Washington Post: "Opposition to Obama Grows" & New Post/ABC Poll

[ArlingtonDeac]

Holy shit, again with the Scalia garbage? The dissent that you keep alluding to in no way addresses the situation at hand and could not be utilized as any sort of binding precedent.

It's isn't needed as precent, as this bill fits snuggling into current precedent. Scalia just makes the argument perfectly in the dissent.

Run from the reasoning if you wish--I can see how disturbing that text would be to the argument that the HC bill is somehow suddenly unconstitutional--but Scalia stated quite clearly and eloquently how this bill is legal and fits into the Commerce Clause power, buttressing the precedent that already established it to be legal.

Please explain to me how the principles alluded to by Scalia "in no way addresses the situation." 2&2, that's laughable. There are other arguments, but that's not a viable one. The dissent directly addresses the width and breadth of the commerce power. It pretty much nails exactly why this bill is legal.

I'd be upset too, in your shoes. The right's legal champion pended a strongly worded, unequivocally affirmation of the nearly limitless power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to enact any features necessary to give their legislative packages force. This affirmation augments the transparent reality that the HC bill already fits under the commerce clause power, even after Wickard and Lopez (which regulate non-economic activity).

Scalia created a real pickle for himself, and it will be amusing to see him attempt to contort out of it. Politics v. Principle. Which will win?

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

If ObamaCare is being used as some sort of devious cover to avoid creating jobs (and more profits BTW) then how can it's passage be arbitrarily looking at a calendar and drawing a false conclusion?????? You are stating a cause and effect of ObamaCare and then claiming it had no cause and effect.

And even if you want to believe that ObamaCare is being used as a devious cover by corps to stop economic activity, shouldn't Obama have known that such a cause and effect would occur? Critics were predicting such an effect and it's still a negative consequence is it not?

The fact is, the economic recovery reversed upon its passage. Businesses have stated exactly why they changed behaviors, and it's very logical. Never before had such a major piece of legislation been passed in the manner it was passed, and with most people not favoring it or it being favored by slight majorities (at the time which have now eroded). It has gotten less favorable over time given all the stupid provisions in it.

Fatal error just north of Arlington. The 4th Turning of the New Deal moves on.

The bill isn't the cause. Unemployment is an effect of the downturn, coupled with a strong recovery of corporate profits, coupled with a sudden understanding that corporate America was over-staffed and can get by--indeed thrive--without adding more costs (read: workforce). That's why it's called "cover."

First, I never said what you allege in the first sentence of paragraph two. Obamacare is being used as cover to avoid expanding costs, because it's unnecessary for increased profits. And no, Obama is not supposed to have to anticipate that a reform bill could be used as a smokescreen against him, and therefore allow partisan politics to dictate policy. That's pretty much the opposite of what he should do.

The fact is, the recovery stalled because of long-simmering economic conditions, not due to recent policy reasons, as any competent investment advisor could tell you. This is the equivalent of blaming the POTUS for gas prices.

Get used to seeing things that have never been done before, legislatively. Politics is poisoned with wrongheaded intransigence by both parties, and it won't stop any time soon. The only way ideas are no enacted is by brute force. Bush's tax cuts. Obamacare. Who knows what's next. We have spoiled children running both parties, and expect more of the same. I think Obama is the last reasonable man in Washington.

The rest is just rhetoric, and I don't follow your last sentence at all.

 

[RJKarl]

And most people think this "jobs" plan is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Yet somehow that's "sincere".

The problem with Washington, again, is that neither side is being sincere.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. 65% of Americans think Obama's job plan will help either "a little" or "a lot".

Even a little can mean a lot to the families who get jobs.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/americans-favor-jobs-plan-proposals-including-taxing-rich.aspx

Even a higher percentage agree with the tax increase part of the bill.

But keep on posting what the GOP says without looking to what the people say.

 

[DeacMan]

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. 65% of Americans think Obama's job plan will help either "a little" or "a lot".

Even a little can mean a lot to the families who get jobs.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/americans-favor-jobs-plan-proposals-including-taxing-rich.aspx

Even a higher percentage agree with the tax increase part of the bill.

But keep on posting what the GOP says without looking to what the people say.

And lots of economists think it is a tempest in a tea pot. Huge costs relative to the returns we'll receive.

I generally think it has some good points. But it kicks the can further down the road on debt issues and because of its limited size (not his fault we can't even try to do more - nor is it the Republicans) it won't produce.

It's a populist gimmick. And nothing demonstrates that more than all the stump speaches when his own party lacks the votes to pass it in the Senate.

