|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 16 2016 03:40 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 03:35 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2016 03:30 kwizach wrote:An interesting article on the costs of Sanders' plans: Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans
Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”
But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s early criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “They’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.” Source Are they accounting for the positive externalities of Sander's plans. Single payer healthcare wouldn't exist in parallel with health insurance for the average consumer (although I see no reason why those who can afford it might not have both)? The elimination of health insurance from jobs and the replacement with a tax to pay for the new public health service could result in a net increase in the post-tax paycheck of an individual while providing a comparable level of healthcare. Obviously if you're double counting costs then things get expensive fast but I see no reason why you would do that. I wonder if they considered the fact that Sanders would end the price gouging from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry as well.
The authors of that account are pretty clearly construing any loose ends against Bernie's plan rather than with it. As KwarK points out, there are a host of net positive effects that will come alongside the necessary societal reorganization incidental to single payer, and with just a bit of sleight of hand, those effects can be cast in an unappealing light if one fails to do some pretty simple subtractions.
|
On February 16 2016 03:30 kwizach wrote:An interesting article on the costs of Sanders' plans: Show nested quote +Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans
Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”
But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s early criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “They’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.” Source
One thing absolutely none of these "analysis" have taken into consideration is the cost of ACTUAL care as opposed to just having insurance.
So when one compares the "cost" of insurance with the "cost" of single payer care one is actually comparing very different things.
This kind of crap is just that, crap. But if we are to take it for anything other than political grandstanding I think it's pointing out a rather obvious point that if instead of giving money to a health insurance company for them to give to your doctor you give it to the government than of course the government will be spending more.
I suppose folks would actually have to be journalists and not propagandists if we wanted to actually know the nature of such an impact.
I'll just say that suggesting the richest, most powerful country in the world can't guarantee healthcare, when every other major country can, is a losing argument.
|
On February 16 2016 03:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 03:40 Souma wrote:On February 16 2016 03:35 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2016 03:30 kwizach wrote:An interesting article on the costs of Sanders' plans: Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans
Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”
But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s early criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “They’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.” Source Are they accounting for the positive externalities of Sander's plans. Single payer healthcare wouldn't exist in parallel with health insurance for the average consumer (although I see no reason why those who can afford it might not have both)? The elimination of health insurance from jobs and the replacement with a tax to pay for the new public health service could result in a net increase in the post-tax paycheck of an individual while providing a comparable level of healthcare. Obviously if you're double counting costs then things get expensive fast but I see no reason why you would do that. I wonder if they considered the fact that Sanders would end the price gouging from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry as well. The authors of that account are pretty clearly construing any loose ends against Bernie's plan rather than with it. As KwarK points out, there are a host of net positive effects that will come alongside the necessary societal reorganization incidental to single payer, and with just a bit of sleight of hand, those effects can be cast in an unappealing light if one fails to do some pretty simple subtractions.
Well that is a problem isn't it? His plans do require quite the bit of reorganization and pivoting of society and if that doesn't happen and he manages to pass some of his stuff (but fails to gain traction on the things needed to support it from a societal philosophy standpoint) then wouldn't his stuff just flounder because they won't work with how the US system is now. Almost seems like an all-in type scenario that could backfire big time if he doesn't get a large chunk of what he needs to make it work.
I know he is all about starting a larger movement but can he keep that momentum post winning? Keep the people engaged enough for YEARS to make his ideas come to fruition? I am not so sure he can because there is a large number of people in this country who will be opposed to all of his ideas absolutely. Maybe if this were 20 years in the future people might be ready but I am not sure about right now.
|
On February 16 2016 03:58 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 03:52 farvacola wrote:On February 16 2016 03:40 Souma wrote:On February 16 2016 03:35 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2016 03:30 kwizach wrote:An interesting article on the costs of Sanders' plans: Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans
Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”
But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s early criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “They’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.” Source Are they accounting for the positive externalities of Sander's plans. Single payer healthcare wouldn't exist in parallel with health insurance for the average consumer (although I see no reason why those who can afford it might not have both)? The elimination of health insurance from jobs and the replacement with a tax to pay for the new public health service could result in a net increase in the post-tax paycheck of an individual while providing a comparable level of healthcare. Obviously if you're double counting costs then things get expensive fast but I see no reason why you would do that. I wonder if they considered the fact that Sanders would end the price gouging from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry as well. The authors of that account are pretty clearly construing any loose ends against Bernie's plan rather than with it. As KwarK points out, there are a host of net positive effects that will come alongside the necessary societal reorganization incidental to single payer, and with just a bit of sleight of hand, those effects can be cast in an unappealing light if one fails to do some pretty simple subtractions. Well that is a problem isn't it? His plans do require quite the bit of reorganization and pivoting of society and if that doesn't happen and he manages to pass some of his stuff (but fails to gain traction on the things needed to support it from a societal philosophy standpoint) then wouldn't his stuff just flounder because they won't work with how the US system is now. Almost seems like an all-in type scenario that could backfire big time if he doesn't get a large chunk of what he needs to make it work. I know he is all about starting a larger movement but can he keep that momentum post winning? Keep the people engaged enough for YEARS to make his ideas come to fruition? I am not so sure he can because there is a large number of people in this country who will be opposed to all of his ideas absolutely. Maybe if this were 20 years in the future people might be ready but I am not sure about right now.
