I do laugh every time that Obama spells it out as simply as possible: He was against mandate but now realizes that it's necessary. It is nice to be constantly reminded that public policy is driven by elections in which the voters have no understanding of the issues.

I understand that it takes a few seconds of thought to understand, bu it's one quarter of the respondants in the poll.

Insurance only works if you can't buy it after you need it? That's hardly a flaw in the bill, it's the fundamental concept of all insurance.

One conservative radio host I heard on Wednesday said that the court ruling would be a harbinger on the election. Upheld, Obama wins. Struck down, Romney wins.

Thursday evening he mentioned nothing of the prediction. Only that the ruling has awakened the sleeping conservative giant who would now go out and vote in droves, leading to a Romney victory and the repeal.

Amusing story from one of the guys I employ. He works for me on the off-days when he's not on the job as a firefighter/EMT. Last night, they went out on a call. Arrived to find a guy who appeared to be on a substance of some sort. When asked who he had health insurance with, he responded, "Haven't you been watching the news today????? I got insurance through FUCKING OBAMA BABY!!!!!"

Is the only way this bill can be repealed is if Romney wins, GOP wins Senante and retains House?

News from The Associated Press

Yes. If the Democrats control either chamber they will not put the repeal up for a vote.

I think the GOP will probably take control of the Senate and retain control of the House so the best case scenerio at this point is Obama winning. (Or Democrats holding the Senate) Otherwise I have a feeling the GOP won't look at the election as a mandate to overturn healthcare but instead to institute more terrible ideas and laws. (While also probably coming up with an alternative to Obamacare that has more loopholes, more pages, and costs more money)

They need 60 in the Senate also, because they won't be able to change in through reconciliation.

Nah. If the GOP is in control of all three branches you can bet they'll find a way to bypass the filibuster so they can get shit done.

Agreed. As ridiculous as the whole 'you don't have to filibuster to filibuster' thing is, if either party were to control all three parts, I think you'd see some movement on a lot of these things. Until then, both sides will continue to throw shit on the other guy's wall in the hope that it stinks more than their wall.

Like in 2009? Or 1993?

I didn't like many of the things that were done in 2009, but I'd argue that it was a lot more productive than other legislatures that we've seen in recent times IMO.

Big donation here. Some were wondering where the money was coming from in recent donations. This guy hands out millions like it's candy.

AP source: Adelson giving $10 million to aid GOP | Fox News

Either party except the Democrats.

That's why I don't think the 4.5 mil Romney raised is a big deal. Before this campaign is over it won't be in the top 25 money days for the GOP.

Someone wrote an article on how much he stands to lose (because he is ridiculously wealthy), each year, if taxes go up on the highest earners and it was just a silly amount of money. I think it said that his per year tax would go up like $250M-$400M per year, so it is certainly worth it to him to spend that to try to keep status quo.

Romney's priorities.

Mission Impossible: Romney's ambitious first term agenda - First Read

Problem is that reconciliation can only be used to actually reduce the budget...since the CBO scored the ACA as budget reduction they'd have to do something to further reduce it in order to use reconciliation to get rid of it...which is, let's face it...laughable if you think they'd actually do that.

If R0omney wins and the GOP controls the Senate they'll make reconciliation mean whatever the fuck they want it to mean.

If Romney Wins
If they win the majority in the Senate
IF they maintain control in the house.

Thats a LOT of ifs just to think about the option. perhaps the GoP might want to think of something a lot less "iffy" as their real talking points. like the reality that they might get 1 out of those 3.

It's not really him, it's his company. The have a tax shelter overseas and he wants to bring that money back into the US. You have to pay taxes on that and he doesn't want to pay any taxes. Romney will likely put in a "tax holiday" to allow companies to bring in the profits they hoarded overseas tax-free. It's less about "taxes going up" and more on someone who believes he shouldn't have to pay taxes (but everyone else should!).

But the biggest reason is that him and his company have been under investigation for corruption by the Justice Department. The US is one of the only countries I believe that makes it illegal for you to bribe officials in foreign countries. They have allegedly been doing that for some time. That probably goes away with a Romney justice department. I'd wager not going to jail is worth a lot of money to someone with endless resources.

There is talk that this is over Israel which he is a huge supporter of. But Romney and Obama's plan on Israel aren't too different. So I don't think that fuels his donations.

Also, I don't know if we're going to start an election thread or not. But I've seen a lot of smart people write about how Romney has to win Ohio. There is almost no scenario for him to win without Ohio. The electoral college makes things weird.

Obama won't win without Ohio either. Only four times in history has Ohio not voted for the winner.

