Success of Obamacare, and Debunking Myths

[Godular]

Or ignorant. You seem to be under this bizarre impression that the people who pass the laws always fully understand what they did.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think it not unwise then that we demand every law maker take a written test over all pending legislation before they are allowed to vote on it.

Would likely be easier to make it so that people can't add riders to legislation so that each law doesn't turn into a horrendous mess of addenda.

[Steamtopia]

I think it not unwise then that we demand every law maker take a written test over all pending legislation before they are allowed to vote on it.

And you thought congress was slow before.

Perhaps if you make it slow enough, it'll loop back around and become productive again.

[Cote d Argent]

Sounds like it would kill jobs and subsidize abortion

Posts with no grammar are aborted, yes.

You favor white people's grammar tho. This is the part where i get outraged about a holocaust of black sentences even though i like states rights in everything except abortion gay marriage and guns

[Dyakovo]

Your example has nothing at all to do with the workings of a common law system.

Theoretically no, in terms of practice andgiven its unlikely the average 18 th century colonist didn't make a distinction between theory and practice I would say it is very relevant.

Not "theoretically no". Its simply "no".

[Yorkvale]

I don't consider America's definition of "liberalism" (which is some kind of odd authoritarian centre-rightism) valid. I'm talking about liberalism as defined by those who founded it. Economic, political, personal, and social liberalism as a combined ideology. Free trade is part of that. It has been since Adam Smith. Keynes solidified its position in the modern era.

American liberals do/did support free trade. See: Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama

Then there are those that don't, like Warren and Sanders.

[Yorkvale]

Mandate is there to prevent freeloading, and in general Obamacare makes healthcare more affordable when states opt to go along with it. It's good for all business because the Government foots a lot of the bill. We want businesses to be focusing more on their business and paying employees higher wages, and they can do that if we take the strain of having to provide healthcare off of them a little.

Obama is a moderate conservative due to his pragmatic foreign policy, pro free trade, pro cyber security, and his pro low taxes stance. He, unlike many progressive liberals, cares more about the Government helping business than destroying or hampering it.

That's conservative.

Free trade isn't conservative.

By an American-centric definition it is.

[Steamtopia]

Free trade isn't conservative.

By an American-centric definition it is.

Fuck American-centric definitions. They're wrong.

[Llamalandia]

I think it not unwise then that we demand every law maker take a written test over all pending legislation before they are allowed to vote on it.

And you thought congress was slow before.

Quality over quantity. But he'll I'm for small govt anyway. The less that congress does the less chance they have to screw everything up. I personally think we could cut their pay to the poverty line and give me 360 days of vacation every year and be better off as a nation.

[Llamalandia]

By an American-centric definition it is.

Fuck American-centric definitions. They're wrong.

Americarules the world thus we get to impose are definitions methinks. Just like the Brits did. If you don't like the. You become the unipolar world super power and make your own definitions.

[Galloism]

And you thought congress was slow before.

Quality over quantity. But he'll I'm for small govt anyway. The less that congress does the less chance they have to screw everything up. I personally think we could cut their pay to the poverty line and give me 360 days of vacation every year and be better off as a nation.

That wouldn't really make the government smaller. That would just mean the status quo would never change significantly.

[Llamalandia]

Theoretically no, in terms of practice andgiven its unlikely the average 18 th century colonist didn't make a distinction between theory and practice I would say it is very relevant.

Not "theoretically no". Its simply "no".

Effectively it yes. How about you learn some history and if you want to actually discuss things post more than 5 words at a time.

[Llamalandia]

Quality over quantity. But he'll I'm for small govt anyway. The less that congress does the less chance they have to screw everything up. I personally think we could cut their pay to the poverty line and give me 360 days of vacation every year and be better off as a nation.

That wouldn't really make the government smaller. That would just mean the status quo would never change significantly.

Yeah I've largely given up on shrinking it. I just want to make sure it doesn't get any larger at this point. I mean if the republicans who are supposed to be small govt fiscal Hawks just want to spend and set up counter terror beauracracies. It's ridiculous. Better we do nothing zero growth is about the best I hope for these days.

[Yorkvale]

By an American-centric definition it is.

Fuck American-centric definitions. They're wrong.

It's all relative to people from whatever culture they live in so there really is no such thing as "wrong" when it comes to defining ideology unless I were to say something like free trade is an example of authoritarian economic policy. The only definitive definitions of political ideology are on the less/more freedom axis in political freedom, economic freedom, and civil freedom.

Conservative ideology is pretty much under preserving the status quo, and free trade is a part of our current status quo. Conservatism is relative to the country it is employed in.

[Rednekylvania]

If I had to guess, it'd be this.

