The looming Obama/Paul military massacre (Part 1)
An unholy alliance has been formed in Washington D.C.
Libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats are moving to both destroy the military and cut off at the knees the families who have given the most this past decade. The first person to sound the alram in the mass media was former President George W. Bush’s Ambassador to the UN John Bolton in July of 2011:
Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.
While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.
Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will not.
He spoke out again making it clear that if (when) the so called Super-Committee failed the DoD and its membership would be left devastated.
In the deal’s second stage, the yet-to-be-named Congressional Joint Commission will have wide discretion on what to agree on, but if no agreement or only partial agreement is reached, the deal’s sequestration mechanism will be triggered. Broadly speaking, if that happens, defense spending will bear fifty percent of the total cuts, with non-defense spending bearing the remaining fifty percent, up to the amount necessary to raise the debt ceiling by the minimum $2.4 trillion required by the deal. This approach risks grave damage to our national security.
There is no strategic rationale whatsoever for cuts of this magnitude. There is, in fact, every strategic rationale to the contrary. While the appropriations process may still be able to decide which specific programs will be cut, this is no consolation. Cuts of this size are effectively indiscriminate.
It’s at this point in which I know I don’t actually need to remind this readership of this blog where the true burden of our tax dollars rest. I’d hope we all know where the rest of this is heading…
I’ll sound the alarm now for the 6.1 million of you whose jobs are tied into defense. Your time is coming in what is referred to by insiders as the coming train wreck. Entire US companies are looking to get out of the business of defending the United States and taking their people elsewhere.
I could point out that for what we spend on Medicare/Medicaid in this country in less than four days we could buy a brand new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. I could point out that once we incorporate the entirety of our tax dollars we spend more than both healthcare and education. I could also say that even with our defense spending covering millions of Americans educations, healthcare and paychecks it’s still approximate to total non-military education spending.
But wait, here’s that slovenly piece of shit from Massachusetts Barney Frank getting all that anger out, from the years in high school he spent getting stuffed into lockers, on the largest group of actual men he can find. Make note of his mention of Ron Paul, nut bag-in-chief.
In part two we’ll get into the human cost of these cuts. The real faces and names of selfless American patriots who are being laid off and, literally, getting kicked to the curb so the welfare pimps and vote buying politicos can stay in office. We’ll start with my beloved sister service, the Navy. Until then please send me your own stories of how these looming cuts are affecting you or your family and links to relevant stories.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:05 am
As much as I would slash and burn entitlement programs, the DoD is not a jobs program. I don’t agree with the level of cuts being proposed, but cuts to defense are as warranted as cuts to every other agency that host horrendous waste, fraud and abuse.
And you’ll excuse me if I don’t let John Bolton get my knickers in a twist
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:14 am
Sure, everyone trips over themselves to point out military program waste and fraud without pointing out all the waste and fraud that goes on in all the other gummint programs, as though the DoD has the patent on wasteful spending. You’re right, CI, the DoD isn’t a jobs program, it’s a defense program. One that is enumerated in the responsibilities of the federal government in that animal skinned thingy called the Constitution. I have no qualms with cutting the defense budget as long as the cuts are across the board, to include all the other government spending, but that’s not what happens or is happening. We have to be honest with ourselves that any cuts to the military budget won’t be a “savings”, because they will turn around and spend that money, taken from the defense budget, on……..say it with me; entitlement programs. If the budget proposal comes out that shows a decrease in the overall budget, then we can talk, but I’m willing to bet a Baconator at Wendy’s that the budget will actually increase.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:18 am
@2 – Nothing there that I disagree with.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:58 am
CI: “…but cuts to defense are as warranted as cuts to every other agency”
Where are those cuts to “every other agency”?
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:10 am
That’s a good question. They haven’t appeared yet…will they appear with a GOP Administration next year?
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:15 am
Having survived military cuts of Carter, Bush I, and Clinton, I can testify that they are done with apparently only an eye to crippling the military effectiveness. You know, kinda like every other gubmint “program.”
There is no notion in gubmint that any of it’s programs actually be effective. They are all jobs programs, and little else.
Occasionally the military is allowed to be mission driven. Unfortunately, following cuts, there is a boomerang effect of costing outrageous sums to catch up to once again become effective.
Anyone who was serving when 9-11 happened knows what I mean. We had aircraft all over the fleet grounded for want of a 98 cent whozzitz. Many of us had not weapons qualified in literally years because we were unable to purchase ammo. And on and on.
Don’t even get me started on the fiasco called BRAC.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:09 pm
This seems to go in cycles…as a war (or two in this case) is winding down or ending, some want to cut the military…then they over do it.
When the next “event” happens in 5 to 10 years, the military isn’t ready and has to scramble and do shit like “stop loss” and call up the reserves to have enough troops to do the job. (I was told twice I was stopped lost since 9-11, so I re-enlisted)
Then some think we can rely on the big fancy stuff….until it’s something like Somolia where only troops on the ground will help the problem.
My vote: Only people who’ve served in wars can get elected to Congress, Senate, and President.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:30 pm
CI: Probably not. Especially while the DoD is so willing to slash itself to pieces so none of the politicians get splashed with political fallout from cutting defense. You don’t see the EPA, Department of Commerce or Ed Department offering up $800 billion budget cuts, do you?
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:45 pm
@8 – It is an odd paradigm. The sentiment of ‘survival as an agency’ is prevalent in every agency, and I wouldn’t discount the DoD generally.
Does Defense somehow have more reformers and fiscal hawks than the other lettered entities?
Of course, for those of the Gaffney school of thought….it’s an act of Muslim Brotherhood subversion…..
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Listen, I would just like to see the civilian part of the military cut, and do something about people retiring one day, going back to work the next day as a civilian. This is rampant in the Technician Program in the National Guard, but I have seen many senior enlisted especially, working with civilian contractors one day, and being a Contractor or DOD, DA employee.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:42 pm
When we cut the numbers in the military, many of them will find work in the private sector; many will not. Some will find themselves at the government teat, (i.e. supporting families with foodstamps and medical benefits). Where is the savings when we cut a man from payroll, and enroll him in a welfare/entitlement program?
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:44 pm
It’s really not complicated. Cut FIRST those programs which are not directed by the US Constitution, then trim the fat from the military. Plenty of time to argue over how best to do that AFTER the stuff in which gubmint should not even be involved is eliminated.
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:17 pm
The only significant difference between Paul and Obama regarding evisceration of the military, fucking over vets and retirees, and endangering national security, is that Paul is marignally more up front (if not honest) about his intentions.
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Some random thoughts:
Which Democratic Senator or Representative will approve cuts to DOD Programs of Record in an election year? Besides those that are retiring?
What capabilities will be lost in this round of cuts? During Bush-41, we lost capabilities that at the time seemed small – aerial intelligence collection, intelligence analysis, and several other capabilities that would have cut our losses to IED in half, if not more. Instead we spent billions recovering that capability.
Now what will it be? Lack of an expeditionary Army? An Air Force with the world’s greatest fighter plane, the Raptor, but they can’t fund the repairs to finally get them in the air?
DOD, the GS side of it, is a two-fold jobs program. Under the Iron Law of Bureaucracy, Civil Service fulfills the role of those that work for the organization: help it grow in power, prestige, and personnel. This means those same civil servants become incompetent to perform the work needed to gain that power, prestige and personnel. So the second fold: contractors are hired to do the work, usually at a higher short term price – but since the GS never regain competency, the contract work force is relatively permanent.
Contractors fulfill the requirements of the organization that contracted them, which is the second part of the Iron Law.
Change THAT law, and you’ll never have to consider cuts to DOD again.
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Look, cuts were already occurring to the defense budget under Gramm-Rudman when the 1st Gulf War happened. Clinton continued tight but reasonable controls over the defense budget throughout the 90′s.
The Army I joined in the late 70′s was pretty trashed, broke, and did not have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of; -that’s the sort of Army to avoid creating through massive budget cuts, and I think the constriction that happened in the 80′s and 90′s managed to keep things sort of level.
Still, by the mid-90′s a lot of commanders were complaining about low budgets for this and that, largely because they had experienced the surfeit of the Reagan years, and sorely missed it.
But the orgy of spending since 9/11 makes the comparatively modest buildup of the 80′s look like kid stuff. It seems like DOD, the intelligence community, and DHS got whatever they wanted, or could think or dream of, and the money flowed in a streamlined fashion straight into contractor pockets. At least in the 80′s what we got for all that spending was new generation vehicles, radios, aircraft, barracks, housing, and something like a living wage.
But now the party is over, and sooner or later you have to chase the drunks, grifters, whores, con-men, profiteers and chiselers the hell off the porch.
All of the people in the beltway who managed to reinvent themselves as experts in bio-terror, IED defeat, data mining, network analysis, and all of the other ancillary profitable sectors of the Global War on Terror will just have to reinvent themselves again, into whatever is the Next Big Thing.
…………………………..
Before he deployed to Afghanistan last year I went to see my son at FT Carson. Went to the motor pool to see what they had, and was surprised to see it chockablock with Abrams tanks and M113′s (being maintained by contractors from Mantech). He’s back now, and out of the Army, and his BN will probably never deploy again, but all the unit will end up with after this long war and river of money is a couple of acres of armored vehicles from his dad’s generation.
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:52 pm
One of the big problems is that big programs are sexy. FCS, JTR, LandWarrior (now NettWarrior), RAH-66, Crusader, LCS, EFV et al. KBR, Cluster Battls, Blackwater/Xe, Triple Canopy. All big payoffs to contractors, lobbyists and pork for Congress Critters.
The KC-X, MRAP, never got the love they needed since they don’t fire a round. Mental health services, family programs, infrastructure. Not sexy.
The problem the civies have is assuming that the military is like a windup toy, there when you need it, put it away when you don’t.
Maintenance, personnel costs, health care…most young GI’s have families at 19-20. It wasn’t a lack of compassion that caused this, but being caught with the pants down (just like in Vietnam).
It’s true, the money flowed like water. But the puzzle palace put too much focus on the teeth and not the tail.
Why hire contractors? We cut the units that did their job and downsized the military as a whole.
We’ve chased the “grifters, whores, con-men, profiteers and chiselers the hell off the porch” and canceled many duds.
The problem is that the Pentagon and Congress love weapon systems but forget about the Joes who maintain them. Instead we line the pockets of contractors and wonder why we hace to cut defense.
In the 1990′s there was no big threat. The Pentagon did some bold thinking..at first. Then Drank the kool aid that lead to the FCS and other boondoggles. While health and vital programs (i.e. KC-X) dry rotted.
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:58 pm
So now we’ll lose skill sets, leaders, and good NCO’s so that the welfare state and the iron triangle can get paid.
Of course the accountants hate service members and veterans. We cost money! How dare we live to collect the bennies we signed up for. Bizmark was no dummy. Pensions at 65 when most Prussians could barely make it to 45.
Expect to see Tricare fees go up. Mental health programs slashed until the bad press bites the DOD. Warrior Transition Units may get shuttered or downsized winding the clock back to the bad old days of 2004 & Walter Reed.
There is talk of a “pick your benefits” plan for new recruits. More like “pick the limited selection of bennies we have chosen” .
I think it’s time to let our voices be heard.
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:07 am
2# “We have to be honest with ourselves that any cuts to the military budget won’t be a “savings”, because they will turn around and spend that money, taken from the defense budget, on……..say it with me; entitlement programs.” This is the key. As much as I think this is completely wrong, if the cuts were across the board or at least the saving used to cut the debt, then that would at least be a philsophically honest position. They’re plaining to pilfer DOD for other pet projects and entitlements and thats wrong.
1# Completely disagree CI. Frankly, there simply isn’t that much waste to cut if you want to credibly project power in the world.
Ohh and Bolton is the man.
#7 “Then some think we can rely on the big fancy stuff….until it’s something like Somolia where only troops on the ground will help the problem.” Only troops on the ground can control terrain and people. We simply have a tiny ground force at present, going back to my above point, there simply isn’t that much to cut. We simply don’t have that many maneuver battalions to begin with.
10# “Listen, I would just like to see the civilian part of the military cut…”
I would add part of the overhead that is the officer Corps of the USA and the redundancy of many HQs personal at the Brigade level and above. No more Strykers.