Its too ambitious, drastic and polarizing. I mean I hate to sound like a naysayer that doesnt want good things and I have experience how broken the healthcare system is. + Show Spoiler +( 2500 dollars for a die MRI on my shin, come the fuck on, in that money I couldve flown to Pakistan gotten an MRI from an actual qualified doctor had a nice holiday and flown back as opposed to having some old lady who barely knew how to get the strap for the brace on sit me there for 2 hours for a 40 min process. This was in DC btw. I have also experienced the complete wrath of the Health.gov website when signing through my employer.) )
|
On February 16 2016 03:58 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 03:52 farvacola wrote:On February 16 2016 03:40 Souma wrote:On February 16 2016 03:35 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2016 03:30 kwizach wrote:An interesting article on the costs of Sanders' plans: Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans
Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”
But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s early criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “They’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.” Source Are they accounting for the positive externalities of Sander's plans. Single payer healthcare wouldn't exist in parallel with health insurance for the average consumer (although I see no reason why those who can afford it might not have both)? The elimination of health insurance from jobs and the replacement with a tax to pay for the new public health service could result in a net increase in the post-tax paycheck of an individual while providing a comparable level of healthcare. Obviously if you're double counting costs then things get expensive fast but I see no reason why you would do that. I wonder if they considered the fact that Sanders would end the price gouging from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry as well. The authors of that account are pretty clearly construing any loose ends against Bernie's plan rather than with it. As KwarK points out, there are a host of net positive effects that will come alongside the necessary societal reorganization incidental to single payer, and with just a bit of sleight of hand, those effects can be cast in an unappealing light if one fails to do some pretty simple subtractions. Well that is a problem isn't it? His plans do require quite the bit of reorganization and pivoting of society and if that doesn't happen and he manages to pass some of his stuff (but fails to gain traction on the things needed to support it from a societal philosophy standpoint) then wouldn't his stuff just flounder because they won't work with how the US system is now. Almost seems like an all-in type scenario that could backfire big time if he doesn't get a large chunk of what he needs to make it work. I know he is all about starting a larger movement but can he keep that momentum post winning? Keep the people engaged enough for YEARS to make his ideas come to fruition? I am not so sure he can because there is a large number of people in this country who will be opposed to all of his ideas absolutely. Maybe if this were 20 years in the future people might be ready but I am not sure about right now.
I think the key is in people recognizing that the people opposing his ideas aren't doing it for Joe Schmoe working a 50k a year job. Between the internet and the policies this is the single best possible time for someone to be able to make that case and win.
If the tea party can get 8 years of nothing getting done I think Berniecrats can convince folks to sign onto ideas that will unquestionably help them and their neighbors.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Looking toward Nevada:
The (Hillary) campaign’s recent assertion that Nevada is “still a state that is 80 percent white voters” — in other words, a state that looks a lot like Bernie Sanders’ base — is simply wrong, Reid allies claim. But more galling than that, they say, it undermines the entire rationale for the caucuses’ existence: The state was pushed to the front of the election calendar eight years ago solely because Reid lobbied for better demographic representation than the overwhelmingly white early-voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
“Harry Reid pushed hard to move Nevada near the front of the primary calendar precisely because of its diversity,” a source close to the Senate minority leader said last week after the Clinton team pushed the “white Nevada” narrative in a series of conferences calls to donors and lawmakers on the Hill, as well as in television interviews (Clinton operatives have since appeared to back off that argument).
Source
This crap is transparent as all hell.
|
It does bother me that Hillary is being explicitly racist in characterizing Sanders' support base.
|
The single payer debate seems nonsensical to me. You can have socialized health care with insurance companies. We have that in The Netherlands. Looking at the political situation in the US if you want socialized health care this seems the only reasonable option. Practically it's also a lot easier to execute at the moment.The costs assosiated with it can also be more accurately predicted than with a radical overhaul of the whole health care system like with single payer.
|
On February 15 2016 11:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 10:27 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 03:33 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissentwhat a cunt Is he even in the ground yet? I don't think him being dead had any effect on Kwark's opinion. I am sure he was a wonderful father and family member, but he saw homosexuals as less than human, not worthy of human rights. Scalia thought terrible things about gays, live, dead or otherwise. No. The media told you to hate the people you disagree with so you do. There isn't anything else to it. Cowboy, I'm a big boy and made up my mind on my own. Everyone who doesn't feel the same way you do isn't being a sheep being told what to do by the media. You aren't smarter than everyone who disagrees with you.