Bottom line - this President is likely toast come next November. And I'm hard pressed to see why that's a bad thing given the horrible blood that exists presently in Washington.

 

[RJKarl]

Yeo let's let the GOP win, end Meidcare, end Social Security and give the rich tax cuts while maknig the middle and the poor pay more.

Yep that's a really good plan.


If you think Obama's toast, you can get a 250% profit on a good portion of your portfolio by betting on Romney.

 

[deac29]

Yeo let's let the GOP win, end Meidcare, end Social Security and give the rich tax cuts while maknig the middle and the poor pay more.

Yep, the Republicans are the ones who engage in the politics of fear

 

[DeaconSig]

Yep, the Republicans are the ones who engage in the politics of fear

They don't?

 

[RJKarl]

WOW...the Ryan Plan was PASSED by the GOP House and supported by Republicans in the Senate. It DOES end Medicare. It DOES shift tax burdens from the rich to the midle calss and the poor.

This isn't FEAR it's absolute REALITY. The GOP has voted on it and is running on it.

Many Republicans want to end Social Security. This no secret or fear. It's many have said. hell many Republicans and conservatives here have repeatedly stated that's what they want done.

Mushroom clouds and gay marriage harming straight marriage is fearmongerring.

Stating the GOP wants to end Medicare and shifting the tax burden are fait naccompli by the GOP.

How you can't see the difference is mindboggling.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

This is exactly what I've been saying and was criticized about saying.

Between now and election day '12, Obama will assume progressively more responsibility for the shape of the economy, unemployment, etc. Voters will not simply say "well he took over a bad situation from Bush, it's not his fault". There is just no way that's going to happen.

If voters feel the economy is getting better, Obama will get the credit for that unless the GOP can convince voters it was their action in Congress that made the decisive difference.

If voters feel the economy is bad, the finger will be pointed at Obama. There's been a Dem congress and a split congress with the GOP exercising great ability to shape debate. Obama is the constant.

That doesn't mean Obama's certain to win or lose based on the economy, but the polls showing that people blame Bush more than Obama will not ring true at the ballot box. If the unemployment rate is higher than 9%, he's going to have one heckuvan uphill climb. They need to make the case that things were SO bad when they took over that they could not have reasonably been expected to fix it, and that they've been doing all they can AND that they're fighting the powers that be that caused problems to start with. That's what FDR did in 1936.

 

[pourdeac]

The bill isn't the cause. Unemployment is an effect of the downturn, coupled with a strong recovery of corporate profits, coupled with a sudden understanding that corporate America was over-staffed and can get by--indeed thrive--without adding more costs (read: workforce). That's why it's called "cover."

That's just conspiratorial gobbeltygook.

Look at these charts. The first two come from an article posted on here from Seeking Alpha about the divergence between GDP and corporate profits. Look closely at the two graphs.

The divergence occurs during Q2 2010. In Q3 profits go up but GDP drops dramatically. ObamaCare was passed in March 2010 at the very end of Q1 going into Q2. That was the start of the double dip.

Then look at the relation to employment.

From the bottom of the recession until ObamaCare, the economy was adding jobs at a relatively rapid rate. At the point of ObamaCare, the rate of hiring slowed tremendously which jives with the decoupling of GDP with corporate profits because hiring slowed and so did overall economic activity as a result.

Employers have even stated that they altered future plans as a result of the uncertainties of ObamaCare, many of them chronicled in articles posted on this board. Is there any reason to doubt that given they said it would happen and then it happened? This isn't some sort of conspiracy.

That is what the Reps are going to roll out in the election. It's going to be a very strong rebuke of ObamaCare and Obama's leadership during a time of need. He crammed that thing through because he had a majority, then when stopped by the Ted Kennedy election, resorted to paying people off to pass it by unethical means. That is not going to be forgotten by swing voters.

The 4th Turning is a book describing the generational theory of William Strauss and Neil Howe. According to that theory, we are in the 4th and final 20 year segment of the populist rule of New Deal dogma, which was the 3rd major populist movement of the US (independence, manifest destiny, new deal). A new populist movement is rising and will assume control shortly. It's certainly amazing to me how predictive it has been. You might take a look. Interesting read whether you believe it or not.

http://www.fourthturning.com/

 

[stonevilleicetea]

The fact that I am pretty much "Anybody but Obama" and don't like any of the republican candidates with the exception of Cain tells me that he will get re-elected. Romney is probably the best candidate and most lifelong republicans like myself can't stand him.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Your bias as to what it gobblteygook and what is relevant adheres to ideological lines.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

You're bias as to what it gobblteygook and what is relevant adheres to ideological lines.