Also unless the USMC can justify MARSOC, what unique capability seperates it from other Operators or the the line battalions of USA/USMC, it too should be disbanded. The Osprey, which is an expansive, dangerous, and less effective aircraft for too many reasons to list here, should also be replaced with a Helicopter(find out what the USA or USN have found effective).
13# That is something I have always given Paul. He states a position and then you can dispute it. That is not true with the Obamicans.
14#What capabilities will be lost in this round of cuts? During Bush-41, we lost capabilities that at the time seemed small – aerial intelligence collection, intelligence analysis, and several other capabilities that would have cut our losses to IED in half, if not more. Instead we spent billions recovering that capability.”
Our ground forces at the very least will be raped. They will be rendered smaller, harder to deploy, and less effective. The only entity that will escape will be SOCOM.
15#But the orgy of spending since 9/11 makes the comparatively modest buildup of the 80?s look like kid stuff.” No it doesn’t. In the 80s most of that funding went to a “build up” mostly of equipment, in the 2000s, most of that funding went to funding the war fighting itself. Yes some new uniforms, medical advances, and sights came into being. With the exception of Drones, there has not been any serious funding of large acquisitions that have utility outside the current conflicts(think MRAPS or mules).
“…Before he deployed to Afghanistan last year I went to see my son at FT Carson.” Fourth brigade, fourth ID by chance?
“…but all the unit will end up with after this long war and river of money is a couple of acres of armored vehicles from his dad’s generation.” Yep, making my point for me. That doesn’t mean we should just toss all of it, not everything must be replaced.
16# “In the 1990?s there was no big threat. The Pentagon did some bold thinking..at first” They absolutely did not.
17#Of course the accountants hate service members and veterans. We cost money!” This is true, especially with ground forces, most of who’s costs are in personal.
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:03 am
I’ve debated putting my $.02 in. I know for a fact that there are no cruisers to replace the Ticonderoga. The Arliegh Burk is being (over)used to fill the gap. There is nothing to replace the Perry class. They aren’t building the Virginia class fast enough to replace the Los Angles class. The Enterprise should have gone out of service long ago. The Big E has done its bit, and deserves a stately rest her predecessor did not get. That’s just the Navy
The AF needs more C-17′s and to upgrade the C-130′s. Lets not even talk about all the KC’s. They were old decades ago. For Christ sake they’re still using 707′s! the rest of the world ceased to use them in the 80′s! The fact that they had to ground over a third of the F-15′s a few years ago should tell you how big a problem the Eagles have. Also the Falcons and Warthogs are getting old as well. I agree with replacing the Fighters with something newer and better but the Warthogs need to remain essentially the same. Going low and slow is a GOOD thing for CAS mission.
The Army and MC are almost in the exact same boat. All their stuff needs to be replaced. Hands down we need new stuff, because what we have is wearing out fast, and worse, is not as adaptable as it needs to be. We can get into a long discussion about the rotary wing forces, but needless to say they need a serious upgrade.
So if there does need to be a budget cut, it needs to come 10 years from now after the Forces have rebuilt from decades of neglect. The DOD is not a place to “save money” ever. Try to save money, and you’ll end up with SNAFUs like the original M-16 (before the a-1 variant) where Soldiers and Marines would have their weapons jam up on them or become useless after a few shots, all because Machnamera wanted to save a few dollars per rifle(did not chrome the Star Chamber, thinned the barrel, and had unreliable firing pins), and a few cents per round (used stick instead of ball powder). Or perhaps we should talk about people talking Economics in warfare. Should we go back to the days of “dollars per body count”?
If the Dems are all about social issues, what other organization will take poor people from broken homes give them job training in whatever job they desire then pays for college? That crap ass Americorps doesn’t do half the good that the military does. I’m sorry but this whole thing will backfire. I have a bad feeling I’ll be there to see it when it happens.
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:51 am
18#: The Pentagon got into drones in the 90′s. FCS was *supposed* to be about networking. CCO’s, AEGIS BMD, THAAD, JDAM…newer smarter kit. FCS turned into a costly waste. Many programs justed asked way to much from limited designs or were square pegs in round holes (Stryker). When the career field grades (who’ve mostly commanded offices with a/c) start making decisions, things go down hill. Good to see some of them go.
19#: “If the Dems are all about social issues, what other organization will take poor people from broken homes give them job training in whatever job they desire then pays for college?”
Dems hate the military. Ever since the Marxist “New-Left” took over. Homeless “vets” and phony “vets” with “horror” stories are their favs. Vets who just need job training need not apply. Ironic considering the meme they pushed that the military was “overwhelmingly poor and minority”. Yet they gut it.
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:54 am
Oh yea, almost forgot, the lack of C-17s? There goes that focus of teeth over tail. US military cargo should /never/ fly on foreign aircraft. The USAF leadership should be ashamed.
Save more money? Cancel the manned military astronaut program. Military pilots should stick to military missions. If they wanna be astronauts so bad they should join NASA.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:04 am
@18 – ” Frankly, there simply isn’t that much waste to cut if you want to credibly project power in the world.”
I completely disagree that there isn’t waste to be cut…and I would argue that power projection is both not always synonymous with national defense and can be counter-productive.
“Ohh and Bolton is the man.”
Well continue your man-crush, I certainly won’t cut in!
I found a publication that speaks more to our previous discussion than this, but I thought you might find it interesting. I’ve found elements that support both of our points of view on our fight against terrorism.
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Self-Inflicted-Wounds.pdf
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:27 pm
“The Osprey, which is an expansive, dangerous, and less effective aircraft for too many reasons to list here, should also be replaced with a Helicopter(find out what the USA or USN have found effective).”
As a former USMC aviation type, I have to throw a BS flag on this.
The Osprey is no more dangerous (actually, it’s a good deal safer) than any other helicopter in service at a comparable point in its development/deployment. (I can tell you all manner of horror stories about the Huey, Sea Knight, and the Sea Stallion/Super Stallion airframes; I was there for some of it, and those who were there in Vietnam told me the rest.) It’s also a necessity when you consider the risk posed by operating an amphibious force off of a hostile coast; you need the range and speed of the Osprey to conduct Operational Maneuver From The Sea in any but the most permissive environments.
There’s no medium lift airframe available except the Osprey. Starting over from scratch, you’ll waste at least two decades going through the acquisition process, you’ll spend more per unit on your new helicopter than you’re spending now on the Osprey, and you’ll have a very high mishap rate early on in the program due to the hidden “gotchas” that are in EVERY military aircraft RDT&E program.
At the end of the process, you will be back to driving the ‘phibs practically up to the enemy beach a la “The Longest Day,” which neatly solves the enemy’s scouting problem–and the scouting problem is THE problem in naval warfare. Forcing your fleet to be visible to Private al-Snuffy on the beach so that he can call it in to HQ is a very bad move.
Two decades without a viable amphibious assault capability, followed by a horribly vulnerable one, means the end of the Marine Corps. If you really want to kill the Marine Corps, just say so. If you don’t want to kill the Marine Corps (and I don’t think you do), you’re going to need to rethink that premise.
June 30th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
I know this is an old entry, but I pulled it up because of the story attached to this link, about defense contractors like Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies selling software for US military equipment to the Chinese government:
https://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/united-technologies-acknowledges-coverup-of-sale-of-military-software-to-china/
This absolutely pisses me off. These contractors are paying fines up to $75 million, but how is that going to protect OUR military from the opposition?
June 30th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
@23 Poobah…Remember when the Corps had problems with the CH-46 breaking up in flight shortly after it was put into service?
http://www.popasmoke.com/notam2/showthread.php?2221-CH-46As-Breaking-up-in-Flight!!!
June 30th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
No. 12:
You are absolutely correct and right.
Next, persuade and convince Congress (and all their voters first, of course) — to go along with the Constitution .
July 1st, 2012 at 12:18 am
Let’s review the history. Thie whole thing started because the Republicans decided it would be a good idea to play chicken with the full faith and credity of the U.S. Government. The took what has been a routine vote ever since Reagan first started running up these deficits and turned it into a “thing”. Now that the supposed “incopetant and chief” played the GOP they all want to cry to the Principal like school-yard sissies.
If you want this to end the Republicans and everyone else knows what they have to do: raise taxes on those making over 250K. If they don’t want to do that, then they can’t whine about getting beat at a game which they insisted on playing.
Secondly, to quote the tea party faithful. Get your hands off my medicare. Medicare is an entitlement. Meaning we’re entitled to it because we PAID for it.
One of the GOP’s favorite talking points is that “the poor don’t pay taxes” and the reason why they say that is because they leave out fica taxes under the rationale that those go to entitlement spending. The logic being that entitlements only go to pay for those programs. But if you insist on stealing money from medicare and social security to pay for aircraft carriers then stop with the idioitic “the poor don’t pay taxes” talking points. Or better yet, stop pitting spending for the military against spending on entitltements.
I’m not sure why you’re so desperate to shove the poor and the elderly into coffins to pay for a nice shiny new aircraft carrier, but forgive them for not wanting to go gently into that good night.
If you want to make the case that we should spend more on the military make that case. But if you’re going to pit spending on the military against entitlements then you’re going to lose, and lose badly.
July 1st, 2012 at 1:11 am
That’s got to be the dumbest thing i’ve ever read. Not surprising it came from you , instupid. Learn to spell, btw, that’s a start.
July 1st, 2012 at 2:08 am
I know how to spell, redickhead35IQ, (two can play at the re-naming for hilarious effect, game!) . I’m having computer issues.
By the way, it’s quite appropriate that 1775 is in your name because GOP policies seem to want to bring us back to a monarchy.
July 1st, 2012 at 2:16 am
Sure you do, instupid, sure you do. Pretty lame attempt at re-naming.
July 1st, 2012 at 2:33 am
Yeah, cause instupid is fucking brilliant.
If you’ll actually look most of the spelling issues were from adding of letters such as competenty and transposing of letters such as “thie” for this completely consistent with computer issues. My issues are 1. the cursor keeps dancing around and 2. It sometimes transposes letters. The first part is the biggest and most annoying problem though. Pisses me off because the thing is less than 3 months old.
Though i do admit that Ros corrected my spelling of perjorative earlier. I’m actually kind of grateful.
July 1st, 2012 at 2:34 am
I meant she corrected it from perjorative to pejorative.
July 1st, 2012 at 3:03 am
Man it’s easy to get you riled up isn’t it?
July 1st, 2012 at 3:10 am
Insipid: Taxing people above $250k will do absolutely fuck all. We need to cut entitlements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u24nH03NccI
July 1st, 2012 at 3:11 am
Pretty amazing how you’re able to somehow discern my state of mind through the Internet. The truth is I can’t recall anything you’ve ever said getting me “riled” but if it makes you feel good thinking that you’ve revved up the liberal to distraction, I’m glad i could help.
July 1st, 2012 at 3:34 am
Oh, my god what a HUGE liar that guy is. I mean, i’m actually amazed at the sheer depth of propagandizing lies the guy put out. I guess i should of known when i saw the two minutes of that other video that i could stomach when he stated that President Obama was the most liberal Senator on his Fast and Furious hit-piece.
When he stated that entitlements are a redistribution of wealth from people who “mostly don’t pay taxes” I almost threw my busted computer across the room. The entitlements are paid for out of fica taxes and they’ve been RUNNING AT A SURPLUS for almost their entire time. It’s the Republicans that ran up this debt with unnecessary wars and bad economic policies and now they want the poor to pay for it. And on top of that they want to insult the poor by calling them deadbeats and calliong insolvent social programs THEY’VE BEEN STEALING FROM! I mean, that guy really gives a whole new meaning to the word chutzpa. He counts the revenue from those taxes as part of our income when he talks about the “bloated” government but then pretends that the poor and middle class haven’t been paying for them by ONLY counting income tax as “taxes”.
The fact is that if Al Gore had used got to use his “lock box” that you all insulted him for, this would not be an issue. But now that the GOP has created the problem, they can’t solve it off the backs of the poor and elderly.
The solution with you guys is ALWAYS to make the poor and middle class suffer. When times were good and we had a surplus the solution was to “give back” to the rich in tax cuts because according to Bush we’re paying “too much” in taxes. NOw that times are hard because we implimented his idiotic policies the solution AGAIN is to give to the wealthy and take from the poor and middle class.
The poor and middle class PAID for these programs.
The question is this, why is it that you folks always think that beating on the poor will make them work harder but that the way to get the rich to do more is to give them more? Since we gave that idea 8 years and it didn’t work. Maybe it’s time we try things the other way for a while.