Kwark seemed to be celebrating a man's death because of a difference in opinion. Forgive me for thinking that might be the result of media over-hype that turns every political disagreement into a moral battleground with no quarter given or taken. I suppose it could just be natural hatefulness, but I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt.
On February 15 2016 10:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 10:27 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 03:33 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissentwhat a cunt Is he even in the ground yet? I don't think him being dead had any effect on Kwark's opinion. I am sure he was a wonderful father and family member, but he saw homosexuals as less than human, not worthy of human rights. Scalia thought terrible things about gays, live, dead or otherwise. No. The media told you to hate the people you disagree with so you do. There isn't anything else to it. You think you think that but you're just regurgitating Fox news because you're incapable of doing anything but blaming the media for opinions you disagree with. If you were capable of independent thought you wouldn't think what you do.
It's possible that I have some (hidden from myself) bias from the media I consume. I try to take that into account whenever I feel an irrational emotional reaction to a political disagreement.
Let's put it this way, if it was Obama who had died, and I took the opportunity to discuss what a "cunt" I thought he was, before his body had even cooled, how do you think you'd react? Do you think you might wonder why I had so much hatred for someone I'd never met?
|
On February 16 2016 05:09 Cowboy64 wrote:
Let's put it this way, if it was Obama who had died, and I took the opportunity to discuss what a "cunt" I thought he was, before his body had even cooled, how do you think you'd react? Do you think you might wonder why I had so much hatred for someone I'd never met?
Well I'd ask you what Obama has ever said about you or done to you that would warrant the reaction
|
Or whether or not Obama had characterized your sexual orientation as not deserving of any constitutional protection in a common law judicial decision....oh wait, as President, he can't do that and that comparison is dumb.
|
On February 16 2016 05:09 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 11:23 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 10:27 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 03:33 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissentwhat a cunt Is he even in the ground yet? I don't think him being dead had any effect on Kwark's opinion. I am sure he was a wonderful father and family member, but he saw homosexuals as less than human, not worthy of human rights. Scalia thought terrible things about gays, live, dead or otherwise. No. The media told you to hate the people you disagree with so you do. There isn't anything else to it. Cowboy, I'm a big boy and made up my mind on my own. Everyone who doesn't feel the same way you do isn't being a sheep being told what to do by the media. You aren't smarter than everyone who disagrees with you. Kwark seemed to be celebrating a man's death because of a difference in opinion. Forgive me for thinking that might be the result of media over-hype that turns every political disagreement into a moral battleground with no quarter given or taken. I suppose it could just be natural hatefulness, but I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt. Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 10:50 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 10:27 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 03:33 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissentwhat a cunt Is he even in the ground yet? I don't think him being dead had any effect on Kwark's opinion. I am sure he was a wonderful father and family member, but he saw homosexuals as less than human, not worthy of human rights. Scalia thought terrible things about gays, live, dead or otherwise. No. The media told you to hate the people you disagree with so you do. There isn't anything else to it. You think you think that but you're just regurgitating Fox news because you're incapable of doing anything but blaming the media for opinions you disagree with. If you were capable of independent thought you wouldn't think what you do. It's possible that I have some (hidden from myself) bias from the media I consume. I try to take that into account whenever I feel an irrational emotional reaction to a political disagreement. Let's put it this way, if it was Obama who had died, and I took the opportunity to discuss what a "cunt" I thought he was, before his body had even cooled, how do you think you'd react? Do you think you might wonder why I had so much hatred for someone I'd never met?
It is important to note that the death of a Supreme Court Justice is by definition a political matter, so the vitriol being thrown around is not really surprising. If we don't want politicians to try to capitalize off of a man's death, then we should not be making lifetime political appointments.
All MSM is garbage, for the most part, but I find it curious that you think people need the media to tell them to dislike Scalia when there are plenty of apparent reasons to do so. Since his death means that he will no longer be attempting to deprive Americans of certain rights, you can probably see why some are rejoicing. Is it in poor taste? Perhaps, but again this is what happens when justices are appointed for life. Obama doesn't have to die for us to get a new president, but I am sure there would be plenty of people celebrating if that did come to pass, just on the other side of the aisle.
|
United States43219 Posts
Additionally I don't have a television, don't read newspapers and barely read internet news (no regular sites, mostly just articles linked to me on places like tl). I exist pretty much outside of the media. I'm aware of Scalia's death but my opinion on him hasn't changed since hearing of his death. The idea that I only dislike the homophobe who denied civil rights to millions of Americans because I was told I should feel that way is absurd. I'm not religious, I don't need some outside source to explain right from wrong to me. I can work it out for myself.
