Balta1701

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 04:19 PM) I think it can happen. The Dems are going to be the only ones holding it up. GOP voters are cleaning house, no more foreign aid or get voted out. Really, you think the Republican Party (especially the religious wing) is going to be willing to leave Israel out to dry? Give you an example. Right now, presumptive Republican presidential nomination contender Mike Huckabee is in Israel and giving speeches opposing the revolution in Egypt, solely on the grounds that it could damage Israel's security. Give you another example. John McCain came up with a list of $60 billion in "earmarks" he wanted eliminated int he 2008 election. Rapidly, it was pointed out that under his definition of earmarks, all aid to Israel would be eliminated since Congress specifies where that goes. That was pretty much the last you heard of that list, and we were back onto the more normal $20 billion in earmarks to be eliminated.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) A massive hole in your argument is that about 40% of the country doesn't pay federal income taxes. That means the circular logic here is missing a big arc, because then about 40% of the country isn't "penalized" at all, if you buy this line of rationale. I was actually waiting for someone to say this...because the law actually takes care of this. First of all, that 40% doesn't pay "Federal income taxes", however, they do file tax returns and they do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are non-exempt. But you are correct, there is a non-zero number of people who do not have to file a tax return. The mandate itself is structured such that it is an $800(ish) tax on everyone who files a tax return. If you are exempt from filing a tax return, for example in the case that you earned no income, you are also exempt from that tax, and therefore exempt from the mandate. If you then purchase qualifying insurance, you can then claim that deduction. But, that's where the rest of the bill comes in. The bill includes a large expansion of community health centers and Medicaid, funded by the federal government, specifically to catch as many of these people as possible. There are a good number of them who are missed, (~10 million in the final version), but that's how we come up to the ~32 million in additional covered individuals when there are currently ~50 million uninsured at any given time.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) I'm done with this conversation, you're not going to see what everyone else here sees. I have a real urge to take a cheap shot here but I'm going to pass.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) No, that's YOUR definition. No one is being penalized for not buying a home and taking out a mortgage. Everyone was on the same playing field in that case, then an incentive was added, to pay LESS money. Your mandate had everyone on the same playing field, then forced SPENDING. I just don't understand how you can't see this difference. Because that is simply not how the law works. As a non-homeowner who has to pay a higher tax rate to cover the fact that there is a homeowner tax credit, I am absolutely being penalized, by your definition of penalizing, for not claiming that tax credit. I pay more in taxes than I would if the money I spend on rent were to go to paying for a mortgage of equal price. That is, by your definition, a penalty.

In some legitimate Republican news, U.S. Ambassador to China and former Republican Congressman from Utah John Huntsman has submitted his resignation to the President. It is widely expected this is the first step to him running for President.

Let me try asking a different way...how is it a purchase mandate if you can choose not to make the purchase?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 12:16 PM) Again, circular reasoning. Its a mandate to purchase a product, no matter how you futz around with it. Then by your definition, all of those other tax credits are mandates to purchase those products as well, no matter how you futz with it. Otherwise, please explain to me how they aren't. Raising taxes across the board coupled with a targeted tax increase for purchase of a private product is how this bill is structured, and it's how every other one of those tax credits works.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 12:14 PM) Yes they are, in this case or the other. Although this is a state mandate, and I don't know the South Dakota Constitution. I'd have to think this would require an amendment though. It's quite funny because in the other thread, I pointed out how in 1792, George Washington signed a gun purchase mandate, and 2k5's response was "Imagine if something like that were proposed today".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) I wonder how you'd see this method of accounting/booking if Goldman Sachs was doing it. You are making circles financially in order to make something into something its not. Which is exactly how they wrote the bill. They wrote the mandate as step 1; across the board $800 tax increase. Step 2; across the board $800 tax credit if you purchase health insurance meeting standards x, y, and z.

The 2012 meeting of the Democratic National Convention, and presumably some sort of large speech, will be held in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Very likely you should just get used to it. Increasing precipitation has that effect.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 10:08 AM) In the WTF!? Department: South Dakota Considers Requiring Gun Ownership Individual purchase mandates are clearly unconstitutional.