I don't know what he means by "compel" in this context. If he's asking how can we tax income: the 16th amendment.

If he's asking how can we treat constructively received income as income for tax purposes, that's due to common law principles regarding timing and receipt of income.

I was asking by what authority congress can compel me to make a transaction it can then tax.

[Dyakovo]

Not "theoretically no". Its simply "no".

Effectively it yes.

Wrong.

How about you learn some history

Real history or American libertarian history? I'm already familiar with the former, and the latter is useless.

and if you want to actually discuss things post more than 5 words at a time.

If you want me to post longer responses, don't make it so that I can counter your claims with short answers.

[Godular]

I don't know what he means by "compel" in this context. If he's asking how can we tax income: the 16th amendment.

If he's asking how can we treat constructively received income as income for tax purposes, that's due to common law principles regarding timing and receipt of income.

I was asking by what authority congress can compel me to make a transaction it can then tax.

The U.S. constitution.

[Rednekylvania]

Well good luck with that. Both parties are lead by progressives who just differ in opinion on the quality of the bureaucracy that must micromanage us, but agree on quantity.

[Galloism]

I don't know what he means by "compel" in this context. If he's asking how can we tax income: the 16th amendment.

If he's asking how can we treat constructively received income as income for tax purposes, that's due to common law principles regarding timing and receipt of income.

I was asking by what authority congress can compel me to make a transaction it can then tax.

It doesn't. If you're talking about the disbursement, state laws regarding proper payments of income rule, which forces the first (disbursing) transaction. Employers aren't allowed to just keep money that is rightfully yours. This is a good thing.

There's a penalty if you don't then roll it over to another account, so Congress, in effect, forces a transaction and if you fail to engage in that transaction, you are taxed.

[Llamalandia]

Effectively it yes.

Wrong.

How about you learn some history

Real history or American libertarian history? I'm already familiar with the former, and the latter is useless.

and if you want to actually discuss things post more than 5 words at a time.

If you want me to post longer responses, don't make it so that I can counter your claims with short answers.

You can't counter claims with response such as "wrong." That isn't a counter argument. At best if one assumes you are correct, it is a statement of fact, with zero explanation accompanying it. You can't actually make a legitimate counter argument with just one word.

They aren't actually all that different. The revolution was a fight for rights and liberties after all. The parliament in England was using the law to deny colonists their equal rights as British subjects, if you don't know this you don't really know history as well as you think you do.

That said, I'm largely done with you. I'll still read whatever you post but I'm done with people who are deliberately obtuse and rude to others.
Good day sir.

[Rednekylvania]

I was asking by what authority congress can compel me to make a transaction it can then tax.

It doesn't.

Thanks, I figured the argument over the tax was moot since the mandate isn't legal.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong.

Real history or American libertarian history? I'm already familiar with the former, and the latter is useless.

If you want me to post longer responses, don't make it so that I can counter your claims with short answers.

You can't counter claims with response such as "wrong." That isn't a counter argument. At best if one assumes you are correct, it is a statement of fact, with zero explanation accompanying it. You can't actually make a legitimate counter argument with just one word.

My having done so proves your assertion incorrect.

They aren't actually all that different. The revolution was a fight for rights and liberties after all. The parliament in England was using the law to deny colonists their equal rights as British subjects, if you don't know this you don't really know history as well as you think you do.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with how a common law legal system works.

That said, I'm largely done with you. I'll still read whatever you post but I'm done with people who are deliberately obtuse and rude to others.
Good day sir.

Congratulations?

[Galloism]

It doesn't.

Thanks, I figured the argument over the tax was moot since the mandate isn't legal.

Except the mandate doesn't mandate a transaction which then it can tax.

In fact, it mandates a transaction which, if you fail to do so, results in you being taxed for failure to do so (unless you have another exception, of which there are many).

Just like the second transaction (the rollover). If you fail to engage in the given transaction with some custodian, then you are on the receiving end of extra tax.

[Dyakovo]

It doesn't.

Thanks, I figured the argument over the tax was moot since the mandate isn't legal.

The mandate is legal.

[Galloism]

Thanks, I figured the argument over the tax was moot since the mandate isn't legal.

The mandate is legal.

Oh yeah? Just because the highest court in the land agrees it's legal, doesn't mean it's really legal! It's a conspiracy!

Rand Paul 2016!

[Rednekylvania]

Thanks, I figured the argument over the tax was moot since the mandate isn't legal.

The mandate is legal.

I don't dispute this. What I do dispute is it's legitamacy. After all, legal interpretation isn't any more scientfic than reading tea leaves, and much more politically motivated. There are technocrats here who want to treat it as a settled issue, and I've been fishing for an intelligable reasoning as to why one cannot challenge the issue.