I always spelled it gobbledygook.

This reminds me of differences in Romanizations of Korean place names.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

And my computer feels compelled to make your into you're.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

And my computer feels compelled to make your into you're.

Mine just like to type completely wrong words out completely before I realize it's done so.

Is it Daegu or Taegu? gobbledygook or gobblteygook?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

It's isn't needed as precent, as this bill fits snuggling into current precedent. Scalia just makes the argument perfectly in the dissent.

Run from the reasoning if you wish--I can see how disturbing that text would be to the argument that the HC bill is somehow suddenly unconstitutional--but Scalia stated quite clearly and eloquently how this bill is legal and fits into the Commerce Clause power, buttressing the precedent that already established it to be legal.

Please explain to me how the principles alluded to by Scalia "in no way addresses the situation." 2&2, that's laughable. There are other arguments, but that's not a viable one. The dissent directly addresses the width and breadth of the commerce power. It pretty much nails exactly why this bill is legal.

I'd be upset too, in your shoes. The right's legal champion pended a strongly worded, unequivocally affirmation of the nearly limitless power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to enact any features necessary to give their legislative packages force. This affirmation augments the transparent reality that the HC bill already fits under the commerce clause power, even after Wickard and Lopez (which regulate non-economic activity).

Scalia created a real pickle for himself, and it will be amusing to see him attempt to contort out of it. Politics v. Principle. Which will win?

The dissent in no way states that the Commerce Clause can be used to regulate inactivity. And that is the key issue, period. It is not a pickle at all to make an argument that the Commerce Clause can stretch to the ends of the earth to regulate commercial activity, while at the same time not reaching inactivity. It is pretty straightforward.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

He said Congress can implement any measure necessary to give a regulatory scheme effect, and that quite easily includes a mandate. And the idea that those without HC are economically inactive within the HC system is a farce.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Any measure necessary with regard to interstate commercial activity. Again, this is not commercial activity. And the notion that those without HC are by necessity active within the system (and more importantly active within the scope of the intention of the regulation) is just assumption.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

it's not an assumption, since rates are affected by the understood losses that accrue by providing HC to those that don't have insurance and don't pay for it. You can't exist in America long before eventually taxing the HC system in some manner, and the amount of activity you undergo is irrelevant. No one can really exist outside for more than a few years at a time. Mandates have been found constitutional in the past, and the regulation of HC is certainly interstate economic activity.

The only reason people are searching for holes in the pretty clearly applicability of the Commerce Power is politics. The right lost this battle in the congress, so now they are going to try to refight the bill in the courts. But it's not really about legality, it's a policy attack wrapped in a flimsy attempt to evade the sweeping breath of the Commerce Power's ability to broadly regulate economic activity.

The right wants to hang their hat on the dubious proposition that people have an intrinsic right to be irresponsible and avoid insurance, yet they can also use the HC system, a la carte, as they need, without paying.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

it's not an assumption, since rates are affected by the understood losses that accrue by providing HC to those that don't have insurance and don't pay for it. You can't exist in America long before eventually taxing the HC system in some manner, and the amount of activity you undergo is irrelevant. No one can really exist outside for more than a few years at a time. Mandates have been found constitutional in the past, and the regulation of HC is certainly interstate economic activity.

The only reason people are searching for holes in the pretty clearly applicability of the Commerce Power is politics. The right lost this battle in the congress, so now they are going to try to refight the bill in the courts. But it's not really about legality, it's a policy attack wrapped in a flimsy attempt to evade the sweeping breath of the Commerce Power's ability to broadly regulate economic activity.

The right wants to hang their hat on the dubious proposition that people have an intrinsic right to be irresponsible and avoid insurance, yet they can also use the HC system, a la carte, as they need, without paying.

The first bolded statement is an assumption. What about the person who never has any health problems growing up, his parents pay for all of his vaccinations and checkups in cash, and then at age 19 gets hit by a bus and dies instantly? At the other end of the spectrum Steve Jobs' kids could live for 100 years self-insuring and without taxing the system. Do most people tax the system, probably. Do all people tax the system, no.

As to the second bolded statement, please specify what mandate of inactivity has been found Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Remember, of course, that this is not a tax. I am not aware of any.

The third bolded statement is simply false. Most people who oppose Obamacare don't give two shits about politics. But they know they don't want the government to be able to force them to buy something whether they want to or not, and whether they need to or not. This is about individual freedom, plan and simple.