Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby bentheimmigrant » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:03 pm UTC

For those of you who have an unhealthy fixation with things like this, SCOTUSblog are live blogging the decision.
http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

They expect it to be announced at ~10:15, with a few interesting decisions coming before it.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Save Point
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Save Point » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:10 pm UTC

Holy cow, they actually did exhaust all inquiries. Mandate survives as a tax.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby bentheimmigrant » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:13 pm UTC

Less Than Liz wrote:Holy cow, they actually did exhaust all inquiries. Mandate survives as a tax.

Although other people are saying it was struck down under the commerce clause. Pandemonium!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/ ... -care-live
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Steroid » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:17 pm UTC

I do not fucking believe this. Well, that's it for freedom. We should have launched the nukes during the cold war. Fuck Obama the communist. I hope he gets some disease we can't cure.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:20 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Less Than Liz wrote:Holy cow, they actually did exhaust all inquiries. Mandate survives as a tax.

Although other people are saying it was struck down under the commerce clause. Pandemonium!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/ ... -care-live

They're both right!

Far as I can tell SCOTUS basically said "your argument is bad and you should feel bad but here's the argument you should have been using and it holds". Which an appeals court said previously, if memory serves. And the rest of the country has been saying since the law passed.

Steroid wrote:I do not fucking believe this. Well, that's it for freedom. We should have launched the nukes during the cold war. Fuck Obama the communist. I hope he gets some disease we can't cure.

As people have been saying since day one, the court ruled the mandate is effectively a tax which is offset with a credit if you buy a certain thing. It may not be written or directly implemented that way but it is the de facto effect. We have lots of tax credits you get if you buy things, like the fact you can deduct interest on mortgages.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

webzter_again
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:37 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby webzter_again » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:21 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Professional statistician* thinks intrade is being overconfident.

* Is "professional statistician" the proper term to use here? It seemed the best fit.


Hmm, math wins yet again.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Steroid » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:22 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I do not fucking believe this. Well, that's it for freedom. We should have launched the nukes during the cold war. Fuck Obama the communist. I hope he gets some disease we can't cure.

As people have been saying since day one, the court ruled the mandate is effectively a tax which is offset with a credit if you buy a certain thing. It may not be written or directly implemented that way but it is the de facto effect. We have lots of tax credits you get if you buy things, like the fact you can deduct interest on mortgages.

Then we need an amendment removing the power to tax. Really, we need to pass a "Congress shall pass no law affecting the economy of the country" amendment.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby lutzj » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Yep, it survives under the taxing power.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby mike-l » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:24 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I do not fucking believe this. Well, that's it for freedom. We should have launched the nukes during the cold war. Fuck Obama the communist. I hope he gets some disease we can't cure.


Nice to see a rational response.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:24 pm UTC

Roberts voted to uphold the mandate? Does anyone know if he wrote the opinion?

Edit: He did. Possibly trying to control the narrative? But it seems that he must have wanted to uphold it if it's a 5-4 decision. This is really weird. It's now a tax, and somehow that tax isn't unconstitutional.
Last edited by Heisenberg on Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby PeterCai » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:24 pm UTC

Fucking liberals man...one of these days

User avatar
Me321
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Me321 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:25 pm UTC

Im a conservitive and im ok with this, My only objection was being forced with the threat of fines or jail time to buy something from a private company, as this rulling has shown, that is not allowed, however you can be relieved from a tax to pay for others healthcare by buying your own health insurance, that is ok, just wish congress had the guts to call it a tax to start with, cause thats what it is.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby iamspen » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:26 pm UTC

Methinks Steroid should look up the definition of communism before ranting about it. Also freedom.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby lutzj » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:27 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Roberts voted to uphold the mandate? Does anyone know if he wrote the opinion?


He almost certainly wrote the opinion because he's reading it right now.

Me321 wrote:Im a conservitive and im ok with this, My only objection was being forced with the threat of fines or jail time to buy something from a private company, as this rulling has shown, that is not allowed, however you can be relieved from a tax to pay for others healthcare by buying your own health insurance, that is ok, just wish congress had the guts to call it a tax to start with, cause thats what it is.