Yes, that lying ass video DID get me riled. That guy is a fucking asshole.
July 1st, 2012 at 3:36 am
Inspid, what makes all these government social programs an ‘entitlement’? Why are people ‘entitled’ to something they haven’t earned? Why are people ‘entitled’ to subsidized housing? Why are they ‘entitled’ to food stamps? Why are they ‘entitled’ to free health care? Some things I can begrudgingly agree with. The children of stupid parents, who can’t afford to support their families, shouldn’t be penalized because of their heritage. Free breakfasts and free lunches for those children I can see. Other than that, as I said, no one is entitled to anything they haven’t EARNED.
My father ‘earned’ the GI Bill by landing on Utah Beach on D-Day. He used it to go to ‘night school’ to provide for his children. I ‘earned’ the GI Bill by serving in the Marine Corps. I used it to advance my children. My children have used their ‘advantage’ to further advance my grandchildren. All my grandchildren are now in private school. Why? Because too much funding is lost in public schools by paying for your ‘entitlement’ programs.
July 1st, 2012 at 3:52 am
The multitude and length of your posts tell me everything I need to know about your mindset (May I suggest some anti psychotic medication? you’re clearly in need.), and the position of your head within your fourth point of contact. It’s amazing you reached the age of 47 with your head that far up your ass.
July 1st, 2012 at 3:54 am
Social security and Medicare they most certainly HAVE earned. Every week it’s taken out of my check. I’ve earned it. You can’t 1. say we pay “no taxes” and then take our entitlement money. That’s trying to have it both ways.
Food stamps is a very small part of our budget, Medicaid is a much larger part of our budget but the VAST majority of that is going to very poor children since you’re usually not even elligible unless you have kids. But as far as medicare and Social Security goes, it’s paid for. You don’t get to steal the money just cause you’d rather have a warship.
The redistribution of wealth that guy seems to want is to take the hard earned Social security money and steal it. Plus he just flat-out lied when he said SS is going bankrupt. It isn’t and it can’t. It works as an insurance system, not an investment account.
July 1st, 2012 at 3:57 am
I was responding to a 7 minute video, redacted. My length was appropriate. And if it bothers you, don’t read my posts. I’d appreciate it if you’d stop commenting too because you have nothing to offer but single paragraph insults about my age or what you imagine my occupation to be.
I’m surprised you haven’t bored yourself to tears by now.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:01 am
I didn’t read your post. It’s obviously too retarded.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:03 am
You NEVER read my posts. Or so you say. You call me a troll. Fine, stop “feeding” me.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:06 am
Because you are a troll, nothing you post is actually worth reading. Barely even worth glancing at. And if you don’t want me to respond to any of your pointless, long winded diatribes, don’t bother posting here.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:08 am
By the way I “earned” the GI bill too. I also earned SS and Medicare. I’ve been working and paying into it since 17, despite what that fucker says.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:09 am
Besides, I doubt anyone else here needs me to point out how blatantly fucking ignorant you are.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:16 am
The one who is actually exhibiting “trollish” behavior here is you. All my posts were at least tangentially on point and thus far I’ve simply been enduring insults from you. The fact that anyone disagreeing with your point of view is threatenining to you indicates that you really can’t defend it. If my posts are so “retarted” then they should be easy for someone of your supposedly superior intellect to take apart. And you don’t have to come here either if you don’t want to read any of my “pointless diatribes”.
One of the very few points i agreed with him in that video is that it is wrong for folks to “shout down” those they disagree with.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:18 am
So what did i say that was “ignorant”? Was I wrong about Social Security and Medicare coming out of fica tax? Was i wrong about them operating at a surplus? Was i wrong about them being taken from? Pray tell what specific fact did i get wrong? Please, enlighten the “fucking ignorant”.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:23 am
Pretty much everything you post is ignorant. I don’t think you’ve ever actually won a single arguement here.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:25 am
You think Nobama is one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history based solely on his skin color. THAT alone makes you ignorant. (AND racist, FWIW.)
July 1st, 2012 at 4:29 am
In other words, you don’t have shit. Your refusal to counter even one of my assertions means i certainly “won” this argument (notice how i give you the benefit of the doubt that your mispelling of “arguement” was a typo- it’s called being an adult- try it!). Plus someone declaring themselves a winner is not the same as actually winning. Yes, you’re right many people here are much better at self-declarations of awesomeness then i’ll ever be.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:31 am
See? Pure ignorance. Bye bye now.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:33 am
No, i think he’s a great President because he rescued us from a second great depression, i think he’s great because he’s provided health care to tens of millions of people, i think he’s great because he ended discrimination in the military, because he’s helped people go to school, because he reformed debit card fees, i can go on and on and on as to why i think he’s great and NONE of it has to do with his skin color.
And WIW is nothing.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:37 am
Insipid, did I mention Social Security or Medicare? I pay taxes to both programs so they’re something I’ve ‘earned’. I’m talking about the programs I mentioned. Subsidized housing, reduced or free school lunches, or people that pay so little into the system, that their contributions are negligible. People with no health insurance that use ERs as their PCP. Why are stupid people, that reproduce without thinking of the cost of raising children, ‘entitled’ to anything? As I said, I won’t begrudge children, who were unfortunate enough to be born to stupid parents, a meal. My ex-wife and I, both college graduates, decided we could afford three children. By afford I mean feed and clothe, provide for their educations, etc. As I mentioned before, my grandchildren are in private school where my third grade granddaughter is on par with her fifth grade public school cousins! So much money is being lost to your ‘entitlement’ programs that children of middle class parents are being robbed of their chance for a better future.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:38 am
LOL. What a toolbox. All of our entitlement programs are fully funded and not going broke at all, except the republicans stole that money so they’re going broke unless we raise taxes on people making over $250k.
You’re a fucking child, insipid, and a boring one at that. Things cannot be both fully funded and going broke, unless those things are set up to be broken from the start (in which case, those things need to be fixed, not run into the ground as you suggest).
The cost of a single warship is not even a rounding error in entitlement spending, but that single warship has a dramatic effect on our nation’s ability to defend itself, provide foreign aid, or project influence.
Tell us why fully half of the projected spending cuts from the failure of the super committee deal should come from 19% of our spending. Tell us why that’s a good idea, when Russia is starting to act up, China is pressuring our allies from the South China Sea, and the Middle East is in turmoil.
Tell us your ideal level of military spending. How big should our military be? How many naval ships should we have, and what missions should they be able to perform? Should we be like Britain, with destroyers that had missile systems that could not communicate with their guidance and detection systems, no aircraft carriers, and a dwindling fleet of serviceable aircraft? Should we be like most other nations, surviving off of old cold-war era Soviet relics? I’m interested to know what your vision of our military should be.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:39 am
He is incompetent, plain and simple. And everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a racist. Yet more proof of how ignorant (and racist) you are. You’re not fooling anyone dude.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:44 am
Well, the ACA actually addresses one of those problems you listed, the people using the emergency room for primary care. The video that got me riled was referring to social security and medicare as entitlement programs and saying THOSE need to be gotten rid of. Right or wrong, the days of people getting “free” money are over. Welfare generally has a work requirement, in order to get medicaid you usually have to have children, so most of the programs you don’t like already ARE going to children.
Plus, generally speaking, if you’re hitting downwards, you’re usually hitting the wrong target in my opinion. The poor did not cause this economy, i’m not sure why they should bear the brunt of damage caused by banks and bad policy.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:50 am
In 11 years IF NOTHING IS DONE the Social Security will not be running at a Surplus. That does not mean it will be broke or stop functioning. The only reason why there will be any problem AT ALL is because Republican policies caused the problems.
To use the Presidents analogy, you drove the nation into the ditch. That doesn’t mean the national car can’t drive fine if we get out of it.
I’m not saying that there are no problems but the solution lies in doing something similar to what Reagan did, not in embracing Ryan’s austerity.
July 1st, 2012 at 5:13 am
The cost of a single warship is not even a rounding error in entitlement spending, but that single warship has a dramatic effect on our nation’s ability to defend itself, provide foreign aid, or project influence.
————————————————————-
That may very well be true but entitlements are paid for out of fica taxes. Fica taxes which you are using to buy warships and THEN claiming that the poor don’t pay taxes.
What bothers me is the dishonesty in accounting. He doesn’t count fica as taxes because those are entitlement spending. But he ALSO counts them as part of the budget. If he doesn’t wants to keep bitching that the poor don’t pay taxes then he should keep his hands off of fica tax and ONLY use them to pay for the entitlement programs they are supposed to go to. How is that unreasonable? How is the notion that we should get what we paid for all of a sudden Commie-pinko?
=============================================================
Tell us your ideal level of military spending. How big should our military be? How many naval ships should we have, and what missions should they be able to perform? Should we be like Britain, with destroyers that had missile systems that could not communicate with their guidance and detection systems, no aircraft carriers, and a dwindling fleet of serviceable aircraft? Should we be like most other nations, surviving off of old cold-war era Soviet relics? I’m interested to know what your vision of our military should be.
————————————————————
I actually think it should be at 5 or 7 percent. I don’t really feel that any nation poses us a viable threat and the threat of terrorism isn’t as effectively fought with cold-war armies. But if you want it to be 20% or 50% I don’t care as long as you can find a way for paying for it without stealing from the safety net. I don’t think i should lose SS or Medicare because you want a warship. And if you do want to take my SS and Medicare money to pay for the warship can’t you AT LEAST do me the courtesy of acknowledging that i helped pay for it?
July 1st, 2012 at 6:18 am
“That may very well be true but entitlements are paid for out of fica taxes. Fica taxes which you are using to buy warships and THEN claiming that the poor don’t pay taxes.
What bothers me is the dishonesty in accounting. He doesn’t count fica as taxes because those are entitlement spending. But he ALSO counts them as part of the budget. If he doesn’t wants to keep bitching that the poor don’t pay taxes then he should keep his hands off of fica tax and ONLY use them to pay for the entitlement programs they are supposed to go to. How is that unreasonable? How is the notion that we should get what we paid for all of a sudden Commie-pinko?”
………………………………………………..
He counts it going out because it’s money going out. He counts it coming in because it’s money coming in. FICA, in that video, is broken up into the different payroll taxes (your buddy Obama has signed a cut to those, adding to the problem of underfunding entitlements. Where’s the outrage, insipid?) that FICA covers.
Let’s say your FICA payments are $200 per month. Do you honestly believe you will be using $200 per month on those programs by the time you need to use them? FICA CANNOT COVER THE COSTS OF THE PROGRAMS IT WAS DESIGNED TO PAY FOR. That’s the major point of the video you don’t want to see. We’re borrowing money to cover the costs of these programs, as their costs spiral out of control.
The “poor”, roughly 50% of the people in this country, don’t pay federal taxes. Federal taxes are where warships come from. Federal taxes are also where things like food stamps and housing assistance programs come from. People without skin in the game reap benefits at the expense of other, more legitimate government functions. And we borrow money to cover the cost.
…………………………………
“I actually think it should be at 5 or 7 percent. I don’t really feel that any nation poses us a viable threat and the threat of terrorism isn’t as effectively fought with cold-war armies. But if you want it to be 20% or 50% I don’t care as long as you can find a way for paying for it without stealing from the safety net. I don’t think i should lose SS or Medicare because you want a warship. And if you do want to take my SS and Medicare money to pay for the warship can’t you AT LEAST do me the courtesy of acknowledging that i helped pay for it?”
…………………………………..
That’s the mindset that got alot of our boys killed in WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. We don’t need a big military, until we do. Then, we draft up young kids and send them to die with inferior equipment and insufficient training. By the time they’ve died valiantly in a delaying action, we’ll have the ships built and the equipment made to arm the second wave. Brilliant stuff, insipid.
We aren’t “stealing from the safety net” to fund the military. The “safety net” has encroached on military funding, with it’s ever-expanding and “untouchable once they’re in place” functions. As you said, FICA is a separate thing, strictly meant to fund a few select programs. Yet it cannot fund the programs it intends to fund by itself. It requires borrowing or dipping into other sources of revenue. This should be fixed. You say it is just fine (when you’re not saying Bush broke it, of course). And if it makes you happy, thank you for helping to fund warships, insipid. Congrats, you’re a fucking grown-up for paying your taxes.
