiring early, and small businesses are forgoing hiring new workers.
And so, our mission is now crystal clear:
We must elect a new Republican Senate Majority and REPEAL ObamaCare.
You have my firm pledge that this will be our first order of business after the election.
But we need your urgent financial help, so in the name of liberty, I ask you to make one generous gift to the NRSC right now using our secure credit card donation form.
The liberals have nowhere to hide – the American people are against ObamaCare, and we will campaign relentlessly against it.
As long as we have the financial resources necessary, we WILL gain the 4 seats we need for a new Republican Majority, and we WILL get rid of ObamaCare.
So please make one urgent gift today.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
http://www.nrsc.org/wp-content/uploa...2/03/jcsig.gif
Senator John Cornyn
NRSC Chairman
Sorry CORNYN, duh
Yep, I've gotten emails from Allen West, Herman Cain, Dan Bongino, and Richard Mourdock.
Haven't seen anything from West yet, or Cain for that matter.
As expected, Mark is hitting it out of the park with his legal and judicial knowledge. Anyone who can should tune in.
They all miss a point. The ruling now clarifies it IS A TAX, which Obama said it is not. Polls this afternoon show Obama tanking in polls. This will get defeated later, but the thing that matters is a tax is a tax and it is now officially declared as such.
I wanted this shut down in this ruling too, but taking what has been ruled to the next step is not looking so bad a way to go.
If this is true, then fuck Roberts.
The Volokh Conspiracy: More Hints that Roberts Switched his Vote
Quote:
June 28, 2012
Reader Stuart Buck provides more detail as to why the dissent reads like a majority opinion (see also Deborah Pearlstein at Balkanization):
1. The dissent has a whole section on severability that is completely beside the point except on the assumption that the mandate had been struck down, and now “We” have to decide whether and what to preserve of the rest of the act now that the mandate is gone.
2. Notice also that his response to Roberts is tacked on at the end, rather than worked into the body of whatever he was writing (see page 64 of his dissent). For example, one would have expected Scalia to directly take on Roberts’ application of the Anti-Injunction Act, but his brief section on that act only mentions what “the Government” argues (see pages 26-28).
3. On top of that, Scalia’s sections on the Commerce Clause and the Medicaid Expansion are just as long or longer than what Roberts writes (Scalia wrote 16 pages on the Commerce Clause and 21 pages on the Medicaid Expansion, compared to Roberts’ 16 pages and 14 pages respectively). Yet Scalia never writes in the vein of saying, “I agree with the Chief Justice’s opinion, but write to add a crucial discussion of some complexity.” His analysis agrees with Roberts, and makes essentially the same points in “We” language. There’s no reason for Scalia to do this at such length, unless his opinion is what came first.
UPDATE: Ed Whelan notes a related theory: Roberts assigned the opinion to himself, and wrote most of what became the four-Justice dissent. He then switched on the tax issue, and the four dissenters adopted most of his original majority opinion as a dissent. This would explain why the dissent is unsigned. Other blogs are noting that Justice Ginsburg directs much of her ire at the Chief, which is the sort of things Justices do when they think they’ve lost someone’s vote, not when they are trying to keep a tenuous vote to uphold uphold the law in question on board.
I should note that I think the Supreme Court is a political body (which is not to say that its decisions are primarily motivated by partisanship or political ideology) and that one can expect that the Court’s rulings are affected by outside events. As I noted long ago, the challenge to the individual mandate would have stood no chance if the president and the ACA were riding very high in the polls, as the Court would not have had the political wherewithal to write what would be seen as a radical opinion invalidating a popular law from a popular president. Similarly, the level of heat defenders of the ACA were giving the Court could have persuaded Roberts that discretion was the better part of valor. (By contrast, for example, historians seem to think that FDR was relieved that the Supremes removed the NIRA albatross from his neck.) Perhaps, as Rick Hasen suggests, he’d rather save his political capital for the affirmative action and voting rights cases that are coming up, especially since he found a way to give the “right” a partial victory in his commerce clause reasoning, and to limit the Spending power.
I don’t find it at all illegitimate for political actors to put pressure on the Court, so long as they stay within proper legal bounds, and keep their rhetoric within the broad boundaries of decency. But it is ironic that while liberal critics were quick to accuse the Court of playing politics by taking seriously the Obamacare challenges, it may turn out that it was only politics that saved the ACA.
Breitbart TV - Report: Kennedy Visibly Angry Over Decision
(Sorry, tried to disable the autoplay and can't)
You stay classy Obama...
https://store.barackobama.com/media/...1091_bfd_t.jpg
And what was that crybaby Boehner saying about not "spiking the football" if the ruling came down in our favor?