Same here, and they're actually tightening the commerce clause with this decision, which is a very very good thing.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Steroid » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:29 pm UTC

As was pointed out on a blog, since this was ruled a tax, that makes Obama's promise not to raise taxes on people making under $250,000 officially a lie.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:31 pm UTC

Me321 wrote:Im a conservitive and im ok with this, My only objection was being forced with the threat of fines or jail time to buy something from a private company, as this rulling has shown, that is not allowed, however you can be relieved from a tax to pay for others healthcare by buying your own health insurance, that is ok, just wish congress had the guts to call it a tax to start with, cause thats what it is.

They all signed a pledge saying they would never say 'tax' again, so the Court has to call it a tax for them.

Won't you still be jailed if you don't pay the tax? Wasn't I already paying for other's heath insurance through Medicare?

So... for the first time in American history, we'll have a head tax?

Edit:
Wow, so Roberts sided with the ladies saying it was constitutional, because it constituted a tax, which is within Congressional power. However, he also sided with the men in saying that it's an overreach to say this is within the Interstate Commerce Clause. How bizarre.
Last edited by Heisenberg on Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:35 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby lutzj » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:33 pm UTC

More good news: Congress can't penalize states that don't want to engage in the Medicare expansion.

Roberts wrote:Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby ManaUser » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:38 pm UTC

So basically they've ruled that the government can for any reason, or no reason, force the American people to buy a commercial product. First Citizens United and now this. CEOs must be dancing in the streets.

Me321 wrote:Im a conservitive and im ok with this, My only objection was being forced with the threat of fines or jail time to buy something from a private company, as this rulling has shown, that is not allowed, however you can be relieved from a tax to pay for others healthcare by buying your own health insurance, that is ok, just wish congress had the guts to call it a tax to start with, cause thats what it is.

How is that not exactly the same thing?
Last edited by ManaUser on Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:39 pm UTC

I take it you've read and comprehended the ruling?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby PeterCai » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

ManaUser wrote:So basically they've ruled that the government can for any reason, or no reason, force the American people to buy a commercial product. First Citizens United and now this. CEOs must be dancing in the streets.

....
but that's exactly what they didn't do

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby ManaUser » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
ManaUser wrote:So basically they've ruled that the government can for any reason, or no reason, force the American people to buy a commercial product. First Citizens United and now this. CEOs must be dancing in the streets.

....
but that's exactly what they didn't do


How is it not? They just renamed it as far as I can tell.
Last edited by ManaUser on Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:41 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:41 pm UTC

ManaUser wrote:So basically they've ruled that the government can for any reason, or no reason, force the American people to buy a commercial product. First Citizens United and now this. CEOs must be dancing in the streets.

No, they specifically ruled that unconstitutional. Roberts+4 say that the Commerce Clause does not grant that power. However, in this particular case, Roberts +other4 say a tax on people who don't buy insurance is somehow constitutional (according to them) and that this bill (which at the top reads "According to the Interstate Commerce Clause") isn't really a commerce power but has secretly been a tax all along!

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby kiklion » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:43 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Me321 wrote:Im a conservitive and im ok with this, My only objection was being forced with the threat of fines or jail time to buy something from a private company, as this rulling has shown, that is not allowed, however you can be relieved from a tax to pay for others healthcare by buying your own health insurance, that is ok, just wish congress had the guts to call it a tax to start with, cause thats what it is.

They all signed a pledge saying they would never say 'tax' again, so the Court has to call it a tax for them.

Won't you still be jailed if you don't pay the tax? Wasn't I already paying for other's heath insurance through Medicare?

So... for the first time in American history, we'll have a head tax?

Edit:
Wow, so Roberts sided with the ladies saying it was constitutional, because it constituted a tax, which is within Congressional power. However, he also sided with the men in saying that it's an overreach to say this is within the Interstate Commerce Clause. How bizarre.