I’m interested to know when you think a safety net has ceased being a safety net and has started to become a way of life. Is it after two years? Five years? Never? Why should we provide a “safety net” that makes the user of that net comfortable in using it? What is their motivation for getting off assistance, if staying on assistance means getting everything they want and not just HELP getting what they need?
July 1st, 2012 at 7:21 am
insipid: for someone who claims to work for a law firm, you’re actually appallingly ignorant of the law.
In Fleming v. Nestor, the SCOTUS determined more than 50 years ago that entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare are not contractually binding on the government. Legally, the fact that you’ve paid into the programs you cite above – e.g., Social Security and Medicare – means absolutely nada. Your past payments were taxes, not investments. You have absolutely zero ownership interest in anything under either program.
You will only receive what the government deems you should receive from Medicare and Social Security. Should the government change it’s mind and decide to scale back or terminate either program, all it needs to do is change existing law – as it almost certainly will be forced to do before you’re eligible to use either. You are not legally “grandfathered” and you will have no legal recourse whatsoever.
Don’t believe me? Read the decision yourself. Have someone explain it to you if you’re incapable of understanding it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=363&page=603
July 1st, 2012 at 8:34 am
As I’ve explained numerous times to our perpetually dense back-alley slap fighter, perhaps he should go to his local SSA office and as to see the balance in “his” account and see how long it takes for the laughter to die down.
And scooter? Anyone who thinks having your money ripped from you AND your employer with no guarantee you’ll ever see it and with the “average” recipient seeing a rate of return just under 1% is a good deal is a fucking moron. I could have taken what the govenment has confiscated from me over the last 30 years and invested it myself and have many times what the goverment forecasts I will be “entitled” to even if I max out and don’t retire until age 70.
That’s assuming I see anything at all by then.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:20 am
@60 Hondo- I understand that Hondo, in fact THAT’S MY POINT. The poor DO PAY TAXES. This guys saying that the poor DON’T pay taxes and that there’s been a transference of wealth to the poor because he’s ONLY counting income tax. But fica taxes ARE taxes and they’ve been treated as such for 70+ years. Furthermore the fact that they’ve been running AT A SURPLUS shows that the transfer of wealth has actually been going from the poor and middle class towards the wealthy. That’s indicative of the growing disparity of numbers. It’s one thing for the guy to poing out, correctly, that most of the money in our budget is going to entitlements, it’s lying through his teeth to say that they’re not paid for.
You want to take the money and spend it on wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, fine, but you can’t turn around and then claim that the people you’ve taken the money from “don’t pay taxes”.
Furthermore, while they are treated as taxes there’s no reason why they can’t be treated responsibly. Al Gore had a ridiculed plan to put that money asside, which is also perfectly legal and sound policy. George W. Bush decided he’d rather spend it on unnecessary wars. While both sides take from the funds, Republicans have been far worse and then cry that the programs that they stole from our in a “crises” in order to justify stealing more from them (and i’m using the word stealing figuratively here- there’s a difference between legal and right.)
Furthermore while you are correct that there is no LEGAL obligation to pay that money back there is certainly a moral obligation to pay it back. If it comes down to a choice between an aircraft carrier and chemo therapy for a 67 year old man I’m sorry, the aircraft carrier is going to have to wait. And if you’re going to take money from the chemo patient to pay for an aircraft carrier you can, at the very least, not insult the man by saying he’s never paid taxes.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:28 am
@61- Sparky and as i’ve explained to you MANY TIMES, there is no balance because SS is an INSURANCE POLICY and NOT a pension fund. There’s no money in “my account” if i buy auto or fire insurance, but that doesn’t mean they’re ripping me off. Thus if you have a stroke and become disabled while replying to me you will be permanently taken care of by THE INSURANCE POLICY, which would not necessarily be the case if you took that money and “invested in yourself”. SSI has been one of the best “deals” in our countries history. It is garunteed basic sustenance in case if a disaster happens or if you become too infirmed to work due to old-age or because a Republican has tanked the economy and all the money you “invested in yourself” has gone down the drain. But it is not a pension, nor has it been run as such.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:48 am
A) In order to pay FICA taxes one has to have a job. I’ll allow you to do the research on how many of those on welfare do not have one. B) You conveniently left out the fact that not only do employers (those pesky people making over $250K per annum) contribute an equal amount in FICA taxes per employee, they actually were bound by law to contribute 2% more in FY2011. C)There is a cap on SS FICA withholdings for employees, though not employers, meaning that the majority of those monies are NOT contributed by employees, rather they are funded by employers who are increasingly given less incentive to keep those employees because they cost more to support due to the government’s Blood-from-a-Turnip mentality.
Now, where exactly are those FICA taxes being withheld from my unemployed neighbor with 5 kids who receives a tax refund check of nearly $9K, monthly food stamps of nearly $1k, free medical, etc? Please explain to me how she’s “paid into the system and earned her welfare”.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:50 am
@59 Teddy- While it’s true that Food stamps are paid for largely out of income taxes it is NOT TRUE that SSI and Medicare are “spiraling out of control” the programs have been running at a surplus for the past 70 years. What’s “spiraling out of control” is the vast amount of money we’re spending on the military industrial complex. While these programs are projected in the FUTURE to run at a deficit, there is absolutely no reason why these programs can’t be fixed. They’ve been fixed in the past and Democrats AND Republicans have agreed to do so. The fact is that these programs have been subsidizing the military and other programs you guys love for decades. If it comes to the military needing to “subsidize” those programs then so be it.
By the way, i do not think that’s the best solution. I would rather go with “my buddy” Obama’s “grand bargain” where revenues are increased slightly and there are slight adjustments to the fund. But Republicans don’t want to discuss revenues so here we are.
We had a pretty HUGE military budget in Vietnam and Korea. Having a huge military budget is not nearly as good as having sound foreign policy if you want to avoid getting soldiers needlessly killed. It’s better “policy” not to elect folks like George W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:57 am
insipid: You really need to work on getting your facts straight when you comment here. I never said the poor pay no taxes. The working poor certainly pay Medicare and Social Security taxes – assuming they’re working “on the books” vice “off the books” for cash, of course. In many cases, that’s about the only taxes other than sales taxes they pay.
That fact – as well as your entire reply above – is also irrelevant to the whole point of my previous comment. You really do need to work on your reading comprehension.
My point – which should have been obvious to anyone with normal reading comprehension skills – was that you were wrong in asserting that you are owed anything from Social Security or Medicare because “we paid for it”. In fact, regarding Social Security and Medicare you did not “pay for” a damn thing – you merely paid your taxes as required by law. Your reward for doing so was (1) not being prosecuted for tax evasion, and (2) a future promise, revokable or modifiable at any time that Congress desires, from the Federal government that “we’ll give you something later”. That’s it. You got absolutely nothing else. You own nothing; there is no contract; and you have no recourse if Congress changes the law.
Let me spell it out for you: what you paid for with your Social Security and Medicare taxes was SOMEBODY ELSE’S Social Security and Medicare benefits. When you are old enough to receive benefits – assuming the programs are still around and haven’t collapsed like the financial house of cards they are – SOMEONE ELSE will pay for your medical and retirement benefits.
And moral responsibility to take care of anyone? Congress? Really? Give me a freaking break. Ask older military retirees about how well the Federal government does in keeping its promises about future medical care. After a few minutes of cursing, I’m certain they’ll be more than happy to tell you just how well the Federal government does on that score.
Last item: it rather undercuts your argument when you get your facts wrong and insult the wrong person for something they never said. But we’re kinda used to that from you, insipid – as well as the fact that you constantly miss the point of arguments made by others.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:59 am
Well, there is a work component in welfare, Ros, so you’re just wrong. There hasn’t been a vast amount of “free loaders since Bill Clinton reformed welfare in 1996. And the employers are not paying into SSI out of the goodness of their heart but it’s part of our compensation program. Just like they pay for insurance as part of our compensation program. And they reap enormous rewards for it because there aren’t elderly clogging up the city streets. You act as if these programs have not produced enormous good for the country for the past 70+ years (43 for medicare).
I’m NOT the one being unreasonable here. If “your buddy” Ronald Reagan were here, responding on this board, he’d be siding with me, not you all. There’s no way in the world Ronald Reagan would be advocating the Ryan Budget or doing in with the programs entirely to pay for war ships! He’d be advocating the same thing President Obama is advocating, mild adjustments in revenue and spending in order to work out an equitable arangement that doesn’t involve old-people in the streets or getting rid of our military entirely. Why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition?
July 1st, 2012 at 11:02 am
Hondo, NHSparky, Marine7002, ROS, I posted an entry on this column regarding the sale of classified software for military equipment by defense contractors to the Chinese government, per se:
https://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/united-technologies-acknowledges-coverup-of-sale-of-military-software-to-china/
This, in the face of DoD budget cuts, appears to be an intentional act meant to impair the ability of our troops, all services, to defend themselves when in harm’s way. There was no reference in my post to anything else. There are references by ChockBlock and Doc Bailey (see above) and others to lack of needed equipment and lack of repair and replacments to needed equipment. NO OTHER SUBJECT was addressed or intended to be addressed.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:11 am
I didn’t say you said that, but THE VIDEO most certainly DID say that and that is what i was responding to. And it was clear i was responding to the video, so if anyone needs to work on “reading comprehension” it is you. Also, i HAVE spoken to many military men and women that are actually pretty happy with the VA. In fact out of all the health care providers, generally the VA gets the higheset scores.
Furthermore, even if i were to give you that there are peole who have not received all that the government has promised them in the past, why does that necessitate the government not performing in the future? The problems that need to be solved does not require massive Paul Ryanesque gutting of all these programs but merely Ronald Reagan style adjustments. Either way these programs are, by no means, the cause of the budget “Crises” should not be done by eviscerating these programs. In fact, these programs, since they’ve been operating at a surplus are the only things that have been keeping us afloat at all.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:18 am
@68- the Point of this blog post was to state that entitlements are somehow ripping off the military. I don’t see how i’ve been taking this off topic. As far as i can see from the post this IS the topic.
I’m not sure why it has to be either or. Why some feel that the only way to fund the military is to destroy the safety net or vice versa. The two have been co-existing for 70+ years, they can continue to do so. But if your desire is to protect the military, i would suggest that you not pit it against SSI and Medicare. My feeling is that if that proposition is put to the voters the military will be on the losing side of it.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:36 am
No, Insipid, I am not. It is you, again, who is in error. The work contingent for assistance is that you must LOOK for employment if you are not employed, and if you ARE employed, you do not have to STAY employed. I know this because my eeeeeevil, uncaring, insensitive Republican self has driven her to several of her interviews and job training appointments as a favor to her father, who happens to be a friend of mine. That was only when her live-in boyfriend wasn’t available to take her in his 2010 Jag, though.
Keep on believing that the system is falling apart at the hands of big meanies who just want to fight wars and make children and the elderly cry. The fact is that abuse of the system costs exponentially more than those warships of which you’re so scared.
As for lack of equipment, etc, PH2, it’s only going to get worse in the face of the forthcoming cuts. As Jonn oft says, it’s the military upon whose backs the budget is balanced, and not rightfully so.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:37 am
Hondo, why do I even try?
July 1st, 2012 at 11:39 am
Next time I find something of interest to people who have a valid reason for posting comments on this board, I’ll send it to Jonn.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:44 am
We call these tangents. They happen all the time and even Jonn – as omnipotent as he is – cannot control what people say in their posts.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:48 am
@71 Ros. You’re confusing unemployment insurance with welfare, Ros. There is a work component to welfar, not unempoloyment insurance. Medicaid operates at a 3% overhead and SSI operates at a 1% overhead. I doubt if there’s a lot of fraud.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:49 am
Understood, but I’m disappointed that the real issue, which is the illegal sale of classified military software to the Chinese government, was deflected by a self-involved attention junkie when it could have been discussed in a valid way by veterans and active duty alikje.
The impairment of our troops to defend themselves against an enemy that has acquired our military design, construction, and operational information from defense contractors is the most egregious thing I’ve heard of in a long time, and will have long-term consequences to land, sea and air troops.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:53 am
I’m NOT on a tangent. Here’s what is written on the original blog:
I could point out that for what we spend on Medicare/Medicaid in this country in less than four days we could buy a brand new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. I could point out that once we incorporate the entirety of our tax dollars we spend more than both healthcare and education. I could also say that even with our defense spending covering millions of Americans educations, healthcare and paychecks it’s still approximate to total non-military education spending.