Fuck Obama, fuck Boehner, and fuck Justice Roberts! :mad:
LOL. Ryan.... you need to just have one of your new beers, chill out and go with the flow man, we're all gonna be socialists soon... don't you know?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I just used that with Pelosi.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Democrats Love Taxes -- They Just Don't Want to Pay Them
‘Democrats who don’t pay their taxes’
Democrats' New Tax Plan Targets Private Corporations, Their Owners
Democrats Propose Bill to Force Those Who Renounce Citizenship to Pay Taxes Anyway
As democrats continue to raise taxes, will they just give out waivers for healthcare to their pet groups and corporations whereby continuing to pick their winners in the economy?
How Many Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers Is In…
Quote:
Posted on January 6, 2012
Since the passage of the “Affordable Care Act,” it has been some cause for concern — scandal even — that several businesses have been granted waivers excusing them from participation in the federal program.
And now we have a final number of how many businesses are exempt from “Obamacare.”
Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said Friday.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...Healthcare.png
And the Final Number of Obamacare Waivers is...“One for you, and one for you, and one for you…“
“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” writes Sam Baker of The Hill.
Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on these waivers as an opportunity to advance the argument that the healthcare law is “unworkable.”
So how does the HHS justify granting the waivers? The department argues that the waivers show the law provides “flexibility.”
But who gets to choose when the law is “flexible”?
“All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.”
Biden Declares Supreme Court Will Rule On Human RFID Chipping
Uploaded by Amedeo777 on Jun 25, 2011
Confession and promise by Biden, RFID for human tracking and vote.
Human tracking... let's all go to the lobby and get ourselves some chips!
First guy to try sticking a chip in me loses a hand.
/chuckles
I like that. I'll start with the hand and move to other parts if he persists too.
Obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000
by Robert Allen Bonelli
29 Jun 2012, 7:13 AM PDT
107post a comment
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...pty-wallet.jpg
While we were all debating the cost to our liberty due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), we were ignoring the cost to our pockets. If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty - yes, twenty - hidden new taxes of this law. Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income. Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.
The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016. Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.
Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.
The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.
Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.
The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.
Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens. This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”
The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.
There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households. While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners. Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees.
The impact of this provision on low and middle income earners, and really all working Americans, is that employers will be confronted with three choices.
The first is provide some level of health insurance, as many do today, and there would be no impact on employees.
The second choice is to pay the penalty, which would most likely be less expensive than providing health insurance, and force employees to seek their own health insurance or purchase it through federal government controlled state exchanges. Studies have estimated that 20 million Americans will lose their employee funded health insurance as a result of this provision and employers electing this option.
The third choice is for employers to lay off employees, or not hire additional employees, because Obamacare forces them to either provide health insurance or pay the new tax.
Another new tax, the Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers that begins in 2013, places a 2.3% excise tax on all items retailing for more than $100. This provision will not only drive up the cost of various medical devices ranging from mobility assistance devices to personal testing supplies, but will also impact an industry that employs 360,000 people in 6,000 plants across our country. This tax, while not a direct tax, would have significant negative impact on the middle class.
The Surtax on Investment Income for households earning $250,000 and more, beginning in 2013, will raise the Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 23.8% on investment income for these households and will raise Taxes on Dividends from 15% to 43.4% for the same households.
Aside from the impact on retired citizens dependent on dividends, this provision will pull income from the private economy. In addition, the tax rate on Other Investment Income earned by Subchapter S Corporation (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%. This part of the provision would place additional pressure on small businesses resulting in more layoffs and less hiring, impacting all American workers.
All but one of the remaining new taxes in Obamacare are directed at health industry businesses and while they will not impact middle income families directly, the additional costs will most likely be passed on to the public. The last new tax is really interesting, it is a tax on certain biofuels!
These are the facts. It does not matter if you support Mr. Obama and his new law or if you oppose it, the new taxes on the middle class or real and all Americans should understand their impact on their families and the economy.
Citizens, regardless of political beliefs, should recognize that Obamacare was passed with almost no sunlight shined on these middle class tax increases and need to understand that the new law was sold with the promise that there would be no new middle class taxes. This is not partisan, it is simply the reality of politics.
Race Quotas For Obamacare Doctor
http://www.therightperspective.org/2...acare-doctors/
http://www.therightperspective.org/w...are_doctor.jpg
Among the many hidden changes to the American healthcare system that passed Congress last November are mandated racial and ethnic quotas for doctors and other health providers.
As American Thinker writer Allan J. Favish notes, the bill states on pages 879-880 that the Secretary of Health and Human Services:
“shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those students, interns, residents or physicians who plan to work in or teach in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics.”
[....]
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
The provisions continue throughout the bill to cover every medical, nursing, dental school and teaching hospital in the country. It also guarantees the institutionalization of racial, sex, and ethnic quotas in perpetuity.
The use of the word “underrepresented” before “minority” ensures that the quotas will not apply to Asians or Jews, two minority groups that are arguably over-represented in the medical field.