|
On February 16 2016 05:09 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 11:23 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 10:27 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 03:33 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissentwhat a cunt Is he even in the ground yet? I don't think him being dead had any effect on Kwark's opinion. I am sure he was a wonderful father and family member, but he saw homosexuals as less than human, not worthy of human rights. Scalia thought terrible things about gays, live, dead or otherwise. No. The media told you to hate the people you disagree with so you do. There isn't anything else to it. Cowboy, I'm a big boy and made up my mind on my own. Everyone who doesn't feel the same way you do isn't being a sheep being told what to do by the media. You aren't smarter than everyone who disagrees with you. Kwark seemed to be celebrating a man's death because of a difference in opinion. Forgive me for thinking that might be the result of media over-hype that turns every political disagreement into a moral battleground with no quarter given or taken. I suppose it could just be natural hatefulness, but I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt.
Once again you have made the mistake in believing that the people who disagree with you are ill informed or being manipulated by the media. But judging by your previous output, you will take any chance to climb to your perceived moral high ground and whine about how everyone is so mean people with views that match yours. You need to remember that you are not smarter than everyone you disagree with.
|
scalia on some case:
it is possible to discern the objective “purpose” of a statute (i. e., the public good at which its provisions appear to be directed)
scalia's reasoning for his obamacare votes:
it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges
“Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended.”
|
Reflecting a move of 33 percentage points in the past 10 years, a majority of Americans — 54 percent — currently see Cuba in a favorable light, according to Gallup. The nation's favorability rating went up across the U.S. political spectrum, but by far the biggest gain was among Democrats.
A "strong majority" of Republicans still view Cuba unfavorably, Gallup says, with only 34 percent seeing Cuba favorably compared to 73 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents.
"During the past few years, Americans' opinions about Cuba have become sharply polarized by political party," Gallup's Jim Norman writes, "with the Democrat-Republican gap in favorability more than doubling in the last two years — from 17 points in 2014 to 39 points today."
But because of the gains, Gallup says that for the first time since it started asking Americans about Cuba back in 1996, a majority now see the country in a favorable light.
Source
|
On February 16 2016 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:scalia on some case: Show nested quote +it is possible to discern the objective “purpose” of a statute (i. e., the public good at which its provisions appear to be directed) scalia's reasoning for his obamacare votes: Show nested quote +it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges Show nested quote +“Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended.”
Just stop. You're not doing yourself any favors. You don't even know what you're illustrating (and not illustrating).
|
On February 16 2016 06:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:scalia on some case: it is possible to discern the objective “purpose” of a statute (i. e., the public good at which its provisions appear to be directed) scalia's reasoning for his obamacare votes: it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges “Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended.” Just stop. You're not doing yourself any favors. You don't even know what you're illustrating (and not illustrating).
it was a lazy post, so i only glanced at it before i copypasted. you can google for examples contradicting himself, there are plenty.
|
No one should quote Supreme Court rulings out of context. Especially single sentences, but I will say even paragraphs. Those are complex and nuanced works that sometimes only apply to specific parts of a given law. Just don’t do it.
|
On February 16 2016 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 06:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 16 2016 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:scalia on some case: it is possible to discern the objective “purpose” of a statute (i. e., the public good at which its provisions appear to be directed) scalia's reasoning for his obamacare votes: it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges “Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended.” Just stop. You're not doing yourself any favors. You don't even know what you're illustrating (and not illustrating). it was a lazy post, so i only glanced at it before i copypasted. you can google for examples contradicting himself, there are plenty.
And how exactly is Scalia contradicting himself?
Here's a hint: he's not, and his Obamacare opinions are entirely consistent with how he dealt with the issue of legislative intent.
|
Let's put it this way, if it was Obama who had died, and I took the opportunity to discuss what a "cunt" I thought he was, before his body had even cooled, how do you think you'd react? Do you think you might wonder why I had so much hatred for someone I'd never met?
Fun thing is, Obama doesn't need to die - he faces what you describe daily by pretty much every republican politician and supporter. Why is Obama so despised by these people?
I don't know scalia, no one here actually does. He gets judged by what he represented/his legacy. People appear to have a strong stance against homophobia, bigotry etc. If you don't: yay for you. "But i give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard".
In fact, you do literally the exact same thing right here.
Forgive me for thinking that might be the result of media over-hype that turns every political disagreement into a moral battleground with no quarter given or taken. I suppose it could just be natural hatefulness, but I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt.
You don't know "these people", yet you tell the world that they're either: naturally full of hate, or media-manipulated. You judge by the statements people made. Doesn't matter if he's dead or not, not even in the slightest - nobody is slandering his private life, or obesity or whatever. It's all about his political decisions which were also discussed while he was alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