I'm really looking forward to the rest of the year politically. I think this will be one of the more exciting elections for me.

Foreign policy is out, I don't think the GOP can attack him on WOT, Iraq or Afghanistan.

So that leaves domestic policy which is essentially the economy (whose responsibilty for the mess can be obfuscated), immigration and now healthcare (each party's stance is pretty clear).

I think both sides will be galvanized to vote. I predict a higher than normal turnout this year.

That sounds like SOP for a particular "conservative radio host" in general.

I think the big three states to watch this election will be Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. Romney probably needs to win all three and Obama probably needs to win 2 of 3 (although he can actually do it with 1 of the 3 if he holds the Mountain/West states).

Some polling results. Interesting how it changed from May, not sure I get why other than its more "real" now? Also nice that independents seem to favor.

Americans divided on health care ruling – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

If GOP wins Senate and retains House, budget reconciliation could be used. Obama may have to balance healthcare ACA with looming budget compromise. Looks like budget may be the next big thing.

Healthcare law still faces obstacles, beginning with election - latimes.com

I've REALLY never quite got this side of things - surely once you get to a certain level of richness it really doesn't matter if you pay a little more tax.

I couldn't see myself bemoaning paying an addition $400m in tax if I was earning $4bn a year ... I couldn't see anything which $3.6bn a year couldn't do that $3.8bn might myself ;)

(I mean seriously with that much money what is there you can spend it on - there are only so many holiday islands you can own ;) )

CBS's Jan Crawford confirms what many believed--Roberts switched his initial vote:

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law - CBS News

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

(It's amazing how frequently wisdom from, or about, professional wrestling comes in handy)

Interesting read. It sounds as if the SOP within SCOTUS is come up with initial thoughts, socialize them and try to convert others. Pretty amazing that this story (or some form of it) did not break prior to the public decision. I guess the "former law clerks story" really didn't have any merit.

Sort of sounds like a fancy way of avoiding an actual explanation.

Read a book abotu the Supreme Court a few years back after Roberts was added. The author seemed to imply exactly what happened here. That Roberts was never a sure lock to side with conservatives on all issues. That he was a huge historian and understood that the court needed to maintain legitimacy with the public. Obviously the health care issue wasn't going on at the time, but he did imply that he didn't think Roberts would overturn Roe vs Wade based on the same principles.

No, it's actually just an old adage (attributed to everyone from Arn Anderson to Jeff Jarrett but surely belonging to someone else I figure) that seems appropriate on occasion.

If there are people out there who believe there's such a thing as "too much money" then I doubt I'm going to get them to understand otherwise no matter what I say.

Nor did I figure I'm going to be successful in getting Mark to understand how utterly absurd I find a statement like "I couldn't see myself bemoaning paying an addition $400m in tax if I was earning $4bn a year". (Although I did briefly consider using the FOFC'ism "a million here, a million there, sooner or later it adds up to real money").

Frankly, I figure anybody who says something like that ought to be committed to an institution for the completely batshit fucking insane ... but that's not a very productive conversation either, since I lack the authority to put him away and I figure there's an extremely small chance that I could convince him to put himself away.

So ... I ran with the quick one liner instead.

I think a lot comes down to upbringing tbh - I've always been taught that if you're fortunate enough to have been lifted up by society to a position where you have wealth/success then you use it to help lift up those around you.

As such paying more tax doesn't terrify me now, paying it if I was a billionaire would affect me even less than paying a little more now does ...

The normal argument I hear from people who are against this this is "I've earned it - why should others get a 'right' to it" .... my stance is that no one earns something alone, I was helped to my current standing by the education system, health system and individuals in the world who made me what I am today.

As such giving back to others in appreciation of that is the right thing to do.

(its a bit like the Christian athletes who praise God for their accomplishments because without him creating them etc. they wouldn't have achieved them .... just put on a practical/earthly level)

I realize that many people in America don't want to help others - thats their choice, but I don't see my stance as absurd .... it just fits in with my moral view of the world.

Does this make me unusual - in some countries yes, bat-shit crazy ... I'd like to think no that most people want to help others.

I've noticed that about most conservatives... Talking to them about an issue has the same effect as talking to a table or lamp.

To be fair, the extreme left is the same way, but it seems more conservatives follow the 15 scripted plays philosophy. Even if it doesn't work or make sense, do the same thing, say the same thing. Why? Because it's right. Period. And if you disagree with it one bit not only are you wrong, but you hate America.

Please don't confuse my criticism of "tax" with criticism of "charity". Those are two different animals.