How am i going on a “Tangent”? This is what the blog is about.
July 1st, 2012 at 12:01 pm
For whatever it is worth, i AM a veteran. Furthermore if there are veteran benefits being cut i’m entirely with you that this is wrong and should be prevented. If you want to organize a march or someone to sign a petition, i’m with you on that one. However i do believe that there is billions in waste that can be cut from the military without effecting pay or benefits.
July 1st, 2012 at 12:08 pm
I’m not confusing sweet fuckall, thank you. I just pointed out how you were wrong and it’s completely lost on you. I’m now even more convinced that you’re mentally handicapped.
As for the article, PH2, I found this comment particularly ironic:
“The Justice Department will spare no effort to hold accountable those who compromise U.S. national security for the sake of profits and then lie about it to the government,” Lisa Monaco, the assistant attorney general for national security, said in a statement.”
This administration has, to date, not placed much value on secrecy or security (other than job security for themselves).
July 1st, 2012 at 12:17 pm
I’m sorry, shit for brains (LOVE the ad-hominems!) but the looking for work requirement is most definately a part of unemployment and there IS a work component to welfare:
http://www.sbls.org/index.php?id=68
And here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112601034.html
I know…Liberal media….blah…blah…blah.
July 1st, 2012 at 12:20 pm
“I doubt if there’s a lot of fraud.” Well, when you have this, http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=27115 . And the SS Administration says this asshat in a diaper is NOT committing fraud, I doubt they’ll find much fraud anywhere.
July 1st, 2012 at 12:27 pm
There would have been a comma had I been referring to you as “sweet fuckall”, but thank you for proving my point.
Did you even read the requirements at the link you just posted? Seriously???
Allow me……
Single parents must work at least 30 hours per week, with the first 20 hours from any of the following activities:
Employment
Work experience program (WEP)
Job placement by the Human Resources Administration (HRA)
On-the-job training
Job search (for up to 6 weeks)
Community service
Vocational educational training (for up to 12 months)
Providing child care to someone doing community service.
Where does it say that a person must STAY employed? Did you just miss the part about 60% of “work” hours may be comprised of looking for a job, babysitting, or community service? Really?
And a person is exempt under these conditions:
The parent or caretaker relative of a child under 1 (for 3 months per child up to a total of 12 months)
The caretaker of a disabled household member
Pregnant and 30 days from due date.
How difficult do you think that is to achieve when said person is 26 and just had her 5th child???
Christ, you’re ridiculous.
July 1st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Well,if they have a child under 1 years old, then they ARE working. What, motherhood is only valued when it’s a Romney doing the mothering?
And spending 30 hours a week searching for jobs (for 6 weeks) or training for a job is not just receiving a hand-out. Plus there is also a lifetime limit on welfare in most states it is 4 years. Either way no one is living large on the government dime without having any requirements. This has not been true since 1996.
July 1st, 2012 at 1:04 pm
I have 4 kids. Don’t fucking preach to me about motherhood. That said, I also have 2 degrees and a job from which taxes are taken to pay for everyone else’s kids.
You’re misguided, woefully ignorant, and a complete waste of oxygen. Thank you for your service. I’m certain BO thanks you for your service to him as well.
Have a lovely fucking day. Or don’t, whichever.
July 1st, 2012 at 1:17 pm
ROS: obviously insipid has little or no experience with British English.
For your benefit, insipid: the term “fuckall” is a crude British English expression approximating either “a damn thing” or “not a damn thing”, depending on the specific context and usage. Obviously you didn’t have a clue as to the meaning of the term since you took it as a personal insult instead of it’s usual meaning.
Once again, you’ve shown yourself inferior to those you wrongly consider intellectually beneath you. Perhaps one day you’ll learn you are indeed not omniscient, but are instead virtually omnifallible. (The stopped clock principle requires I insert the modifier “virtually”.)
July 1st, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Ex-PH2: Why do you persist? The old proverb “Where there is life, there is hope” comes to mind. It’s at least theoretically possible that insipid will one day learn he (see comments on this thread for my rational on use of the male pronoun: http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=27209 ) is not infallible and begin to use the basic principles of logical argument.
How likely? That is indeed the $64 question.
July 1st, 2012 at 1:56 pm
insipid: your diatribe in comment 62 above in response to my comment 60 addressed me by name and implied I had made statements I did not. Were that not your intent, you would not have found it necessary to address me by name and then later say “you want to take the money . . . . “.
Restrict your comments to what I’ve said – not what you think I might mean, or what you wish I’d said. Your track record on correctly deciphering what people here at TAH mean is rather poor.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:34 pm
But in my response at #62 I used the words “this guy” clearly stating that i was referring to “the guy” in the video and NOT you. So again, it is you that has the problems with reading comprehension.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:42 pm
@85- Granted i never heard the term “fuckall” before but in the way she used it my interpretation of it being a pejorative was not unreasonable, especially given the fact that she ended her paragraph by saying that i was mentally handicapped. So don’t pretend she’s an innocent flower viciously slimed by the liberal bully.
All that being said, i do hereby and humbly apologize for calling you “shit for brains”.
Also, Hondo, i would like to thank you for, at the very least, acknowledging that the poor and middle class DO pay taxes. So as you have hope for me, i have hope for you.
July 1st, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Insipid…in your benumbed little mind you may wonder how people survived without government largess. In most RATIONAL minds we wonder how we’ve gone this long with all these leeches sucking OUR money without someone starting another revolution.
And for the record…tell the tens of millions who never saved a dime for their retirement because the federal government sold them a load of horseshit their bare subsistence is somehow “insurance.” Seems to me that when I buy insurance I have an expectation of coverage in the event of…wait for it…CATASTROPHIC OCCURANCE. An INVESTMENT is something I do in order to plan for future expenses such as kids college, RETIREMENT, shit like that.
Now go fetch your fucking shine box.
July 1st, 2012 at 5:46 pm
And you do get paid for, wait for it, CATASTROPHIC OCCURENCE (notice again how i don’t harp on the typos of others?) It’s called SSDI. Having insurance does not preclude you from saving in some other fashion, but if the bottom falls out on your investment portfolo or if you are, god forbid, disabled, you have a fall back if you need it.
Millions of people didn’t “save a dime” before SS existed. SS was created to solve that problem. And it worked tremendously well. So to answer your question, people did not survive very well at all before SS and Medicare, elderly poverty was well over 50% and sickness was bankrupting people on a regular basis. Here’s the full text of one of the original court cases regarding SSI that does a pretty good job of explaining the problem that SSI was addressing:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html
There’s a reason why these programs are popular.
But if the Republicans want to run on the elderly being “leeches” and that we ought to do in SSI i’m cool with that.
I don’t have a “shine box” but if Romney manages to weasel his way into office, i might need to get one.
July 1st, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Another reason why SSI was created was because a lot of folks DID save for retirement only to have their retirements vanish in the FIRST Republican great depression. Thus the need for an INSURANCE plan to supplement a regular savings plan.
July 1st, 2012 at 8:13 pm
insipid: it’s not me you need to apologize to. Try apologizing to ROS. She’s the one you called “shit for brains”.
By the way: ROS doesn’t need my protection in any argument here. She’s more than capable of taking care of herself in that respect. She also has even less patience with fools than do I.
My intent in providing the definition of “fuckall” for you above was to remove one minor point of ignorance from your prodigious store of same. I see I was successful. Reducing that prodigious store to more or less normal size is obviously a Sisyphean task, but sometimes I’ll attempt one of those anyway.
Now, regarding your latest attempt at after-the-fact justification for your bogus comment 62 above: not even a “nice try”. The fact that you referenced another person’s speech in that comment is solidly in the “true but irrelevant” category. It justifies neither the fact that you deliberately avoided addressing my point nor the fact that you attempted to speak for me.
You failed to address my point, which is that YOUR Social Security and Medicare taxes buy YOU “fuckall”; rather, they buy SOMEONE ELSE retirement income or medical care. Quit trying to obscure the fact that you were wrong by bringing up non sequiturs.
Later in that same comment, you impute to me motives and opinions I never voiced by your accusation – clearly directed at me – that I “want to take the money and spend it on wars and tax cuts for the wealthy”. That was not only a transparent attempt to put words in my mouth; it was also clumsy at best.
I can and will speak for myself, insipid; don’t attempt to speak for me. You’re at best marginally competent to speak for yourself.
July 1st, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Spasiba, Hondo.
It would appear that we’ve our own sort of affirmative action for the “less fortunate” going on; we’re so sensitive and noble.
July 1st, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Ros, i do hereby humbly apologize. I should of addressed you specifically the first time.
As far as the rest goes. Most of the post was directed at the youtube guy. When i used the term “you” i was speyaking in terms of “you republicans”. So I take it from your denial that you think that taking the money from fica and using it for the military is improper? Bully! We have agreement that 1. the poor pay taxes and 2. The fica money should not be used for the military. I’ll make a liberal out of you yet!
(does happy converting Hondo dance).
Or did i put words in your mouth again?
July 1st, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Not to be the last word freak. Which i guess i am. The accusation which you claim I attributed to you “the poor don’t pay taxes” i clearly was referring to the YOUTUBE guy and not you. Here is the first paragraph:
====I understand that Hondo, in fact THAT’S MY POINT. The poor DO PAY TAXES. This guys saying that the poor DON’T pay taxes and that there’s been a transference of wealth to the poor because he’s ONLY counting income tax. ===
Not only did i not avoid your point, i agreed with it. And i did it again in a later paragraph. However your initial contention that I was falsely attributing to you a lack of understanding of fica tax is clearly false.
While it’s true i wasn’t as clear in the later paragraph that i was addressing youtube guy and not you, that fact could be reasonably inferred from my previous rant about the video. Either way your wrong when you say i didn’t address your point and you’re wrong when you say i attributed a false statement concerning fica tax to you.
And… you were also wrong about the PPACA too. The mandate, like Fica is a tax.
(runs and hides)
July 1st, 2012 at 9:28 pm
====You failed to address my point, which is that YOUR Social Security and Medicare taxes buy YOU “fuckall”; rather, they buy SOMEONE ELSE retirement income or medical care. Quit trying to obscure the fact that you were wrong by bringing up non sequiturs.====
So we agree that they’re insurance policies too? Because what you described is EXACTLY the way insurance policies work!
Wow man…. So much agreement.
KUMBAYA, MY LORD, KUMBAYA! KUMBAYA MY LORD! KUMBAYA! KUMBAYA MY LORD KUMBAYA OOOOOO LORD….KUMBAYA!
July 1st, 2012 at 9:59 pm
insipid: that would be a “no”. Social Security and Medicare are income transfer programs – AKA “welfare” – regardless of their formal titles. Both are primarily welfare for the aged, but in some cases also provide benefits to selected groups of younger individuals.
Insurance is a commercial product, is voluntary, and is supported by voluntarily paid premiums. I also believe there is a legal requirement for insurance policies to be backed by tangible assets. In contrast, Social Security and Medicare are welfare programs which transfer income from one group (those working) to another (the aged, disabled, or survivors of same). They are backed by no tangible assets. And as is the case with all other welfare programs, they are supported solely by funds raised through compulsory taxation.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Insipid, I’d like to ask you a sincere question. Why do you keep posting here? Obviously you’re an uber-liberal while we span the range from conservative liberals to strident conservatives. I am a semi liberal conservative socially but very conservative fiscally. You know what Einstein said about insanity and actually i must apply it to both sides of the argument. You’re NEVER going to change anyone’s mind here and we’re never going to change yours. Just asking.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:27 pm
I believe the full faith and credit of the United States is a tangible asset. At least it works when you pay the rent and buy groceries.
ALL insurance is technically an “income transfer program” if you buy fire insurance you are not entitled to the money back if you don’t have a fire. But you still expect payment should a fire occur. That’s income transfer from the guy who had the fire to the guy that didn’t. Likewise with SSDI or SSI. If you get struck by lightning and die on your 65th birthday you don’t get anything, but you also get paid every month if you live to be 150. That’s insurance.
While not every individual person volunteered to join the SSI program, the program remains by far the most popular government program. It is a program that solved a significant crippling problem. It does exactly what Lincoln and Hamilton described as the role of Government: it does for society what we as individuals cannot do. It’s a great program that has transformed are nation for the better.