Let me spell out the law in more detail here and why either the mandate itself is constitutional or Congress's ability to give tax advantages on anything is unconstitutional. The "Mandate" is set up as a tax increase on every taxpayer. That tax increase is then rebated to every taxpayer that purchases an insurance contract which meets certain standards. That is how the law is written, which is why it had to go through the House and Senate budget committees; it includes a tax increase. First step...is it Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill which raises taxes by $1000 on every taxpayer? I think the constitutionality here is clear. Secondly, is it constitutional for Congress to give targeted tax credits to specific groups of taxpayers? This is of course the basis for our tax structure where different groups pay different rates. If you proposed a bill which raised taxes on everyone by $100 and used that money to cut the tax rate paid by hedge fund managers to 1/3 the rate everyone else pays, that would be a targeted tax credit, and it'd be constitutional (side note; this is actually on the books right now). Hopefully I've established that it's constitutional for Congress to raise taxes by different groups. Also worth noting, its constitutional for Congress to do more than 1 constitutional thing in the same bill; bundling 3 constitutional actions together doesn't make them unconstitutional. Finally, the only remaining part is that the tax credit is only qualified for if you purchase a product from a private company. This is the part I'm focusing on in this thread, because Congress's ability to levy income taxes is clear. If you want to find the bill unconstitutional, this is the only part you can legitimately attack. I would argue that Congress does exactly this all the time. It gives tax credits for all kinds of purchases. It gives tax credits for purchasing of private mortgages, for purchasing shares in certain kinds of retirement accounts, for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles, for insulating your home, etc. If targeted tax rebates based on private sector purchases of health insurance are unconstitutional, then all of these other tax credits are equally unconstitutional. Hence, my focus on them. This part happens all the time. If you want to find the individual mandate unconstitutional, you have to find 1 of those 3 parts unconstitutional. These judges have played games with these parts, trying to say "Oh Harry Reid said it's not a tax, therefore it's not a tax" or things to that effect, but that's not how the law works, the text of the law doesn't care about what focus-group tested slogan you use to describe things in public. It's worth pointing out again that this description is actually how the mandate works; if you choose not to purchase health insurance, you are unable to claim that deduction, just as I am unable to claim the mortgage-interest deduction or the electric car deduction this year. With how the law is written, providing an $8000 tax credit for electric cars is effectively an "Electric car purchase mandate" based on how this language is being applied. The CBO in fact estimates that a non-zero percentage of Americans will choose this route once the bill is fully in force. In the Massachusetts example this is exactly what happened, some 98% of the population had insurance, but 2% or so chose to forego claiming that deduction and remained uninsured.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) You don't see a societal benefit to people that purchase homes, have kids, get an advanced degree, etc? I agree with NSS here, I dunno how you can equate the two unless you're totally changing the meaning of the words incentive and mandate. You don't get to argue societal benefit here. You don't see the societal benefit of a functioning insurance market and not having uninsured? If you're giving "Societal benefit" as your standard, then you're giving up on the constitutionality on this case, because tons of things have societal benefit. Yes, there is a fundamental difference in speaking terms between incentive and mandate, but the law itself is not structured that way. The law itself is structured such that the individual mandate is a tax incentive for this purchase. If you choose not to pay it, that's fine, you just have to forego the incentive.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) You really don't see the difference between tax INCENTIVES to purchase something (like a home), and a MANDATE requiring you buy a certain product? Paying higher tax rate because of a difference in deductions is NOT the same as a mandate. What gave you that idea? No, I really do not see the difference. In either case, the person who does not purchase the privately-owned product pays a higher tax rate than the person who does. In both cases, there is a tax advantage for purchasing a certain type of qualifying, privately-owned product. The structure of the law is/should be identical for both of them. You set the general tax rate, you specify the type of purchases that qualify for the tax credit, and if people make those qualifying purchases, they receive a lower tax rate. If I choose not to purchase insurance, the tax penalty is actually smaller than the tax penalty for not having a mortgage at most interest rates.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) That's not a great example, because its not an example of what I asked. So again... name for me a tax that is a mandate to purchase a product. How is that not applicable? It is a higher tax rate paid by not purchasing a certain type of product. That's exactly what the individual mandate is; a $700 or so tax if you don't purchase a certain type of product. Are you defining the word "Mandate" in a different way here? If you choose not to purchase health insurance, you're required to pay a higher tax rate. There's no criminal penalties or anything, it's a tax for which you receive credit if you make a certain qualifying purchase.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:43 AM) I simply don't agree with your interperetation of this. Forcing people (all people) to buy a product is not the same as a tax. And this doesn't come from talking points or anything of the sort, its simply the way the Constitution and the law are laid out. Name for me a "tax" that is the mandatory purchase of an individual product. A great example is mortgage interest. If a homeowner receives a tax credit for mortgage interest payments, then people who do not pay mortgage interest are paying a tax for not purchasing a mortgage. The mortgage interest tax deduction is just as much a tax on people who do not purchase a mortgage. It's considered to be a tax credit...which is exactly the same thing as having a tax which exists if I don't purchase a product like health insurance. No one calls it the "Non-homeownership-tax", but the letter of the law is the same.