Come to think of it those aren't even both animals, but you get the idea.

:D

I do and I'm sure you're a very generous individual yourself.

The main difference is at least partially down to our upbringing, mine indicated that everyone within a society should help that society prosper; whereas in America the 'cult of the individual' is more prevalent ....

With any belief that society should look after itself comes responsibility for all - allowing some to avoid that responsibility (ie. relying on peoples generosity/charity) is a bad thing as it rewards the selfish.

Strangely this is somewhat in line with the common approach of Americans who decry those those they see as 'sponging' off others ... the only difference is that taxing forces people to be responsible and contribute towards others rather than act irresponsibly.

Its all a matter of perspective and what people see as good/bad, efficient/inefficient etc.

(as with most things a 'middle ground' is usually the best solution between ideaologies, extremes tend to neglect one area of another - its finding the happy balance which is the challenge imho)

This set off a random "hmm" with me, an extremely minor one really but wth, I'll ask anyway.

One of the oldest phrases (referring to gov't programs) I'm familiar with would be "on the dole". My understanding is that the phrase dates back to WW I and originates with the U.K., and specifically with unemployment benefit(s). I think the Americanized usage extends to various gov't programs more generally though.

It's a phrase that's fairly innocuous when used here but I've always considered it to carry a fair amount of derision under the surface.

Anyhoo, my question is simply this: would you say the phrase is less pejorative when used in the U.K. as opposed to it's usage here? I just can't get past the image of Onslow & Daisy ;)

I'll take unexpected references for a thousand.

What? 80% of what I know of British culture comes from the various Britcoms that PBS imported about a decade after they originally aired ;)

"Are you free?" :D

There is definitely some stigma to being unemployed in England - in that people are expected to try and contribute towards themselves and society.

Exactly how much tends to depend largely upon the situation and individuals involved really, the most someone can relate to someone in that situation the lesser the stigma imho.

I think generally the English mix between classes/races more and so there is probably stigma in this regard simply because you're more likely to know someone within that social sphere personally (which helps you understand its not a 'luxury lifestyle' ;) ).

I grew up raised by a single mother, she attempted various jobs and set up some companies (which invariably stumbled along for a few years before failing) and also spent some time unemployed - as such I can relate quite well to people from most backgrounds I think - personally I don't associate much stigma to being 'on the dole' myself.

In that case I sincerely hope you envision me as John Cleese from faulty towers :D

BASIL! BASIL!

FYI - back to the discussion of how healthcare polls

Handy way to put a number on the RINO's self-identifying as Repubs when polled I guess.

I guess I disagree that the individual needs override the common good when it comes to Americans. The politicians would love you to believe that, but I've found through my business that's not necessarily true. There's a very strong community bond in our area.

For example, our winery allows not-for-profit groups free rent on Monday through Thursday nights of a ballroom that otherwise would cost them a pretty penny. We do that because it helps out these groups greatly while allowing us to create a good relationship with those area groups. I suppose some would characterize that by saying that there's obviously a tax benefit. I personally get a great feeling when these people come in and thank us, telling us how much more they'll make for their charities as a result of their free rental. It's like a drug in that you want to keep helping people once you start.

I don't necessarily think you intended any slander in any way by your comment, but I do think the generosity of our country can sometimes get lost in the political games that are played out in the media and on the internet.

Honest question. What if an ubber-rich guy didn't want to give any more money (than he is legally supposed to) to the US government because a lot of it is basically going to the military industrial complex. Would you support a humanitarian stance like that?

To be honest I wasn't intending to indicate anything negative - more that American's prefer 'individual freedoms' and that people volunteer charity/help/whatever on their own terms rather than have it dictated by a government.

The UK way is that obviously individuals can still make charitable acts - but a certain amount of items which are for society as a whole are incorporated in law through taxation and the like (for instance the National Health Service which is there to provide health cover for all).

The US way allows for more individual choice - but does mean selfish people get to not contribute with no adverse effects (unless you believe in Karma :D).

Sorry if I hadn't made that clear.

I'd sympathise with it hugely as I think the amount spent on the military is ludicrous personally, however everyone chooses which society they incorporate within and if you're part of it - you're part of it, subvert it from within through the appropriate methods allowed ... but in the meantime pay your dues or sod off.

Just my personal take on things, if I thought America was a horrible place then I wouldn't live here - there is much to admire in America and its people and I do enjoy living here ... especially now the TV stations have proper soccer channels ;)

That being said no society will ever be the utopia I (or anyone) would totally prefer - that doesn't however mean I won't try and nudge it along in that direction (in the same way I'll never make FM/FMH into a 'perfect' sim, but it won't stop me from trying ;) ).