Maybe you upset that you can’t win an election on getting rid of social security, but it’s not tyranny. I was pretty upset when my side lost in 2004, if may of felt like tyranny to me at the time, but it wasn’t. If the people wanted to get rid of SSI they can.
July 1st, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Who the hell wants to only talk to folks they agree with, Yas? If your beliefs can’t stand scrutiny, what good are they? That’s one of the reasons i love Obama. He always at least listens and tries to work with the GOP. As he said to a group of college students if you’re only talking to people you agree with then politics is always going to dissapoint you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CemfB_Z6elY
He gets a lot of shit for passing a Heritage Foundation health care plan and working with industry on environment issues and for not breaking up the banks etc. etc. But Clinton tried single payer and failed as did a host of other Democrats. And Democrats also back- handed Presidents like Nixon who made honest efforts to work on the issue.
But President Obama got it done. Unfortunately he didn’t get the cooperation from Republicans he wanted, but that’s not through want of trying. But even though he didn’t get their cooperation he got a bill through precisely because it was just corporate friendly enough to prevent the full-scale war that Clintons plan invoked.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:21 pm
“As he(Baracka) said to a group of college students if you’re only talking to people you agree with then politics is always going to dissapoint you:” Oh man, you really are delusional…
All he does do is talk to his echo chamber.
“and working with industry on environment issues”? LOL, it’s really getting crowded under that bus. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/us/epa-crucify/index.html
“Crucify them” isn’t exactly working with industry.
July 1st, 2012 at 11:28 pm
No. 1 CI:
Do you possess a reason for denigrating AMB BOLTON ??
July 1st, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Insipid, I love a good debate. One of my closest co-workers is a somewhat conservative Democrat and what I respect about him is he will concede a point when it’s been proven as will I. With respect, you won’t. HE concedes that too much money is being spent on entitlement programs. For fiscal year 12/13 welfare programs were allotted 452 billion dollars, public education was allotted 153 billion dollars. Three dollars for welfare programs for every one dollar for public education. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my 3rd grade private school granddaughter is at the same level as her 5th grade public school cousins. Tell me that isn’t an indictment of the public educational system because of lack of funding. That and the uber-libelist of academia.
July 2nd, 2012 at 3:05 am
Yes, saying “I won” to shut down debate, closing the republicans out of the writing of Obamacare, and his famous “republicans put the car in the ditch, now you just sit in the back and shut up” speech is totally “working with the republicans”.
July 2nd, 2012 at 4:28 am
@ 104. The last sentence should read, “That and the uber-liberalism of academia.” Ooops!
July 2nd, 2012 at 5:36 am
#104- I just conceded a point on this very thread, Yat. Hondo said that, legally, SSI na Medicare are under no obligation to do anything for you, and he is right. It’s not like too many folks are conceding my points either. Even the very basic facts of SSI and Medicare being insurance they won’t concede.
Plus, I’m not the one being unreasonable here. Most people here seem to be arguing that we get rid of the entire social safety net. Not fix the quite fixable problems with it, the way Reagan and Tiop O’Neil did, but just end them altogether. If you’re holding that view, there’s not a lot of room for concessions on my part. That’s the equivelent of me arguing that we should pretty-much decimate the entire military. Outisde the bubble of this forum, the vast majority of the people would certainly side with me on these issues.
Welfare payments have been large for the past several years because we’ve been in the midst of a horrible recession. As stated earlier, most of that money is going to food stamps and children. You conceded in a previous post that we shouldn’t let kids go hungry, that’s what these welfare payments are doing. I think in order to qualify you have to be making less then 15K a year and have a kid (i didn’t look up the numbers, Hondo).
July 2nd, 2012 at 5:53 am
@102- An EPA official says a dumb thing and resigns over it, this is indicitive of Obama how? There’s massive amounts of e-mails disclosed about how he worked with industry on the ACA and he also worked with industry on millage standards:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/how-liberals-win.html?_r=2
He didn’t “close Republican’s out of Obamacare” there were thousands of meetings taking place over the course of a year and a half in which Republicans offered thousands of amendments. We delayed passage of the bill for months so that Baucus could try and convince Snowe and other moderates to come on board. Plus it IS basically a Republican bill. It’s pretty much the same bill Bob Dole wanted in 1994, it’s the same bill Romney would of tried to pass if he got in 4 years ago. It’s not a vast government takeover but a competitive based model. He didn’t run on, nor try and pass single payer, for instance.
If the world made sense the Republicans would simply take credit for the bill, high five eachother that the stupid democrats finally came around to their way of thinking, and move on to other things. But when he got into office they embarked on a no-compromise strategy to the detriment of the country.
July 2nd, 2012 at 6:27 am
My whole take on the Obamacare issue is this…I DON’T TAKE CARE OF OTHERS!
Let me explain, I am a parent. I brought two AWESOME little boys into this world, and with the help of their mother (my amazing wife) we take care of them because they cannot take care of themselves.
I REFUSE to take care of some adult that REFUSES to do anything for himself/herself. I will NOT pay for some tramp to get knocked up because she wanted to bang dudes at her sorority social, and then want an abortion.
I will NOT pay for some fat ass to sit on the couch after working a job where he sits on his duff everyday and then gets diabetes. Sorry, fatty, get off your ass and go to the gym or go run.
It comes down to this…people need to learn to be responsible for their own actions. Take care of yourself, eat right, exercise, don’t do stupid shit that will get you hurt, and for the love of GOD…please stop screwing around with every boy/girl/thing you run into…
STOP putting your stupidity on me!
July 2nd, 2012 at 6:28 am
@107 Insipid. If I mis-spoke I apologize. You are 100% correct that I would never deprive a hungry child a meal. I guess what torques my ass is the minimum wage parents who know “someone else” will pay for their children. Because they know the system will cover them, they keep pumping out kids. As I mentioned before, I have to pay the Maricopa county assessment on my house and I have to pay the $150 a month, my part, to put my granddaughter through private school. This coming Aug., I’ll have to double that because my 2nd granddaughter will start school. I guess what chaffs my ass is that in 6 years, “Little J” will be four years ahead of her PS cousins. What will the difference be by the time she graduates from college? Who is more likely to be receiving “public assistance”? She will be paying taxes to support her cousins because their parents weren’t smart enough to get their education or didn’t care to practice ‘family planning’.
July 2nd, 2012 at 7:06 am
No, insipid. Insurance requires a contract, called a policy, and imposes legally enforceable contractual obligations on each party. These obligations are (1) the payment of premiums by the policy holder and (2) the payout of contractually-specified amounts by the insurance provider in response to the occurrence of events or conditions defined in the contract (payment of claims). Non-performance by either party releases the other from it’s contractual obligations. And such non-performance can be challenged in civil court as a breach of contract, with the injured party requesting the court to compel the other party to fulfill their contractual obligations.
As you’ve now (finally!) conceded, for Social Security and Medicare, THERE IS NO CONTRACT between the individual and the government. The government can change or end either program tomorrow, and in that case an individual has absolutely no legal recourse. All you did was pay your taxes as required by law. Since there was never any contract, the government has no contractual obligation to do anything.
Therefore, despite misleading names to the contrary, no contract means Social Security and Medicare are NOT insurance. Rather, both are inter-generational income transfer programs designed to support the elderly and selected younger persons using income taken from younger American residents in the form of FICA and Medicare taxes. Put plainly, each program is a form of welfare for the aged – nothing more, and nothing less.
Social Security and Medicare were mendaciously sold as “retirement savings” and “insurance” programs by FDR and LBJ, respectively, in order to make them more palatable to a gullible American public. And politicians from both sides of the political aisle have continued to use those inaccurate terms ever since, generally because they don’t have the guts to speak truthfully and call them what they are – welfare programs.
July 2nd, 2012 at 7:26 am
And with SSDI, there is NO obligation or set standard which defines “catastrophic”, as evidenced by the fact that my late father who had Stage 4 lung cancer could not use SSDI, but adult babies and others who game the system are.
Sorry if my spelling isn’t up to your standards insipid but being that I have no spell check on this phone it’s easier said than spelled. Amazing how I lost my cell signal over an hour before I got here but they have WiFi.
Now if we can get you to admit that in fact the poor do not in fact have an overall tax burden…
July 2nd, 2012 at 7:31 am
insipid: you’ve also attempted above to change the subject regarding another point I raised. Frankly, I’m rather surprised no one else ripped you a new anus for this one.
Specifically, I’m talking about the promise the Federal government made to military retirees for decades (literally) concerning lifetime medical care for themselves and their families. When I raised that issue, you changed the subject (comment 69), bringing up the irrelevant points that you have “spoken to many military men and women that are actually pretty happy with the VA. In fact out of all the health care providers, generally the VA gets the higheset scores.” (direct quote)
Any discussion of VA medical care is completely irrelevant to the point I raised. The VA system’s mission is not to provide medical care to military retirees and their families. Rather, the VA exists to provide treatment for all veteran’s service-connected medical issues. The VA is not obligated to provide treatment for medical conditions not incurred or aggrivated by a veteran’s military service. In general, it does not provide medical care for a veteran’s dependents. It is run by an entirely different department of the Federal government, is not funded by DoD (the VA makes its own budget request and receives and manages the funding it receives from Congress), and runs its own separate medical system from that of DoD.
As a veteran, you should know all of this. Indeed, one is appallingly ignorant if they are a veteran and don’t know all of that; it’s covered quite clearly during outprocessing for separation. I’m therefore forced to conclude that your bringing up VA medical care in this context was a deliberate non sequitur intended to deflect attention away from a point you cannot address.
The point I raise is relevant to a discussion of the future of Social Security and Medicare because it shows – very clearly – that the Federal government will modify and/or break past promises if future financial pressures dictate. They’ve done so repeatedly during our history. My example is only one of many.
July 2nd, 2012 at 8:43 am
@103 – “Do you possess a reason for denigrating AMB BOLTON??”
Where did I denigrate him?
July 8th, 2012 at 11:10 am
At 111, Hondo-
=============================================================
No, insipid. Insurance requires a contract, called a policy, and imposes legally enforceable contractual obligations on each party. These obligations are (1) the payment of premiums by the policy holder and (2) the payout of contractually-specified amounts by the insurance provider in response to the occurrence of events or conditions defined in the contract (payment of claims). Non-performance by either party releases the other from it’s contractual obligations. And such non-performance can be challenged in civil court as a breach of contract, with the injured party requesting the court to compel the other party to fulfill their contractual obligations.
==========================================================
Well, there has been the payment of premiums by the policy holder that has been happening without fail for 70 years for SSI and 45 years for Medicare. While Sparky continuously makes the point that you can’t go to an SSI office and see the money in your “account” you CAN ask them what your payouts will be based upon the amount of money you placed into it. While it is technically possible for the Congress to abolish SSI payments it is as feasible as Barney Frank or Rush Limbaugh (non-partisan!) running a 4 minute mile.
The court case you love to refer to, Fleming v. Nestor made it very clear that the courts and Congress cannot act capriciously. That one cannot have their SSI taken away without some form of due-process. Just as the government can’t put you in jail without due process. While I actually side with the minority in that case- denying someone SSI for being a Communist is far too close to a loyalty oath for my taste- it was adjudicated based upon a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Furthermore if your SSI is taken away it IS possible to fight for it in a court of law. The case of Fleming v. Nestor (which refers to SS as an insurance program 35 times) proves that it is possible to fight for it.
While you are correct that there is no physical contract there is a social compact. You can use the “no contract” argument to state that ALL Government-run insurance such as unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation, is “welfare”. Hell, why stop at insurance? Going by this “logic”, you’re receiving government “welfare” when you ride on the roads, enjoy police protection, safe food, safe drinking water etc. etc. etc.. Government provided security and infrastructure is STILL a security force and infrastructure despite the fact that there is not an individual contract with everyone that enjoys it. Government services do no act precisely the same way that their analogous private companies do. But that’s not always a bad thing either. Before the PPACA if an insurance provider denied your coverage based upon a pre-existing condition, your only recourse would generally be to hire a lawyer and sue in Civil Court. Try getting the CEO on the line? But at least with a government provided program you can call your Representative.
The recent Supreme Court case on the PPACA (remember? The one I got right and you were completely wrong about?) illustrated an important legal principle: One decides what something is based primarily on what it does. In the case of the free-loader provision of the PPACA the mandate brings in revenue like a tax, it is enforced by the IRS code, it is either waived or paid on our IRS forms.
By your own admission, SSI acts as insurance. As you stated so eloquently ” YOUR Social Security and Medicare taxes buy YOU “fuckall”; rather, they buy SOMEONE ELSE retirement income or medical care.” This is insurance, that is what SSI and SSDI provides and they have been doing so for 70+ years. Fire insurance buys me nothing until I have a fire, disability and old age insurance buys me nothing until I become disabled or elderly. But if I don’t have a fire, I still get my money’s worth in piece of mind. Likewise I, and most everyone else, happily pays into SSI knowing that should they become old or disabled and unable to work, that SSI and SSDI is there for them.
July 8th, 2012 at 11:12 am
At 113- Hondo.
I served in the National Guard for seven years, not active duty. Thus I’m not elligible for VA benefits
.
July 8th, 2012 at 11:36 am
Insipid: social security taxes (FICA and Medicare) are just that – taxes. They are not insurance premiums. Stop paying FICA taxes and the government won’t cancel your participation in social security – the will send you to jail for tax evasion.
Both the SSA and IRS explicitly call them taxes:
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/392/~/what-is-the-meaning-of-fica
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc756.html
And Federal Law defines them to be taxes. And, further, they’re collected as taxes directly from payroll. They also apply to both employers and employees.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-C/chapter-21
Quit grasping at straws and admit you’re wrong, fella. They’re taxes, plain and simple. They’re not insurance premiums in any way, shape, form, or fashion. There is no contract, so there’s no insurance policy with Social Security. You go to jail if you refuse to pay vice losing insurance; ergo, they don’t “act” like insurance premiums at all – they act like taxes. And Federal Law, the IRS, and SSA each identify them as taxes.
By any chance, do you have an uncle named Wittgenfeld?
Different subject. Regarding VA medical care: OK, so you were ignorant. Do I take it you now admit that your bringing up VA medical care was a non-sequitur and is irrelevant to the discussion?
July 8th, 2012 at 11:59 am
insipid: Please cite where I ever said Congress did not have the power to impose the individual mandate penalty as a tax. You can’t – because I never made that statement.
What I did say was that the language of the statue establishing the individual mandate penalty very clearly states that the individual mandate penalty was imposed as a penalty and was not a tax. I further stated that Congress was illegitimately using it as a tax vice a legitimate tax penalty. Further, I also clearly stated that there were legitimate ways for Congress to do exactly the same thing. You might want to review this comment: http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=29492&cpage=3#comment-613829 in order to refresh your memory.
In that same comment, I also clearly indicate that this individual mandate penalty will indeed function as a de facto tax, even though technically as the law is written it is a penalty. And in fact, the first portion of Roberts opinion explicitly agrees with my characterization of the individual mandate penalty as a penalty vice a tax. Indeed, Roberts had to do so to even consider its legality. Otherwise, the SCOTUS would not have had jurisdiction to consider it for nearly three years.
Further: my primary objection to the individual mandate – which I’ve clearly voiced many times – has always been with the concept that Congress had the power to compel purchase of a good or service under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Roberts’ majority opinion clearly and unambiguously denies Congress that power under either of these Constitutional clauses (Syllabus, pp. 2-3, and Roberts’ opinion, pp. 16-30). At least he was thinking clearly when he wrote those portions of his opinion.
You would know all of the above if you could (a) keep your facts straight and (b) if you’d bothered to read the actual SCOTUS opinion. Obviously, you can’t do the former, and you don’t seem to have bothered to do the latter. It’s no wonder you’re “working discovery” instead of doing legal research.
Further: if you’d actually bothered to read the Chief Justice’s opinion in NFSB et al v. Sebilius – or if you did read it, if you could actually comprehend it – you’d know that Roberts’ opinion is a textbook example of inconsistent legal reasoning and circular logic when it comes to the nature of the individual mandate. Specifically, in his opinion Roberts first holds that the individual mandate is not a tax but a penalty, then later decides it is a tax after all. In effect, he’s ruling that it simultaneously is and is not a tax. Such inane sophistry – in this case, from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – is one reason why the legal profession is held in such distain by virtually everyone in America outside that profession.
Some legal background for you, since you dearly seem deficient in that respect: the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 USC 7421a) explicitly forbids virtually all a priori Federal suits brought to prevent taxes from being assessed. (All exceptions noted in 26 USC 7421a appear to deal with tax liabilities that have already been assessed or levied, but not yet collected.) In virtually all cases, one must first pay or be assessed the tax in question; only after that has occurred can one file a suit alleging that the tax is legally defective. Congress has the Constitutional authority to restrict Federal Court jurisdiction in exactly this manner (see Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution). In passing the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, Congress has removed taxes that have not yet become effective from the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Since the individual mandate penalty does not become effective until 2014, if it is in fact a tax Federal Courts are therefore barred from considering its validity by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act until no earlier than April 16, 2015 – the date on which 2014 income taxes become overdue.
Therefore, in order for the legality of the individual mandate “penalty” to even be considered by the SCOUTS, Roberts was forced to hold that it was not a tax. In his opinion, Roberts held (Syllabus, p. 2, and Roberts’ Opinion, pp. 11-15) that Congress did not intend for the individual mandate to be considered a tax and that the individual mandate was therefore not a tax under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act. This was necessary to allow the SCOTUS to consider the legality of the individual mandate at all. If the individual mandate were in fact a tax, SCOTUS consideration (indeed, consideration by any Federal Court) would be barred until after it had become effective and someone had challenged the legality of the tax in Federal court. As noted above, that could occur no earlier than 16 April 2015.
However, later in the same opinion, (Syllabus, p. 4, and Roberts’ opinion, pp. 33-41), Roberts rules that the individual mandate is in fact a tax – irrespective of the plain language of the statute or Congress’ intent in establishing it. He therefore engages in perfectly circular logic. Roberts first ruled that the individual mandate was not a tax but a “penalty”, thus bringing consideration of its legality within the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS; he then ruled that it is indeed a tax after all and can be imposed – notwithstanding the fact that if it is indeed a tax, the SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction to even consider its legality for nearly 3 years. The Devil himself would be proud of this twisted abuse of logic.
In effect, Roberts’ opinion states that the individual mandate is simultaneously not a tax (so that its legality may be considered by the SCOTUS at all) and yet is at the same time in fact a tax (and thus may be imposed by Congress). Perhaps you can explain how it is and is not a tax at the same time. It is a principle of elementary logic that a concept and its negation (e.g., “is a tax” and “is not a tax”) are mutually exclusive. Who knew that Coleridge was writing about events nearly 180 years after his death when he penned his famous definition of sophistry?
Regardless, I’m glad to see that you publicly admit – again – that the current POTUS and his Administration have been lying through their teeth on this issue in claiming that the individual mandate is not a tax. As of a few days ago, the Obama Administration still was making exactly that claim. And I believe I’ve seen them make the same claim multiple times since then, too.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/white-house-roberts-obamacare-mandate-penalty-tax/story?id=16679772
July 8th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
ALL government services are paid for through taxation. A tax can perform two functions it can be a penalty for not buying insurance as in the PPACA or for buying cigarrettes. Likewise fica payments act as premiums collected through taxation.
Again, if you use this logic there is no such thing as government provided services- they’re ALL welfare. Unemployment insurance and workman’s compensation are also collected through taxes (though generally it’s the employer that pays them).
While it’s true that there is a greater penalty for not paying taxes then there is for not paying a premium the fact is that SSI, unemployment insurance, Workman’s compensation and medicare address much more expansive problems, involve virtually everyone and thus requires virtually everyone to be in the pool. It’s the exact argument for the PPACA by the way.
July 8th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
insipid: The fact that all government services are paid through by taxation does not change either the nature of FICA and Medicare taxes (they’re NOT insurance premiums) nor the fact that both Social Security and Medicare are income transfer programs (AKA welfare) targeted generally at the aged. You just made an irrelevant red herring/non sequitur argument – again. Stick to the subject under discussion.
If you actually have a valid argument that FICA and Medicare are not tax-supported income transfer programs, go ahead and try again. Otherwise simply confess you were wrong and own up to your mistake.
July 8th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Well, you, not surprisingly, completely misunderstood Roberts reasonining. Here’s what he actually found:
=============================================================
But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as
a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act.The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.
=============================================================
In other words, Congress created some ambiguity in how they phrased the law and it is the main function of the Courts to clarfy that ambiguity. Had they called it a tax in the statute then the Anti-injunction act WOULD ba applicable and there would of been no reason to adjudicate whether is is or is not a tax. The mandate is now and always has been a tax.
As far as incomprehensible decisions go, that belongs to the minority on the court. At the one hand they state that the Commerce clause can be used to regulate private use of wheat but it cannot be used to regulate a comodity- health insurance- that 1. you can demand service for by going to an emergency room and 2. the choice of not buying it directly effects how much we all pay 3. Is a product that can be taken across and used over state lines. If there has ever been a product that allowed for substantial government regulation, it is health insurance and the idiot minority decided they can’t because of…brocoli. This is grade school legal analysis which- is why it probably appeals to you.
I’ve ALWAYS stated that President Obama was lying in regards to the ACA act being a tax. Here’s what i wrote in the previous blog post:
============================================================
This is one of those instances where both parties are being somewhat dishonest because of hopes to further themeselves politically. President Obama refuses to call it a tax because it- along with the increased taxes on cigarretes is a clear-cut violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than 250k. The GOP won’t call it a tax because they think it will make it easier to kill the law in courts and they think mandate makes the law sound extreme and unheard of.
=============================================================
So yeah, Obama did lie in that case. He did so because he didn’t want to go down the George H.W. Bush road of violating a tax pledge. I do think President Obama is a great man and a great President, but he’s still a politician. All of them will lie at one time or another for political reasons. Abraham Lincoln lied about casualty figures, as you pointed out FDR lied about SSI being a pension plan. The Republicans also lied in the above case because they felt that a “mandate” is eaier to fight in court and because they felt that, politically, they can make it sound scarier than a tax. So neither side was 100% honest here.
But at least PBO’s lie was to provide health insurance to 10s of millions of people, reduce medical bankruptcy, and save lives. The GOP’s lie was to prevent all that from happening.
In any case, if you want to compare PBO’s honesty with Mitt Romney’s that’s a discussion i’d welcome.
July 8th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Fica is a tax and it is an income transfer program, which is precisely what insurance IS. It seems like if there’s anyone here who needs to “fess up” it’s you, Hondo.
July 8th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Did you really just validate an Obama lie by blaming it on Bush I? And you wonder why every argument you make is invalid….
July 8th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Actually i didn’t “validate” the lie. I explained it. And i wasn’t talking about George the son, but George the father. And George the father actually did an extremely honorable thing. He raised taxes for the good of the country even though he knew he’d take a political hit for it.
Unfortunately the apple, in this case, fell VERY far from the tree.
But pledges like that, i believe, are stupid no matter who makes them. A tax bill should be evaluated as to whether or not the good of the measure outweighs its cost, not on some arbitrary “read my lips” statement or even a pledge not to raise taxes on those making below 250K.
Yes, Obama twice raised taxes on those making below 250k. Once when he raise the cigarette tax and again with the mandate. In both cases I approve of those taxes as being for the good. It was the pledge that was dumb, not the tax.
July 8th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
insipid: bullshit. Read the forking opinion. Have someone explain it to you if necessary.
As I noted above – and as you accurately stated – Roberts first held that the individual mandate penalty “is not a tax for the purposes of the (Tax) Anti-Injunction Act”. He then went on to hold, later in the same opinion, that it is indeed a tax.
The individual mandate penalty is either a tax or it is not. If it is a tax, per the Anti-Tax Injunction Act the SCOTUS did not have jurisdiction to consider it until 16 Apr 2012. If it is not a tax, then the second portion of Roberts’ opinion is ridiculous – as it is self-contradictory. In either case, it is logically invalid. Only the fact that it was issued by the SCOTUS allows it to remain controlling. In any other case, a superior court would overrule it.
This is a situation accurately described by Boolean logic. Something either is or is not a tax. And in Boolean logic, it is logically impossible for something and it’s negation to be true simultaneously.
July 8th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
YOu can say “bullshit” all you want. And i DID read the opinion. But, unlike you, i actually understood it. He was not simultaneously saying that it is and isn’t a tax, he was stating that the anti-injunction act did not apply because there was ambiguity as to whether or not it is a tax. As clearly written in the above post, the fact that the legislature failed to call it a tax meant that they did not want the anti-injunction act to apply.
I can quote passage after passage from the opinion itself. You’re not going to win on this one, no matter how much the peanut gallery proclaims your dominance.
July 8th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
If you failed to note the circular logic in Roberts’ opinion, insipid, you obviously failed to understand his opinion. His opinion is internally contradictory.
And, by the way: both you and Roberts are technically citing the wrong law, at least by name. There are at least two “anti-injunction acts”. The one Roberts cited is generally cited as the “Tax Anti-Injunction Act”. It was passed in 1867 and is currently at 26 USC 7421a, as Roberts’ states. However, the law Roberts erroneously named, the Anti-Injunction Act, is generally held to refer to 28 USC 2283. That portion of Federal law covers a different subject entirely – e.g., Federal courts ordering stays of State court proceedings. Roberts got the citation of the section of Federal law correct, but botched the name of the act he was citing.
July 8th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
“Fica is a tax and it is an income transfer program, which is precisely what insurance IS”. Insurance is a tax? Really? So, if I don’t pay a monthly premium, the insurance company can attach my paycheck? And, my insurance is transferring my income to who, exactly?
July 8th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Shhhh…stop it North. Using facts and logic on the boy just confuses him.
July 8th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
The purpose of the Anti-Injunction Act was to prevent people from delaying the implimentationo of taxes through Constitutional challenges. For this end, Congress mandated that you must actually pay the tax BEFORE you challenge the validity of the tax. However if there is ambiguity in the law, that does not preclude The Courts from looking at the law, even if the law is a tax. Again, if the mandate HAD read as “tax” instead of “penalty” the Anti-Injunction act WOULD have gone into effect. The law could still be challenged, but they’d have to wait till 2014 to do so. But because of the ambiguity in the law it could be challenged now. In other words, if Congress didn’t want the mandate challenged on tax grounds, they would of called it a tax and thus forced us to wait till 2014 to find out if the thing is Constitutional.
As stated in the opinion:
============================================================
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility
payment from those who do not comply with the individual
mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution,
but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction
Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–15.
=============================================================
In other words, if Congress didn’t want us to consider the Consitutionality NOW they would of simply called it a tax in the statute and saved the courts the trouble. As stated later in the opinion: There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would apply to a “penalty.” In other words, the courts cannot consider whether or not a tax is Constitutional until after it’s paid but they can consider whether a penalty is Constitutional before it is paid. Because Congress called it a penalty and not a tax the Court was entitled to review it. Upon reviewing it they decided it is a tax, regardless of what they call it.
July 8th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
@128- Government works in a different way than the private sector. A security guard can’t write you a ticket or arrest you. A police officer can. That does not mean the police officer does not provide security or vice versa. Fica payments are insurance payments with the force of law added to them.
The argument that a government provided service ceases to be a service simply because it isn’t 100 analogous to private service is. Virtually all government entitities carry the force of law, including insurance. However just because unemployment, workman’s comp, medicare and SSI are not voluntary does not make them cease to be insurance.
July 8th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
I meant 100% analogous above.
July 8th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
So one simple question for ya insipid–if Teleprompter Jebus was so right about Obamacare, why are 1-people getting hammered worse than ever on premiums, 2-employers are OPENLY shoving their employees onto high deductible plans if not outright telling them they would rather pay the fine/taxcome 2014, 3-doctors are refusing to take ANY new Medicare patients, or 4-simply quitting practicing medicine?
Welcome to Canada. Great system, IF you can get in. Which brings me to my last question/point: I just got back from a little vacation up north. Why is it the hospitals and clinics in northern Vermont and New Hampshire are comparable with those in cities/towns several times their size, and why do their parking lots have so many cars with Canadian plates in them?
July 8th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Well, there’s almost 13 million people set to get refunds from insurance this August. The key provisions regarding mandates and insurance subsidies do not go into effect until 2014, but already the law is doing a lot of good. Seniors are saving money on the donut hole, millions of Americans are enjoying free preventive screening. Kids lives are being saved because they are no longer denied because of pre-existing conditions. Over 6 million young people are allowed to stay on their parent’s insurance.
Most Canadians are actually happy with their health care:
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/07/canadians_satisfied_with_healt.html
I will face up to the notion that there is a longer wait for non-emergency care in Canada.
I’ll also stipulate that when the PPACA goes fully into effect in 2014 there is very likely to be longer waits, especially before the system adjusts.
But likewise if you took 50 million people off the roles you’d also get less of a wait time. Hell if you took 100 million off the roles you might have a return to Doctors making same-day house calls. If your only goal is to prevent wait times, then ANY expansion of coverage will go against that goal.
Which brings us to the question, What the fuck do you want? This law is largely a Heritage Foundation law. It’s the law that Bob Dole proposed, it’s the law that Newt Gingrich championed and it’s the law that Mitt Romney passed!
So laws that were Republican ideas, that are based on the Conservative principle of being against “free riders” are now outright tyranny?
It seems like you (i’m using the you to mean “conservatives on this board” so back off Hondo!) don’t want medicare for all, hell you don’t want the medicare for SOME that we have now. I assume you don’t want people to be able to get free medical care without paying for it, so does that mean you want people to die in an emergency room if they can’t produce their insurance card? Or jail sick-people if it turns out they can’t pay? Do you want us to be COMPLETELY at the insurance companies mercy, finding out when you actually NEED the insurance that “sorry, we can’t pay for your chemo because you didn’t report a hangnail you had 22 years ago”. Is there ANY regulation to insurance that you would find acceptable? Or is somehow the free market fairie going to magically make the insurance companies pay for necessary treatments?
Because right now it seems like Alan Grayson was right, the Republican plan is to “Not get sick, and if you do get sick to die quickly.”
July 8th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
insipid: you do realized you just endorsed the use of absolutely circular logic as proper when interpreting the law – don’t you?
It’s either a tax or it isn’t. It can’t be both simultaneously. We’re talking the real world, not debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
July 9th, 2012 at 3:17 am
That’s the minorities spin on what Robert’s did, Hondo. But that’s not actually what Roberts did. There’s nothing “circular” in deciding that a case is ripe for consideration bbecause of ambiguity in the statute, or barred from consideration because it’s not ambiguous. Again, the SC would be barred from considering a “tax” but they’re not barred from considering a “penalty”. The Congress called it a “penalty” which allowed the SC to consider it. Nothing “circular” there at all.
But even if Roberts did decide that the anti-injunction act applied, so what? It would STILL be found Constitutional when considered in 2014. The law wouldn’t change, just the timing of when it is considered.
July 9th, 2012 at 5:38 am
No, insipid – the “ambiguity” is in considering something to be “not a tax” in order to have jurisdiction, then turning around several pages later and saying that it is indeed a tax after all. And that’s not “ambiguity” – it’s circular logic. “It’s not a tax, so I have jurisdiction to consider it in the first place. But after considering it, I realize it’s a tax after all.”
Hello, Mr. Chief Justice – if it’s a tax after all, then you didn’t have jurisdiction to consider it in the first place! Even a bright middle-school student can see the logical flaw here. It’s obvious as hell.
However, the fact that you either (a) can’t see that, or (b) see it but won’t admit that the reasoning is bogus surprises me not a whit, insipid. That’s standard past practice for you.
July 9th, 2012 at 6:15 am
Are you being purposely obtuse in an effort to drive me crazy? Short of breaking it down by sylables I’m not sure how i can make it more clear. The Anti-Injunction act did not apply because the Legislature called it a penalty and not a tax. If the Congress wants to insure that taxes are not looked at, prior to their inactment it is up to them to invoke the anti-injunction act by actually calling a tax a tax. Courts are allowed to consider penalties before they become inacted, but they cannot do that for taxes. Because the Congress called it a penalty the courts were allowed to consider it. I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.
So yes, i suppose that on the one hand they said it wasn’t a tax for the anti-injunction act and it was a tax in a Constitutional sense. But so what? The Constitution and the AIA are two different documents with two different purposes. The purpose of the AIA is to insure that people aren’t delaying the implimentation of taxes through the misuse of lawsuits. The purpose of the Constitution is to provide a framework for the running of the Government.
The AIA is invoked by Congress when they call something a tax. If they fail to call a tax a tax then it’s not invoked and then the Constitutionality of the tax can be considered. Just because something isn’t a tax based on the AIA doesn’t mean it’s not a tax under the Constitution. They’re two different documents with two different purposes.
But no, Roberts never simultaneously said that it is and isn’t a tax. He just stated that because the Congress didn’t call it a tax the AIA isn’t invoked.
July 9th, 2012 at 8:44 am
insipid: Are you purposely avoiding the issue because you have no rational counterargument? Roberts’ opinion is logically inconsistent – so badly so that a 7th- or 8th-grade student studying elementary algebra or logic can see the problem.
You’re also being hypocritical and trying to have it both ways. Above, you attempted to claim – for quite a while, and maybe still do in spite of being proven wrong – that FICA and Medicare taxes were not really taxes at all, but were instead “insurance premiums” because they had the same effect as actual insurance premiums. You were wrong. Here, Roberts makes exactly the same type of claim – he ruled that something Congress declared not to be a tax is in fact a tax because it has that effect. However, in order to make that ruling, Roberts first had to rule first that it is not a tax – otherwise Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to even consider it.
In short, Roberts’ contradicted himself within a few pages. Something either is or is not a tax. If the individual mandate “penalty” is not a tax, the second portion of Roberts’ ruling is superfluous – because he’s merely expounding on a hypothetical matter vice ruling on a specific issue of law. But if it is instead a tax, then Federal court jurisdiction does not exist to even consider it until April 16, 2015.
Oh, and please use the correct name for the section of Federal law in question. It’s correct common title is the TAX Anti-Injunction Act. As I’ve previously advised you, the “Anti-Injunction Act” is a totally different portion of the USC. The fact that the Chief Justice got the name of the law wrong is insufficient justification for you to continue to do the same after that matter has been brought to your attention.
July 9th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Not only did the Chief justice get the title “wrong” but so did Ginsburg and so did Scalia (assuming he wrote the dissent). And so did all the clerks that worked on it because the thing is called the anti-injunction act all throughout the decision. And I’d venture a guess that if i read the briefs and memorandum it would probably be called the Anti injunction act throughout.
You seem to think that if you can “get” me on semantics you’ve won some kind of great moral victory or you’ve proven some kind of major point. I can just see you pounding the keyboard furiously saying “It’s 16.2%, not 15%!” or “It’s the TAX Anti-Injunction act!” and then you high five all your friends and down a beer in celebration of your “proving” the inferiority of the liberal intellect. And if you really think these semantic wins are great victories then I’m happy for you. Glad i can help. But to me, if you really need to latch onto minutia then you’re recognizing that your overall point is pretty cruddy.
Either way, I’m not playing the game. Minutia may be important to you, it’s not to me.
As far as PPACA goes, the fact that you STILL don’t get it at this point just baffles me. I hope you’re just egging me on to see how basic i can make what is actually a very simple concept of their being two different thresholds for two different things. Kind of like the “Whaaaaat doooooeesss a yellllloww liiiiiiggght meeeaaaan?” scene in Taxi. You’re just trying to see how “slow” you can get me to go.
Only ONE court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit thought that the TAIA (compromise! i include tax but abbreviate from now on!) applies. Furthermore NEITHER side thought that the TAIA applied, the court actually had to appoint an amicus to argue the point.
Congress obviously did not want the Mandate considered a tax for the purpose of Judicial revue. As pointed out in the decision Congress called taxes “taxes” in other parts of the bill, so obviously they felt that the ACA should be considered as a penalty. But as i pointed out, CORRECTLY in the other thread, a tax is considered a tax based upon what it does, not based upon what they call it. The Constitution itself has five different words for tax. The ppaca functions as a tax. It is not so larger than the thing the tax is encouraging people to buy- health insurance. There’s no criminal penalty for not paying it, the worst they can do to you is take it from your tax return. It’s enforced by the IRS, not the police. It’s a tax according to the Constitution and applicable law. But because the Congress didn’t call it that, opting for the word “penalty” instead, the courts were allowed to consider it. Two different things, two different criteria. The concept is not really that hard to grasp.
July 9th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
I meant to say that the tax does not cost more than health insurance costs above. I hate that i can’t edit.