Terrible word.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 09:29 PM) Then make it a tax, and call it what it actually is - the federal government electing to turn health care provision into a semi-government run interest. Don't make it a product purchase, as it stands now, which sets the table for it to be killed. The whole approach they took here was just stupid. It is a tax, at least as far as the letter of the law is concerned, that's one of the reasons it is so long. It's a tax return item where you pay the "fee" if you haven't made the purchase, whereas you receive an equivalent credit if you have made the purchase. The only reason why people can legitimately say "It's not a tax!" is that they say crap like that for public consumption since taxes are bad and the finger thing means the taxes. If you've really paid attention to either of these rulings though...both of them have justified saying that it's not a tax because of public statements of the defenders, not because of anything actually written in the law. The law itself has the structure of a tax, they just didn't use that word for focus group reasons. That's one of the reasons why these decisions are getting ridiculed; you can't decide that something is unconstitutional based on people's statements about a law, you have to actually decide based on the letter of the law.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 10:19 PM) Damn. Wanted Freddy as a swingman. Others have noted that keeping him as a swingman is tough, because he not only takes a while to warm up (remember 2005-2006 how he'd have an ERA over 6 in the first inning?), but he also has to make sure his arm is loose after the injury.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 07:54 AM) Very surprising to see him only on a minor league deal. Of course with the state of the Yankees staff he should have a pretty good chance to be on the major league roster I'd imagine. I'm personally more surprised to see him wind up in the AL, rather than in the NL.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 06:53 PM) If the Tigers can get average production from their #3-5, they'll be very dangerous. IMO, they have the best hitter, the 2 best SP, and the best bullpen in the division. But ultimately will come down to Penny and Porcello. I know they added Benoit and they ought to get Zumaya back, but it's worth noting that the Tigers were the #8 bullpen in the AL last year, the Twins were #4 and the White Sox were #5. The White Sox also got rid of 3 of their 4 worst bullpen ERA's last year (Jenks, Linebrink, and Williams) without losing any of their performing Bullpen guys.

If the club option year is 2016, then Alexei is now under team control for 6 seasons counting the option. Therefore, he's still under contract for this year, this deal then buys out his 2 remaining arb eligible years, and buys out 2 FA years, along with an option to buy out a 3rd FA year.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) How can they possibly make this related to a privilege, when its EVERYONE? Also, what others laws do you think it would endanger? A few possible examples. In the 1790's, George Washington signed the Militia Act, which required all males age 18-45 to purchase a firearm so that they could be prepared in the event of calling up of the militia. Along those same lines...the Secret Service Act is a regulation of non-activity. It is not a regulation of economic non-activity, but instead, a regulation of non-activity in the sense of actions necessary and proper to a well-regulated militia. It might not pass the Supreme Court test, but I think you could easily see a lower court striking down Selective Service based on that ruling. The Civil Rights acts have in essence regulated non-economic activity, because turning away a person from my establishment on the grounds that they're black/handicapped/NSS72 is not actively engaging in commerce; it's affecting someone else's ability to engage in commerce. Congress at the Federal Level has also mandated insurance purchases in several cases, such as flood insurance at certain locations or insurance against catastrophe for nuclear power plants. Here, you'd be pushing up a definition of exactly what counts as regulatable economic activity; if the fact that some people do not participate in the health care system at some times means that health care inactivity cannot be regulated, then the fact that people in floodplains or nuclear power plants do not actively need help with floods or meltdowns at all times means that those requirements are regulations against inactivity. You could potentially re-write the nuclear power one as a requirement if they choose to sell power from a certain type of plant, such that it is regulating the sale of the power and not the generation of the power, but the law is not likely written that way right now. Finally, the way Congress wrote the bill, the individual mandate and fine is written as a tax requirement (although wasn't called that), which is required to be paid as part of taxes. You would definitely get a challenge on Congress's ability to require people to file tax returns, because the Court would be stripping Congress of its power to require payment based on responses to tax returns.