Well a head tax is unconstitutional I believe. However seeing that the original intent was to provide subsidy to those who can't afford insurance such that if they didn't have insurance they wouldn't pay a fine, (Otherwise we are fining poor people for being poor. Something I believe democrats are against.) then this can fairly easily be construed into an income tax. Set the lowest bracket to 0%, set the tier amount to whatever you want free healthcare for those below it, and set tax rates enough to cover it.

However this once again unfairly taxes the middle class as they receive most of their money as income compared to capital gains. Unless they are able to somehow tax capital gains at the same rate in this instance as ordinary income.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Arrian » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:44 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Then we need an amendment removing the power to tax. Really, we need to pass a "Congress shall pass no law affecting the economy of the country" amendment.


You mean, we need to repeal the 16th Amendment, since the Constitution itself significantly limits Congress's abilities to levy taxes.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby ManaUser » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:47 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:Well a head tax is unconstitutional I believe. However seeing that the original intent was to provide subsidy to those who can't afford insurance such that if they didn't have insurance they wouldn't pay a fine, (Otherwise we are fining poor people for being poor. Something I believe democrats are against.) then this can fairly easily be construed into an income tax. Set the lowest bracket to 0%, set the tier amount to whatever you want free healthcare for those below it, and set tax rates enough to cover it.

So within this framework, they could just say, new tax rate... 100%. But if you buy a refrigerator you'll only have to pay the old rate.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:48 pm UTC

This is Bush's fault, since he chose John Roberts.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Steroid » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:49 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:
Steroid wrote:Then we need an amendment removing the power to tax. Really, we need to pass a "Congress shall pass no law affecting the economy of the country" amendment.


You mean, we need to repeal the 16th Amendment, since the Constitution itself significantly limits Congress's abilities to levy taxes.

No, that only allowed income taxes. I'm saying we need to remove all power to tax. They're too dangerous with it.

CorruptUser:

Oh, yeah. He finally got everyone, right and left, against him.

The other funny thing is going to be watching all the media slam into reverse on "This is the most politicized court ever". . . "5-4 decisions shouldn't control the fate of the country," etc.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:then this can fairly easily be construed into an income tax. Set the lowest bracket to 0%, set the tier amount to whatever you want free healthcare for those below it, and set tax rates enough to cover it.

That's not how this bill works, though. It's a flat rate (is it 4 grand?) so it's not related to income at all. If it were a tiered income tax, it would have to be a different percentage for every income, so that someone making $20 grand would be taxed 20% while someone making $200 grand would be taxed 2% (regressive taxation, also something democrats are supposedly not fans of).

So... unless the Court thinks that the 16th amendment also legalized head taxes due to some very awkward mental gymnastics, I don't really see how this "tax" they made up out of thin air could be considered Constitutional.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Diadem » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

I read an analysis, long ago, that predicted that Roberts would vote to uphold, because he cares about the legacy of his court, and doesn't want to go down in the history books as being on the wrong side on such an important issue.

Seems that's what happened. Cool.
Last edited by Diadem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby iamspen » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

No, that only allowed income taxes. I'm saying we need to remove all power to tax. They're too dangerous with it.


So you want government to be completely abolished? GOOD PLAN!

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Steroid » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:54 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:
No, that only allowed income taxes. I'm saying we need to remove all power to tax. They're too dangerous with it.


So you want government to be completely abolished? GOOD PLAN!

At this point, with this government? Anarchy would be better.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby omgryebread » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

Phew. Everyone at work clapped. I'll be able to process the constitutional arguments in a few hours, but for now:

Fuck yeah. I'm sorry that you guys have to pay 95 bucks a year, that seems like a real hardship. Almost sounds as bad as not being able to get insurance with medical bills of about $150 a week that keep me as a productive citizen and not living on the street with a debilitating mental illness.