The country did raise almost a million dollars in a week for a lady who got made fun of on a bus. America has it's own unique personality, but some of the stereotypes are overblown.

Just saw an anti-Obama commercial talk about how we should pursue health reform that is patient-centric. WTF is that supposed to mean? Or just another buzz word to make people feel good that conservatives have come up with something when in fact the only thing they've come up with appears to be a buzz word?

I would write a strongly worded letter to whomever funded that commercial and then tell us what they say.

Haha, I think I'll save my time and effort. It's not just the commercial. Seems like I've been hearing that some form of "patient-centric" health reform being mentioned quite a bit lately, yet I've got no idea what that all entails.

Even a generally diehard conservative like me has a hard time buying this particular point.

There's roughly a billion Chinese that might beg to differ on the point of "choice", just off the top of my head.

At the moment I indicated that I was were discussing the point of a millionaire who was deciding if he wanted to contribute towards the military machine through taxation at the time ...

.... but yes, strictly speaking there will always be people who for economic, medical, legal or whatever restrictions reasons cannot relocate, I wasn't meaning it 'literally' for every case ...

(I had hoped people would realize that)

To answer your point in that case - If you are stuck in a country which supports taxation towards a cause then you make a choice - if its something you abhore enough then stand against it and go to jail (or worse), if you think its wrong but not strongly enough then you pay it but do what you can to persuade for change.

If you want thats what I'm doing here - I like America but there are some aspects I think could be improved .... I'm in a country where I have no legal right to vote* and change things through democratic methods, however I pay my taxes and I do have free speech - as such I'll indicate my support for things which I think would better America and discuss them openly.

*Nothing wrong with this at all, its my choice not to take American citizenship.

More post mortem polling. Interesting poll in last paragraph.

Poll: Americans split on Supreme Court's healthcare decision - latimes.com

I bet it's something "FREEDOM-RIFIC!!!"

Heh.

BBC News - No evidence of mermaids, says US government


So since Obama's government lies to us about everything, we must assume mermaids are real! Romney must reverse this declaration if he is elected!

As long as they look like Daryl Hannah (back in the Splash days), I'm ok with that.

I think the concept of a social contract has become substantially less pervasive in my lifetime. There are quite a few who seem to think they can pick and choose what part of the social contract to obey. "I don't like parks so I shouldn't have to pay for them". To use your example from above, I don't like wars, but I live in this country so I have to pay for them, too. I can't just not pay my taxes because I don't like something they are spent on. You can't just pick and choose the laws you want to obey.

It is interesting when reading literature from earlier eras from other countries and see the perception of Americans- the examples that most comes to mind are Agatha Christie novels and the American as the cavalier, rich, slightly classless but likeable good guy. I wonder what it's like today.

SI

Dunno about the perception of Americans, but hollywood appears to only have three types of English person:

(1) English rose (female)
(2) English villain (male) - educated, arrogant and ultimately defeated by the all-American bad guy.
(3) English sop - posh sounding english person in a romantic film, sometimes a cad sometimes a clueless lead.

Assuming you ignore James Bond ;-)

And #3 is exclusively played by Hugh Grant.

I suppose I should also add in 'wizard kids' to the list though as a nod to Harry Potter :D

Specific to Improve world opinion of the US, this apparently has happended when compared to GWB but the results are "mixed and complicated". Long read, too much for me to summarize properly but thought I would share ...

Global Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted | Pew Global Attitudes Project

Yup, way too early to tell. But interesting.

Obama takes lead in Gallup polling - latimes.com

Latest rumor on Romney's potential VP...Bachmann. Wow. Talk about handing it to the Dems two elections in a row, if that becomes reality.

LOL seriously?

As a Democrat - her or Palin would be fantastic, thanks very much :D

I think its too early to panic. WTF is all this public tweeting anyway.

Mitt Romney supporters fight calls for campaign staff shake-up - The Washington Post

I think Rubio would be better than Bachmann but suspect that Romney has already lost the latino vote. So why not tea party.
TRENDING: Bachmann on VP spot: ‘Not for me to make that decision’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Gotta make the tea party happy and ignore the people who actually will decide the election. I'll be shocked if it's not Rubio.

Is there a way we can make this happen? Boy, that would make an entertaining campaign.

So basically Bachmann is indicating that she won't be VP then? ;)

Rubio would make a lot of sense, he'd appeal to a weak area of the constituents and is young and dynamic which will play well with younger people - especially now Obama isn't looking quite so spritely.

It is going to be Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty. Romney is not going to want to be upstaged by a charismatic or firebrand running mate. No way he risks another Palin situation.

Rubio is not well vetted (and has had some red flags come up that aren't getting a lot of attention just yet -- campaign finance misdeeds and a lot of personal and business financial problems) and is too young/inexperienced to be a "heartbeat away."

The other problem that people overlook with Rubio is that he isn't Hispanic people. He's Cuban-American. And there's a lot of animosity between the Hispanic (immigrant) and Cuban-American communities due to the preferential treatment (in particular regarding IMMIGRATION) and the outsized influence that the Cuban-American community wields. So Rubio would help with the Cuban-American population (who IIRC are pretty solidly Republican already), but he isn't really going to deliver the "massive waves of Hispanic voters nationwide" that the media-narrative tries to credit him with.

Cleary you have never seen Reign of Fire. :)

No one saw Reign of Fire ;)

SI

I'm sure there is a reason but I'm not sure why he is waffling on this.

Romney: Health care mandate is a tax - First Read

He got knocked back in line by the GOP establishment.

Initially, he obviously didn't want to call it a tax because he signed very similar legislation into law as governor. Everyone else in the GOP pounced on it as a tax, so he was sailing alone.

I think the GOP brass recognizes that Romney is going to have a tough time winning because Obama just has way too many paths to victory. It is better for them to focus on controlling the House and taking the Senate. If Romney wins, it isn't going to be for anything he does, it will be whether the economy gets bad enough that swing voters want to change course.

I think Santorum was the one who said that Romney was the single worst person in the entire Republican party to battle Obama on healthcare reform and I don't see any reason to disagree with him at this point.

Just my two cents...

Here is the thing about the tax. If that's how they feel, then they agree with Justice Roberts. You can't run around saying you disagree with the Supreme Court decision of Roberts but then say it's a tax which was basically the heart of his decision.

I don't know... She has a great poker face.

I thought that was Lady Gaga.

There is no universe where Romney is dumb enough to select Michelle Bachmann as his VP nominee. None. I will bet a substantial amount on that one with anyone here who believes otherwise. :D

Intrade tends to agree with you. Bachmann is at 0.1%:
Intrade - Michele Bachmann to be Republican VP nominee in 2012

Some names that there is more money on than Bachmann:
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (2.9%)
Kelly Atotte (2.7%)
Condoleezza Rice (3.5%)
Susana Martinez (1.2%)
Brian Sandoval (0.5%)
Luis Fortuno (0.3%)
John Kasich (0.5%)
John Kyl (0.5%)
Meg Whitman (0.2%)
David Petraeus (0.5%)
Rudy Giuliana (0.2%)

And, my favorite: Mitt Romney is even with her at 0.1%. Intrade thinks Mitt is as likely to choose himself* than to pick Bachmann.

SI

*I know that's not the exact wager but roll with me here for humor's sake

Of all of those on that list, Rice is the best choice in my opinion.

Kelly Ayotte is on that list? She's nuts.

She'd never do it.

Disagree. Too soon to bring on someone who was a member of the Bush administration and inextricably linked to the Iraq war.

The end.

Not saying she would. Just saying she's the best choice in my opinion.



I don't necessarily disagree with you, she would have that stigma, but, it would be a smart choice. I'm guessing though, that the people that would vote for Romney, aren't going to care that she was associated with the Bush administration. She's definitely more viable than someone like a Palin or a Bachmann, that would completely turn off a lot of the independent voters.

Of all the people in Bush's cabinet, she seemed to be one of the more credible people to me.

I just picked those off the list that there's a snowball's chance in hell for or those who I had never heard of

SI

I have also noticed at least two typos in quickly making that list and at least one makes it funnier for me (Rudy Giuliana)

SI

I just got an email saying Joe Biden wants to buy me a cup of coffee. Felt like a threat.

The man is a beast.

Biden To Honor Fallen Soldiers By Jumping Motorcycle Over Vietnam Memorial | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Sure, she's better than Palin or Bachmann, but that's not saying much. Part of the problem with her as a VP pick is that both independents and conservatives will have a problem with her. Conservatives won't like her moderate social views, whereas independents won't like her record with the Bush administration.

As an independent myself (not to be confused with the Independent Party), I really don't have much of a problem with her. Granted that's just me though. There's no way in hell Romney is going to pick her, but, if he was restricted to the choices that were listed (not the link), she'd be the smart choice.

Rice is at least smart, unlike Palin and Bachmann. I don't know the full spectrum of her political views but I think you have to be smart to hold a position that high.