Seriously, Steroid is suggesting we not let the government affect the economy. I'm not sure there's any response to something that unconnected with reality.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby PeterCai » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

ManaUser wrote:So within this framework, they could just say, new tax rate... 100%. But if you buy a refrigerator you'll only have to pay the old rate.

if you can gather enough support for it in all of the 3 branches, then yes.

PS: I can't believe people are falling for steroid's obvious trolling

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby iamspen » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:58 pm UTC

At this point, with this government? Anarchy would be better.


Because clearly we're in such a state of decay and ravaged by such totalitarianism that we're not at all better off as a civilization than at almost any point in history prior to anything before ten years ago, and we should just scrap everything and start over because you have to pay for health insurance that, statistically, you probably already have. NAZI SOCIALIST COMMUNISM!

By tomorrow, every major city will lie in ruins, most of the earth's landmass will be covered by endless desert, and the few survivors will be driving around in machinegun-armed dune buggies attempting to avoid roving bands of cannablist bandits.

Edit:
PS: I can't believe people are falling for steroid's obvious trolling


But arguing with a caricature is so much fun!
Last edited by iamspen on Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:01 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:58 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
ManaUser wrote:So within this framework, they could just say, new tax rate... 100%. But if you buy a refrigerator you'll only have to pay the old rate.

if you can gather enough support for it in all of the 3 branches, then yes.

I'd just like to point out here that there is a tax credit for buying ENERGY STAR-rated appliances.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:00 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:NAZI SOCIALIST COMMUNISM!


Isn't that redundant? Are all Nazis by definition socialists? Hell, it's in the name; National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Enokh
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:55 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby Enokh » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

That just makes them double-socialists. The worst kind.

Edit, because grammar.

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby jareds » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:05 pm UTC

ManaUser wrote:So within this framework, they could just say, new tax rate... 100%. But if you buy a refrigerator you'll only have to pay the old rate.

Apparently not.
Opinion of the Court wrote:Our cases confirm this functional approach. For example, in Drexel Furniture, we focused on three practical characteristics of the so-called tax on employing child laborers that convinced us the “tax” was actually a penalty. First, the tax imposed an exceedingly heavy burden—10 percent of a company’s net income—on those who employed children, no matter how small their infraction. Second, it imposed that exaction only on those who knowingly employed underage laborers. Such scienter requirements are typical of punitive statutes, because Congress often wishes to punish only those who intentionally break the law. Third, this “tax” was enforced in part by the Department of Labor, an agency responsible for punishing violations of labor laws, not collecting revenue. 259 U. S., at 36–37; see also, e.g., Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 780–782 (considering, inter alia, the amount of the exaction, and the fact that it was imposed for violation of a separate criminal law); Constantine, supra, at 295 (same).
The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more. It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the “prohibitory” financial punishment in Drexel Furniture....

This suggests that the size of a tax is one important factor in determining whether it is really a tax rather than a fine/penalty in disguise. I bet you could probably find an example of a "tax" that was struck down in that Drexel Furniture case.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby iamspen » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:06 pm UTC

Spoiler'd for off-topic:

Spoiler:
Whether or not Nazism is legit socialism is a pretty hotly-debated subject, and it's one I'm not going to delve into right now because, IMHO, that particular debate is tired and pretty irrelevant to almost everything, but despite whatever socialist tendencies it may have, it's generally agreed upon that fascism is a right-wing ideology.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Supreme court debate Affodable Care Act

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:06 pm UTC

Spoiler:
They also represent the Workers, so they are triple socialists. Regular socialists want 50% of what you produce to be produced for the state, but triple socialists want 150%.

Also, the Nazis were neither right nor left. They were extremist on BOTH sides of the spectrum. The racism was staunchly anti-egalitarian, so arch-right wing. But their economics were incredibly dominated by the state, so arch-left wing. Universal healthcare was left wing. Openly embraced evolution/genetics, so left-wing. Miscegenation laws were arch-right wing. That's the problem with just describing things as either left or right; real life is far too complicated to put politics in a spectrum, or even a 10 dimensional hyperplane.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:19 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests