Shut up and eat your poop cake.

Lots of people have been asking me to do a blog post about the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. However, I’m still trying to wrap my brain around it. Reading through the news and opinion either John Roberts is a doofus who switched sides and sided with the liberal wing in order to suck up to the president and the media, or he is some sort of evil super genius who is playing chess while the left is playing checkers… I’d surely love for this all to be some sort of smack down of the out of control commerce clause, but it seems like the Robert’s apologists are starting to sound a lot like Prometheus apologists, which if you theory-craft a whole extra movie’s plot onto it, then it is great.

Last night over dinner, my wife and I were talking about Obamacare when my 10 year old daughter said “I don’t really get what’s going on. I’ve heard about this a lot, but I’m confused.”  Keep in mind that Correia 2.2 is literally a genius. Her reading scores in 2nd grade met the requirements for graduating high school seniors. She doesn’t have to do standardized testing anymore.  She’s one of the smart kids at smart kid school.  She plays normal/dumb around other kids because she’s analytical enough to understand social issues and doesn’t want to frighten them with her scary computer brain. If it wasn’t for her love of girly froo-froo pretty pretty pink princess Barbie girly stuff, she’d be Sheldon Cooper.

So 2.2’s not confused because she’s young, she’s confused because it is confusing.

So during dinner I came up with this quick fairy tale to explain Obamacare and the recent Supreme Court decision to my children, ages 12 to 0.5, (complete with me doing voices).


Once there was a kingdom, where the dumb son of a bitch in charge said, “Hey everybody should have cake! Cake is awesome!”

But others answered, “Yes, cake is awesome… I’m fond of mine. What’re you getting at?”

And they said, “It is sad that not everybody can have cake. So let’s mandate cake for everybody!”

“But we can’t afford to give everyone cake. Cake is expensive, and the kingdom is broke.”

“Oh, no. There’s plenty of cake to go around. Magic unicorns will make the cake cheaper for everyone, and then mandate that everybody has to buy our delicious cake.”

“Wait a second… First off I don’t think unicorns are real, and looking through this 2,000 page recipe, this isn’t cake. This is poop. I don’t want to eat poop cake.”

“No. It is delicious. And it is cheap. You’ll just have to pass the recipe to know what’s in it.”

“But the cake is made of poop. And it’s not cheap, it is the most expensive poop ever made.”

“Quit being racist. The cake is moist and wonderful, and it is mandatory that you have to buy it.”

“Well, most of us have cake, and 90% of us are happy with our cake. So just leave us the hell alone.”

“Nope. Can’t do that. We need to change your cake to the new improved recipe so we can all be equal, or we’ll send an IRS SWAT team to your house to kill your entire family. Isn’t cake wonderful?”

So the leaders of the kingdom decided to mandate cake for everyone and the stupid cheered. Yay cake!  Since this decision was rushed through in record time, and very few people had actually read the recipe, many people were upset to discover that the recipe was poop. In fact, it was the most expensive poop ever. So the people rose up and cast down record numbers of their leaders that had voted for the poop cake.

Sadly, there were still many stupid people who were expecting the big bucket of shit they’d placed into the oven to come out tasting like fresh strawberries and vanilla frosting in 2014. So the recipe stayed.

Finally the supreme court of the land decided to look at the recipe. The supreme judge read it and said, “This isn’t cake. This is clearly poop. However, you stupid bastards voted for it, which ain’t our problem, so shut up and enjoy your poop cake.”

And they all lived happily ever after, until the kingdom collapsed under the massive debt of their mandatory poop cake, everyone got sick and died. THE END.


So say no to poop cake. Vote Romney, 2012.

Yes, I know, they’re all the same, blah blah friggin’ blah… Look, you guys all know I’m not a big Romney fan, but he’s way better than Obama on, oh, say EVERYTHING. And as much as you bitch about the parties being the same, the Republican congress has already voted to get rid of Obamacare only to be blocked by the Democrat senate. Romney is running on getting rid of this. So despite him being electable in Massachusetts and all the things he’s done which have annoyed me, electing him is now our only realistic chance to kill Obamacare. Period.

Planning my book tour
The Burning Throne, Episode 34: The All Mother

133 thoughts on “Shut up and eat your poop cake.”

    1. Ceasar, since he has a legion of hard ass warriors ready to cross the Rubicon will be given an exemption. The rest of you shut up and eat your poop.

      1. Well, they HAD a garrison at Hoover Dam until Craig Boone n’ me went thru there with a couple antimateriel rifles. Thumbs down! (Also, great original post, I could not agree more and it is about the best description I’ve seen of the whole mess)

      2. I was partial to Veronica, but *shrug* hard to argue with 1st recon sniper …matter of fact, he doesn’t argue much. He just stares…
        I would like to perfect that steely gaze and direct it at the next liberal that cheers at obamacare. “Uh-huh…no just keep talking…I’m calculating range and BDC for a 168gr. BTHP…

  1. Saying Romney is better than Obama is like saying a poop cake with only 95% poop is better than a poop cake with 100% poop. While true, its still poop.

    Romney would have voted for (and the Republicans did) the NDAA. The bill that allows the Indefinite Detention of American citizens even in the US without a trial. The same one that a judge temporary stopped because it probably violates a few amendments.

    As far as the judge, I am no expert in the court system but I thought the supreme court was supposed to make decisions based on the arguments (and the constitution, the old relic of a document) No where in the records I have seen was the mandate ever refereed to as a tax. In fact in several interviews the administration (and Obama himself) have said the mandate is NOT a tax. I understand what Roberts may have done and I am strictly against the Supreme Court playing politics even if it may help in the future.

    When it comes time to vote, I will vote for candidate that I feel has the best ideas. Not just the one that has the best chance of beating Obama. I understand why you may vote for Romney but the lesser of two evils is still evil

    1. Romney may suck. No argument. Far too big government for me. But 95% of Obama? Nope. Not even close. At least Romney’s not a Marxist.

      And republican congress vs. democrat senate? Not even a question. This whole thing about the lesser of two evils is a bunch of bunk, when the republicans give me guys like Mike Lee and the democrats give me lunatic marxists.

      It isn’t lesser of two evils as much as lesser of unmitigated evil vs. well intentioned stupid, and I’ll take stupid. Thanks.

      1. Following through on getting strong, free-market thinking Republicans in the congress to replace the dinosaur psychos (from both parties) that are entrenched there is just as important as getting Obama out of the big chair. Both things need to happen, but Obama absolutely can not stay.

        Which makes Romney the luckiest sucky candidate in history. I will definitely be voting for him.

      2. Plus Romney doesn’t want to make the Clinton AWB permanent, or ban all gun shops within 5 miles of a school or park, and is likely not willing give guns to drug cartels to create justification for new, pointless gun laws.

      3. My thoughts are the Rep vs Dem debate is a diversion, a good cop vs bad cop sketch. We sit here and argue about who’s better, R or D when they are both after the same thing, they just use different methods to get it. Campaign rhetoric is one thing but look at voting records.

        I agree the Obama care is a huge poop sandwich but in the grand scheme of things its small. I think a MUCH bigger issue than even health care is the FED. If Romney supported ending the Fed then I MIGHT vote for him. If Romney was standing up saying names of the Bankers he was going to throw in jail I MIGHT vote for him. In the savings and loan failures of the 80’s I seem to remember +1000 investigations and convictions yet this failure is much worse and we have zero? Not only that but the people responsible were given huge bailouts.

        The president says he can now kill Americans anywhere without approval, indefinitely detain Americans without trial and can do all sorts of cool things like:

        Force your company to accept a contract
        Take resources from your company without payment
        Or just simply take over your whole company
        Force you to work indefinitely without pay (sound familiar?)
        And just in case, they own ALL the water and if you play nice they may let you have a sip once in awhile

        Much of this was put in place under Bush and Obama decided he liked it so gave the powers to a few more people. Romney seems to agree with him.

        We should not have to pick the lesser of two evils when it comes to our President. The fact we do sits heavily in the two party system. Everyone has to vote what they believe in and if you think Romney is the best candidate then that is who you vote for. I know some may think of this as hyperbole but my feelings are that voting for Romney or Obama is like voting for what King of England you would like to rule us vs voting for the Colonial Legislatures. There are more important issues facing this country than Health-care and if Obama care stays or goes wont matter much because the underlying issues need to be corrected. Of course my candidate is also opposed to Obama-care also. Even IF Romney gets rid of Obama care (and thats a BIG if) the next Dem President will simply try to bring it back (remember Bill and Hilary Clinton)

        We have almost 16 Trillion in National Debt that we can never pay back under the current system. Neither Obama or Romney has any real plans to change that. Larry as a super hero accountant you probably understand this better than most (and certainly me) Most of us are so used to hearing about how big the National Debt is we simply ignore it. We are so used to it that we just assume we can continue this path indefinitely, and we cant.

        p.s. Mike Lee seems like a good guy but I don’t know much about him. He voted Nay on the NDAA bill (only 2 of the 5 reps from Utah voted against) so that’s a positive in my book

        Sorry for the rambling

      4. Steve, on July 2, 2012 at 10:32 pm said: My thoughts are the Rep vs Dem debate is a diversion, a good cop vs bad cop sketch.


        The Dems these days are fucking hard line marxists, only restrained by what they think they can get away with.

        Your “sketch” is actually good cop vs. psychotic mass murderer

        Obama would cheerfully Waco the lot of us if he thought he could get away with it.

      5. I cant reply directly to your post


        The Dems these days are fucking hard line marxists, only restrained by what they think they can get away with.

        Your “sketch” is actually good cop vs. psychotic mass murderer

        Obama would cheerfully Waco the lot of us if he thought he could get away with it.”

        I am not trying to be the guy who corrects spelling since my grammar is atrocious. But do you mean Fatuous vs Fatous? I think it would be kinda funny if you misspelled the word meaning “foolish or inane, especially in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly” while trying to insult me

        You dont understand the good cop vs bad cop (or good cop vs. psychotic mass murderer) sketch. See both the cops are after the same thing but play different roles to achieve their goals.

        I have no love for the Dems and we probably agree on what Obama and his sidekick Holder are doing against this country. My point is that the Dems take away productivity, freedoms and rights using one method. And the Rep do the same, they just use a different method. And when its required, they team up and wonder twin powers activate. Form of …. well you guess.

      6. Steve:

        Very impressive.

        Spend a couple paragraphs on a typo instead of addressing the argument.

        Typical for third-party utopians. That is OK … those of us who actually work in the political system effectively will have to do the actual heavy lifting, and support Republican candidates that will promise to repeal this crap, and then hold their feet to the fire if they don’t, while folks like you sit on the sidelines, threaten to hold your beaths until your faces turn blue, and insist on us Republicans nominating and electing only candidates that you personally approve of, while doing absolutely nothing to support nominees or support those who win nomination.

        Why in the hell should loyal Republicans even give a rats ass what you think is a good candidate if you refuse to even vote for Republicans, let alone support the party?

        When was the last time you even attended a county meeting?

        Do you even know when or where your county precinct committee meets?

        If you are too much of a lazy coward to support the party, support the nominees, or work to get folks you like nominated, then why should Republicans even care what you think?

      7. I am no best selling author but I dont think I spent a couple of paragraphs on a typo.

        Are straw-man arguments the only type you know?

        What is wrong with supporting a 3rd party candidate? You know that the Republican party could be considered a 3rd party at one point, right? People got tired of their party (Whigs, Democrats, ect) who they felt no longer represented them so they formed a new party. Sounds like freedom, why do you hate freedom? Kids like freedom, why do you hate kids? Puppy’s like kids, why do you hate puppy’s? Well I guess my straw-man is complete, Kristopher hates freedom, kids and puppy’s but loves Republicans.

        I supported the Rep party for a long time until I got tired of the campaign promises not matching the votes. I have voted in every election (even when I was in the military) I have volunteered for campaigns, I have donated money to campaigns. I am actively working to get my candidates elected as well as trying to educate myself and sheep such as yourself. Might I be wrong on a great many things? Of course I could, it seems to happen about every 10 years that I find out everything I thought I knew before was wrong. But if you know something I dont, try to teach me vs failing back on silly internet attacks. I love you guys who talk tough over the Internet like it makes you a man, coward indeed.

        I dont insist on anything, that’s not how a primary race works. I vote for who I want and try to discuss with other intelligent people why I think my candidate is better. You are the one saddled to an ideology, your blind obeisance in the Republican party, to vote for who they tell you to no matter what you may think.

        And you dont know who I am voting for, my candidate is a Republican but its not Mitt.

      8. Ah, good, a Paulista.

        So … if Paul ( or whoever your candidate is ) does not get nominated, are you going to go vote third party?

        If so, then why should Republicans EVER care what your opinions are?

      9. I doubt any party cares what the opinions of a single person are, so I guess to answer your questions the Republican party should not care what my opinion are (or yours for that matter) But the difference between us is that I care what your opinions are. I am very interested to hear what other people think and why. Maybe they have something to teach me or maybe I have something I can pass along to them. I am always open to the idea that what I think maybe wrong and it often is.

        You on the other hand seem to have very little original thought and do exactly what someone else tells you to do in this case. If the Republican party tells you Mitt is who to vote for, you vote for Mitt. Maybe its a need to feel like you are part of a group or to feel needed. There has to be a reason you keep asking me why the Rep. party should care what I think, because you need to feel accepted.

        To answer your first question, I have not made up my mind who to vote for yet since the conventions are not over

      10. If only more libertarians thought as critically as you did, Larry, we’d be standing a much better chance in November. As it is, many of them are as myopic as a nearsighted old man.

        I’m holding my nose and voting Romney GLADLY, because he’s NOT Obama, he’s not “Obamney”, and he sure as hell ain’t marxist.

        I too much prefer well intentioned stupid to unmittigated evil.

      11. This is a perfect example of the old adage; All politics are local politics. If we do our jobs and elect good reps and senators we can exercise local control over them and they will have input on everything Romney does. Local control over national politics. With obama we have no chance to exert anything like that. The only thing we can do is protest and try to put some backbone in out local representatives to fight and not wilt under the pressure. I don’t really mind being called racist/facist/homophobe but I’d prefer to be thumbing my nose at the minority party from a position of power while that’s happening.

        Yeah, in this iteration of America I’ll take that any day. I’ve made my decision. Romney.

    2. “Romney would have voted for (and the Republicans did) the NDAA. The bill that allows the Indefinite Detention of American citizens even in the US without a trial.”

      No, it doesn’t. You could, if you tilted your head, squinted, and gave yourself a frontol lobotomy, have made the argument that the Senate version did. Though there were a few counterarguments: 1) such a provision would be so blatantly unconstitutional and bereft of any justification there’s no way Congress intended that and 2) the very next section specifically excluded American citizens from the disposition process the detention was a prelude to.

      Anyway, in response to what Pelosi would call the cake-storm, the final version to pass specifically said it didn’t make any change to the legality of any detention of American citizens by the military.

      1. You are wrong on every point

        Your straw-man is easy enough to counter. Simply read the court transcripts (or read the ZeroHedge article I linked above) The judge (who must have “tilted her head, squinted, and gave herself a frontol lobotomy”) in the case repeatedly asked the Administration lawyers for some type of assurance that the law could NOT be used to arrest and detain American Citizens and they could not.

        Here is a quick snip. It kinda reminds me of another bill that we have to pass to see whats in it.

        – Judge Forrest was pushing to determine the boundaries of the NDAA law.

        – Obama’s lawyer said that it would take a case of someone being detained under the NDAA, to find the parameters of the law.

        I just did a quick search and did not find the official transcripts but here is something to get you started.

        I think after the last ruling from the Supreme Court most would agree that we should be POSITIVE that a bill that passes should be clear in its wording and intention.

      2. Or you could, you know, READ THE GORAM LAW. It’s not hard, go to, search for H.R. 1540. It’s section 1021.

        What part of

        “Nothing in this section shall be construed
        to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
        United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
        or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United

        confuses you?

      3. I’m not confused. It’s obvious that Judge Forrest makes John Roberts looke like a rocket scientist. There is nothing in the text of the law that supports her opinion. This is nothing more than a bunch of media whores getting together to get attention from the media.

      4. Jeff

        If you believe that the Judge in this case is the issue then you probably have not bothered to read any of the reporting on what was said in the court. If you read the details of the oral arguments and still feel that way, then I am at a complete loss for what maybe your issue.

        You are discussing one section of the law while the Judge has directly asked the Obama administration lawyers specific real examples that would test the whole law. It seems obvious from the court transcripts that the law is much to vague and open to interpretations. Also note that when directly questioned, if the plaintiffs actions would subject them to NDAA section 1021, the lawyers never say no because of the section you quote. If they had, they would have won the case. Here is one comment that highlights that:

        Judge Forrest:You [government lawyers] have to explain why the statute is not vague if I cannot get a definition under direct questioning [what ‘substantially support’ means]. If you folks can’t say what ‘substantially support’ means, how does an ordinary citizen know? You guys say why, and you win.

        I did another quick search and cant find the full transcripts but here is a starting point. I cant speak to the quality of the site or reporter.

      5. It appears like the blog does not like a ton of links. I tried to create a post with links to each specific piece of legislation but it does not post.

        It looks like the Judge is not the only one concerned about the NDAA and section 1021. Here is a list of states that have introduced legislation to counter it. Some of the legislation has failed but this is still good news if you believe in states rights.

        Arizona SCR 1011 and SB 1182
        Kansas HR 6021
        Maine HP 1397
        Maryland HJ 0012
        Missouri SB819 and HB 2066
        Oklahoma HCR 1025
        Rhode Island H7916
        Tennessee HB 2119 / SB 2669
        Utah S.C.R. 11
        Virginia HB 1160
        Washington HB resolution 2759
        West Virginia HB 4627

  2. A bit much with the hyperbole. I agree that this is a TERRIBAD plan, I KNOW its going to blow up in the face of the people and government but will do so at such at time when Obama is Out of office and long since retired to an island somewhere (which we should immediately nuke into radioactive glass when the it does blow up on us)

    The Concept is nice IF there were provisions to hold down costs and institute tort reform maybe setting up a special court JUST to hear medical claims cases (12 person Panel 7 doctors and 5 lawyers)

    The TAX implimentation is going to royally bollix things up as the tax goes on transactions. Forcing some money out of the market and into long term things like property (driving up land values and lowering share prices for stock holders)

    But what is going to REALLY hurt is the way this is going to effect small businesses, W2 contract workers, and 1099 wage earners and the service industry.

    I know at least 9 different places that I have worked for in the last 10 years that WILL be dropping coverage and OR cutting hours and staff to comply with the law.

    1. Hyperbole?

      Biggest tax bill in human history at a time when we’re in terrible economic straights with trillions in unfunded liabilites hanging over our heads, which was rammed through without anybody reading it, which gives unprecedented meddling into one of the most important facets of our lives to a bunch of bureaucrats (a field which attacts the corrupt, lazy, stupid, and apathetic), is declared constitutional because the government can tax things you DON’T do, and you think I’m using hyperbole?

      Hooookay then.

      1. I am not sure if this qualifies as the biggest tax bill in history. I am not even sure if it is bigger then the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that turned a budget surplus into the biggest debt the US has ever had.

        1. Dude, if you’re going to make stuff like that up, you really shouldn’t do it on a blog written by an accountant…

          1. Tax cuts and tax increases go in different directions. So your first bit makes no sense.
          2. Tax cuts for the wealthy is code for “I don’t know anything about accounting or tax law, but I sure buy into the narrative!” Clue. The instant you say “tax cuts for the wealthy” to anybody who knows finance, it is like holding up a gigantic sign saying they you’re easily bamboozled.
          3. The Clinton surplus, a creature of myth and legend, a perk from ending the Cold War, created when republicans controlled congress, which once existed briefly when they changed the rules of how they accounted for our debt, and only if you totally ignored all of the additional liabilities on the balance sheet.
          4. Biggest debt ever… Until we made it bigger. In less time. Immediately after.

          So no.

      2. Like I said Larry the idea has Merrit however the implimentation sucks the hairy pockmarked one.

  3. Ouch…I hate poop cake…hmm…I’ve always wondered…if progress is the act of moving forward then what is congress…oh well, I guess I’m not smart enough to know the difference…*wink*…*wink*…

  4. Romney, left to his own devices, would be an unmitigated disaster. Not as bad as the current disaster in the White House, but close. So since we have no choice, we have to vote for 80% poop instead of 100%, it’s imperative that enough GOP Congressmen with spines get elected to stop whichever liberal President we’re stuck with for the next four years.

  5. Just remember, it’s not Obama that created this poop cake. He just approved the recipe.

    If you want to make a statement vote for a President. If you want to make a difference, vote for a Senator or Congresscritter.

    1. Yes. My readership is actually pretty well informed. I’m sorry I didn’t rehash the entire healthcare debate from the last two years in this single blog post that I wrote during my lunch break. I would have put in exhaustive links and footnotes, but I was eating a Subway sandwich with my other hand.

      In other words. Duh. Yeah. We know. And having a president who won’t veto a repeal is neccesary to making this go away before it becomes entrenched like all of the other crappy laws we can’t get rid of.

      That said, anything states can do, feds can do stupider. He’s running on getting it repealed. The republican congress has already voted to repeal. I’ve complained about Mitt Romney since 2008, but at least he’s not a marxist.

    2. The very big difference is that it only applied to the State of Massachusetts. Obamacare, by contrast, encompassed the whole country.

      1. Important point. If people hate the system in Mass, they can go to another state where the system hasn’t been screwed up. Nationwide legislation like this means the screw up affects us all.

        Another thing people who support the Mass program seem to forget is that it’s still pretty new and it’s already a money-pit. So you haven’t felt it yet? You will. Now imagine that nationwide. Again, there will be nowhere to go to escape the poop-cake.

        This healthcare plan is not self-sustaining. It can’t pay for itself. It will — as such programs have all over the world with no exceptions — suck the taxpayers dry.

  6. Romney won’t repeal Obamacare; he provided the blueprint and loves the concept. He’s just having to pretend like he’s against it in order to maintain his Republican facade… just like Hatch, who partnered with Chappaquiddick Ted many times trying to get healthcare through, but now has to pretend like he’s against it because “the other side” got it passed.

    If you want to stop Obamacare, turn to your local elections and get the state to nullify:

    Here’s a good rant on Roberts:

    1. I only skimmed through the review on roberts, but I believe they were misinterpreting it. They seemed to be saying that the mandatory purchase was the tax, whereas I believe the “penalty” was the tax. Or if you want to get technical, it would be a 1% tax on all americans, but americans who purchase healthcare get a tax credit for it. Then again, I’m not an accountant, what do you think larry?

  7. Romney may suck, true but he will repeal Obamacare. We need to repeal this bill and we need all the votes we can get. So you can take the moral high-ground and vote for a third party, but don’t complain when Obama wins and you get to chew a nice juicey poop cake for years to come.

  8. I’m surrounded by poop-cake revelers. They actually think their Cadillac health insurance won’t change. Obama said we’d get to keep our insurance! Well, we can keep it. It will just wither and be smaller and smaller and then they will go bankrupt. And then the poop-cake revelers will look to the throne and say “wha happan?”

    And we just had Romney’s adviser going on MSNBC and saying “it’s not a tax, it’s a penalty”. Why is that guy — the one who uttered the brilliant “etch-a-sketch” line — still working for Romney? I’m going need a titanium clothes pin to hold my nose closed to vote for him, but vote for Mitt I will. *sigh*

  9. So this is what I did and sums up my thoughts on this admittedly very confusing subject. I also completely agree with (joecrouse).

    I think everyone should pen a similar letter this the least we can to let the rulers know the peasants are not pleased.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts & Associate Justices: Stephen G Bryer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagen, Sonia M. Sotomayor
    Supreme Court of the United States
    1 First Street, NE
    Washington, DC 20543
    Dear Justice Roberts:
    Today your decision along with Associate Justices Bryer, Ginsburg, Kagen, and Sotomayor to keep the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obama Care signifies a terrible expansion of explicit and inferred governmental power to tax, and exert Socialistic control over and diminish liberty for all Americans. The specter of Federally controlled health care and the sure to follow rationing of specific medical procedures, the committee based decision on standard treatments, and the unaffordable explosion of cost and increased taxation is unconscionable. Your court has driven a stake in the concept of the pursuit of happiness; and has created an affront to the notion our founding fathers had for why we declared independence from Britain. Essentially, Americans will have to be unwilling participants in a program that will be governed by bureaucrats who will be appointed by Liberal Progressives who will callously send classes of citizens to their doom based on a devilish mixture of logic from Margret Sanger and Vladimir Lenin. I personally have seen the results of socialized medicine in England and it is not a patient oriented program. Indeed it is a program based on the so called common good and the refrain of “To each according to his need and from each according to his ability”. I am dismayed that you have pushed America significantly down the road to Socialism, and ultimately to Totalitarianism as all such systems devolve. Worse you have set a precedent for a host of Socialist followers to mandate even more evil based on similar arguments. From strictly a practical perspective you have condemned American Health Care to the same fate as the United States Postal Department, that paragon of efficiency and customer satisfaction; worse yet, continuance of this program will damage American business, especially small business and insurance companies. We will ultimately have a total government single payer system, apathetic under paid doctors, and a wounded drug industry that will have no incentive to produce better products, not to mention taking the wind out of the sails of medical research. Even worse we will not be able to afford this program and it will hasten the financial dissolution of the United States.

    As the so called conservative swing vote on the court, Justice Roberts, all of these unintended consequences fall on your shoulders. I sincerely hope in the next 20 years my dismal views of the future do not come true for if they do you and your Liberal Progressive fellow justices will have a very heavy personal burden of responsibility to take to the grave.

    As a Texan, in the past I have looked askance at the notions of succession and the repatriation of the Republic of Texas, going our own way and letting the United States go to hell on its own. After this horrible judicial decision; and the continuing perfidy of the Executive branch prating socialists governing principals through executive order, and Nero-like fiddling of Congress as the USA burns and decays morally, and financially, I am seriously thinking that breaking away from the Union may be a very preferable alternative to a ship of state hell bent on following a socialist path to destruction.

    This should be a warning to your court that decisions of this kind and the outrageous hijinks of the Executive Branch frays the patience of Patriots and Clear Thinkers everywhere. It was similar things that prompted our founders to say —

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. — -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

  10. Regarding Robert’s “logic” in allowing Obamacare to stand:

    “Resolved that in this era of racial tensions, it would be better for their own safety and security that people of certain ethnic, religious, or racial descent live in certain secure gated communities. Congress cannot mandate where people live, of course, but we would like to encourage proper behavior. Therefore any person not living in appropriately located housing, as defined by this act, shall be assessed a $10,000 per year tax.”

    The above is fiction, of course, of a particularly horrifying variety. But in the wake of the Roberts decision yesterday can anyone tell me why Congress does not have the power to do exactly that, all nice and Constitutional?

  11. And on the political note, I have to add only this: yes, Romney is running on repeal, and who knows; maybe it’ll happen (I don’t see how, unless the Republicans get filibuster-proof majorities in both houses, which I do not want). It doesn’t change the fact that SCOTUS just continued a long trend of not limiting federal authority; now the song is in the key of Tax instead of Commerce Clause. Now, for as long as I can remember, every politician I’ve ever seen has said A and done B. I’m less interested in Romney saying he’ll do A, and more interested in what specific limit will keep him from doing B.

    1. Since the Supreme Court has made at least the individual mandate a tax, my understanding is that rules of the Senate don’t allow filibuster. A simple majority in both houses is sufficient to repeal a tax.

      1. That is correct as I understand it. Perhaps the foundation of the law can be kicked out from under it.

      2. Hey, man, I’m all for it. I’m trying to figure out where exactly the rules don’t allow for filibuster, though. There appear to be some pretty nasty ways around a filibuster, but as far as I can tell the filibuster is still allowed. The only solid exception I’ve found so far is budget matters that can pass on reconciliation (there’s *that* word again…).

  12. Romney would only be a small part of the solution. The bigger part is electing governors who actually have the guts to tell the feds to “go forth and multiply.”

  13. I love it when people post link’s to Lew Rockwell’s page. You’ll never find a more worthless sack of shit pretending to be a freedom fighter.

    See, “freedom fighter” implies that you, you know, actually fight. Lew Rockwell and his self-involved ilk have repeatedly called for NOT voting, not getting involved, etc.

    There you go, Ron Paul fans. Don’t vote. That’ll get Ron Paul elected.

    Complaining about “military idolatry”, from a sniveling coward who’s never had the spine to lace up a pair of combat boots and resents his betters.

    You know how Ron Paul went from being a nobody to shaping, however slightly, the national debate? People getting involved. Working. Doing things. Things besides banging on the keyboard and complaining.

    (He once opined that the “drafted murderers” that fought World War 2 are held in too high of esteem, and should be placed below the independent pioneers that forged across the west. Apparently he’s never heard the Indians’ version of how that story went.)

    What does Lew Rockwell do? Complain about us murdering service members fighting America’s evil wars and opine that the US should just dissolve.

    Nothing relevant, in other words.

    Yet I see this asshole quoted all the time on the internet. Lew Rockwell isn’t going to accomplish anything, and neither are you if you follow his example.

    Are you an ultra-orthodox libertarian anarchist who believes the very existence of a government is a fundamental evil that’s just intolerable? Good luck with that. Spend your entire life angry that the world isn’t your idea of a utopia. The far left does it all the time. I’m sure it’s fun.

    But that’s the problem. Most Americans don’t care. Many don’t know. That do know and do care? Most of them aren’t willing to do anything about it. Few, if any, are actually willing to sacrifice something for what they say they believe in.

    Freedom isn’t free. It has a steep price. The price is not typing articles on the internet.

    And don’t get me wrong. I’m just as guilty of this as anyone else. With such daunting problems, it’s very tempting to just, emotionally, wash your hands of it. Go Lew Rockwell, in other words. Just say fuck it, stop voting, stop caring, and let it all burn.

    If you’re going to do that, at least be honest with yourself about it.

  14. Look, you guys all know I’m not a big Romney fan, but he’s way better than Obama on, oh, say EVERYTHING.

    If this wasn’t a post about Obamacare, which was modelled on Romneycare in MA, this would not be nearly so ironic of a statement from you, Larry. I.e.: This is the one ultra-gigantic thing he’s very clearly absolutely not better than Obama on.

    1. I must’ve missed the part of Romneycare where it applied to all US citizens and not just the Massachusetts folks. You know, so it could comply with the state constitution and not conflict with that pesky 10th Amendment the US version has. That’s all right, the entire Romneycare bill is just 70 pages long, shouldn’t take too long to read it over.

      1. What on earth does that have to do with anything? Yes, as Governor of MA, Romney could only damage MA. Very astute of you to notice that, sir.

        I want Gary Johnson to be president in 2012. Given that that isn’t happening, I’d prefer Romney to Obama. I was pointing out the irony of claiming that Romney is superior to Obama In a post about the terrible thing that Obama did that Romney did first. Even though yes, as you so cleverly mention, the State of Massachussetts can’t pass Federal legislation.

        1. You know I’m not a fan of the guy, but it is either going to be Romney or Obama. One is running on repealing it. One will do anything to keep it. One party is trying to kill it, the other is willing to committ banzai charge level mass suicide to save it.

          As for the whole thing about the republicans and the democrats being exactly the same, no they’re not. Not even close. Do the republicans suck? In many ways, yes. Do the democrats suck beyond all comprehension to a whole new level of suck, hell yeah. Over the last few years the republicans have given me Allen West, Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and Marco Rubio, all while tossing out a bunch of RINOS. Do I agree with them on everything? Nope. But at least they understand the founding principles of America. Hell, even the moderate republicans like Paul Ryan are at least capable of doing math or balancing a checkbook.

          On the other side, the democrats have given me a parade of crazy people and marxists. Yay!

      2. I am not trying to say that every Rep is bad, there are good ones, But the good ones are not the ones running for President, Romney is. I would not include Allen West in the good column, he was the sole person on your list that voted for NDAA.

        If you can compromise and vote for Romney since he said something in a campaign speech you agree with then that is what you have to do. But I think its a trap, as long as we keep voting for a candidate that we hate the least. We will never have great candidates. I feel that voting for Romney is like trying to win the battle while losing the war.

        You get offered two poop sandwich’s and decide to pick one with less poop, I wont pick either. If that gives the election to Obama, I dont care. Let him go full speed ahead and ruin this. Then we can get to work rebuilding and hopefully try to stay true to the constitution a bit longer this time.

        Paul Ryan’s plan is a joke, its as good as any other plan they bring forward but its does not address the core issues. We CANT pay our National Debt off due to the fact the FED is a private bank that charges interest on the money it loans us. Yeah, we have to pay interest to private banks on the money our Government creates. The battle over Central Banks has been fought before, Andrew Jackson successfully ended the Second Central Bank in the US in 1836 but it was reformed in 1913 under the name Federal Reserve vs Bank

        Here is a decent video to get anyone started that is interested

        If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson

      3. Go ahead and hold your breath until we Republicans nominate a candidate you like.

        Here is a rubber band and a plastic bag in case you need some help.

        If you want to support better nominees, then get involved in the party. If you are too lazy or cowardly to do this, then lump it.

        Writing endless screeds in the internet and complaining about your choice of nominees does nothing to actually fix anything.

      4. 1) I am supporting my candidate and will vote for him in the election

        2) Writing on the internet CAN do something to fix it the issues we face. Did you know the FED was made up of private banks and we have to pay interest to these banks when our government creates money? Did you know Jackson got rid of the Second Central bank and why? If not then maybe you took the time to watch the video’s and maybe you learned a little. And even if you did not, maybe someone else did. They may not support my candidate but an educated elect-orate is a good thing.

        What doesn’t create positive change is silly name calling and petty attacks on people who dont support the same things you do.

      5. Writing on the internets is a poor second to actual political organizing.

        If you had actually gotten involved in your local precinct, you might have actually helped your candidate get the nomination.

        But he did not have any real hard support … just a bunch of internet screedwriters.

        So the candidate that actually had folks show up at party local and state conventions will be the one with all the delegates at the national convention. So guess who wins.

        You, and folks like you, expected that you could win by writing screeds instead of getting off your ass and packing precinct committees. This is a common Libertarian failing. If screedwriting was the road to political power, Libertarians would be running the world.

        I am a precinct committee-person in Wyoming. All year, we saw no sign of any Paulistas doing the actual work of running the party or campaigning. They just showed up at the county and state conventions, and got blown out of the water, since they were obviously outsiders, and had done nothing to support the party.

      6. My guy won my state

        You know what else is a poor second? Trying to compete with all the money that to big to fail banks poured into the Romney campaign when your biggest contributor is the US Army. Does it bother you that your guys top 4 contributors all got billions of tax payer money in a Government bailout while the top 3 contributors to my guy are all branches of the armed forces?

        Mitt Romney

        Goldman Sachs $593,080
        JPMorgan Chase & Co $467,089
        Bank of America $425,100
        Morgan Stanley $399,850
        Credit Suisse Group $390,360

        Ron Paul

        US Army $113,703
        US Navy $89,993
        US Air Force $89,009
        Google Inc $42,478
        US Dept of Defense $38,350

        Your guy is not even the Republican nominee yet, there could be some fireworks at the Convention. But even if there is not and Romney get the nomination, I dont care. I dont worry about things that are done and I cant change. If Romney get the nomination I will vote in the Presidential ballot and be done with that also until the next election.


        Paul did well in three non-binding caucus states, and he got one more delegates than Romney in SD. Enough folks have pledged for Romney to make it mathematically impossible for him to lose.

        That tells me his people did not get the ground work done. Money is a poor substitute for having people at the county conventions. You have to have the bodies at the county conventions in order to get the state convention delegates. Non-binding caucus states simply require you to show up once.

        Showing and doing the work > internet screeding

        You want to get a libertarian leaning nominee in the future? Show me how it’s really done. That gauntlet is just sitting there.

        Pick it up.

      8. The was a issue in the 2008 election when a Utah delegate wanted to vote for Mitt vs the presumptive nominee and winner of Utah’s popular vote, John McCain. The issue was forwarded to the RNC General Council and the reply was

        [The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose. The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.

        Delegates that are bound, are bound at the state level. They technically can vote for anyone they want and then it becomes an issue between them and the state as far as I know.

        Also there are TON of issues with how delegates are bound between the states, not all states bind the same. Also add in delegates from other candidates (like Gingrich and Santorum)

        There is also a lawsuit from the group Lawyers for Ron Paul (that have no affiliation with Ron Paul) who brought a suit in District Court to unbind all delegates based on voting irregularities. I have not spent much time on this issue and doubt it has much of a chance. Ron Paul does not support it either.

        And if it does come to a brokered convention then all delegates are unbound I think. But I will admit I am not very knowledgeable about the delegate process past the state level or from other states. What happens at the National level is a complete mystery to me but since the Republican Party run the show just like the Primary’s I am not holding my breath.

        As I said in a prior post, no matter who wins the nomination (probably Mitt of course) and who goes on to win the Presidency (probably Mitt again) wont be a big deal to me. I do what I can and once its done, its done. If Mitt wins, fine. If Obama wins another term, fine.

        As several have said before, people get the government they deserve

      9. So if your point was that you don’t care, then what was the point of writing 4 posts just to say so?

      10. I think you may have just glossed over vs read what I wrote. The point was that once the election process is complete I wont waste any time crying about the outcome, not that I dont care who wins.

  15. So instead of explaining to your highly intelligent daughter that the insurance mandate (what the ruling was about) is necessarily to pass the portion of the bill eliminating denying insurance coverage based on pre existing conditions. So kids that get sick can get insurance after they can no longer be on there parents. You told a poop joke. 🙁

      1. Was the trial not about whether the mandate to purchase insurance was constitutional?

        Was the mandate not required to keep the pre existing condition protection? Because if you can’t deny based on pre existing conditions there would be nothing to keep people from waiting until they were ill before buying insurance.

        Was the pre existing condition protection not proposed in part because insurance companies were denying people who had suffered from serious illnesses as children?

        I’m not trolling I am disagreeing respectful with what I believe are facts (they could be wrong) to a man on the internet who reduced a constitutional issue to a poop joke. Your post basic states that my opinions are wrong with a poop joke (I do like poop jokes thats not the issue).

        So who is trolling who?

        1. You are trolling my blog. That’s fairly obvious to anybody with a couple of brain cells to rub together. Specifically, you are the breed known as a concern troll. “Oh, I’m so respectful and concerned that you all sound like such idiots, but I just want to help you with the facts since you sound like a terrible father and a horrible person and I just CARE SO HARD.”

          Yeah, whatever.

          You want to fix the issue with preexisting conditions? They could have easily done that with an 80 page bill that didn’t require hiring 16,000 new IRS agents.

    1. egoncasteel

      Ivan the Terrible said; “That in order to be a great nation, sometimes you have to let your people starve in the streets”. It is always the plaintiff cry of Liberal Progressives that we must not let a single person suffer in our society; and, that it is our moral and political responsibility to save them all. The 15 or 45 million(who really knows how many) and the strong arming of insurance companies to take on enormous water to insure all with prior illness regardless, will cause America to go broke. We were founded as a nation with the sublime notion that we, each and everyone of us would take care of ourselves and pursue Happiness as best we can. This despite the horror and unfortunate circumstance of the hardship of uninsured kids. Similarly the trade off for that self reliance is the pristine state of :”Liberty”. The Obama Care act is a punitive tax bomb handed to the government by the stupid decision of the Supreme Court. This unwise act will lead to a revolt and a catastrophic break down in the entitlement culture we have created for a significant minority of people who are not players in the high tech culture of the 21st century. At some point when we are indeed dead broke, food stamps will not be affordable, welfare checks will not be issued and this health care thing will be a forgotten issue as that same target group you are wailing about rampage in Southern California, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. This will be much scarier than a Zombie apocalypse. Our stupid Social Justice programs will cause the Nation’s cites to burn and the uninsured will be secondary to survival. Simply thousands will die at the hands of the compassion of the masses. This is the destiny of Socialism. As Margret Thatcher said Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. Worse as the cities burn the Feds will try Marshal Law and then we will have what Obama and all the Liberals want a China Style state where dissent is rewarded with a bullet and they get to inaugurate a whole series of favorite issues like gun confiscation, elimination of private property, pesky small business, and any vestige of personal liberty all for the glory of Social Justice. All this because of misbegotten notions of compassion of the down trodden, a veiled plot of treason to order us to do what is good for the common good while a few Liberal Elites drink wine in DC and Hollywood and sigh in complete satisfaction that we have a government like Hugo Chavez’. This is the Ayn Rand horror story with a twist.

      1. Hay I’m fine with letting them die in streets, but they don’t. Their unpaid bills just inflate my medical bills. That is why everyone needs insurance.

        I like the market idea. Let the insurance companies publish prices based on a few pieces of demographic information (sex, age, state) anyone that meets those qualifications can buy in at that price. Let there be real competition. Give me some real choice besides what ever my employer buys into. Give me the freedom to change jobs with out worrying about insurance. Give me the security of knowing that if I get laid off I still have insurance so long as I pay my bills.

        1. You want real competition? Then allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Unisurable? Not any more. Just like no matter how crappy of a driver you are, you can still buy insurance. Even though it might cost more or not be as good, if the market is allowed, somebody will fill the niche.

          Oh, but wait… Which party has tried to push that through for years?* Plus, if we were to do that it would help fix the problem WITHOUT massively increasing government power, so that simply isn’t possible.

          *And as much as I dislike Lindsey Graham, that has been one of his pet issues that he has pushed repeatedly. So props where they are dure.

      2. It is the avalanche of unintended consequences that are just about how much money for Social Issues can we stand versus the rest of us having liberty. Even your plea for job mobility costs too much money. It should not be paid for by everyone. Taxation and Governmental Debt have limits. Ultimately you break your society into hostile camps or worse you cause societal collapse by going to far one way or another. We should drive equidistant between the ditches of Upton Sinclair’s, “The Jungle” on the Right and Orwell’s, “1984” on the Left. Obama is tinkering with those boundaries at the peril of the societies ability to pay for it. So Europe here we come in a hand basket.

      3. I agree that nether side can nor should completely have its way even if we disagree on where the pendulum is right now.

        I would honestly like to see all roads privatized and converted to toll roads. No really, I mean it. This isn’t some liberal mind game. Keep reading. We have the technology to do this efficiency with systems like ipass. I would like to only pay for the roads I use. I hate seeing millions of Fed dollars from my taxes go to build infrastructure I will never use. If companies have to pass on the extra transportation cost on to me. Fine then at least I only pay for that on products I buy, and it will make products made locally seem cheaper in comparison. That would lead to my money staying closer to me.

        There are issues to work out, like how do residents fire a company that is not maintaining roads up to par, but it seems like this would be better system.

        Here are my reasons against public roads:
        1 I don’t want to pay taxes for infrastructure I don’t need
        2 I don’t think the government does it all that well

        The arguments ageist public health care are normally:
        1 I don’t want to pay taxes for it
        2 I don’t think the government would do it well
        3 I don’t want the government to tell me what treatments I can have

        In both cases 1 and 2 are more or less the same. The third reason for not wanting health is moot in my opinion your chose is having an insurance company tell you what treatments you can have, or a government agency. I don’t know which is worse corporate greed or government stupidity.

        So here are two systems one already in place one starting to move that way. I am arguing for universal health care and against public roads. The differences are:
        1 Insurance works better the larger the pool. That’s the point. To spread the risk of an unlikely danger we all face evenly across the group.
        2 You can bar someone from a road or fine someone for using a road with out paying, but you can’t really deny someone health care. Right now we have private health care and we cant do it. People will have accident and rack up bills before they even wake. Who is going to tell the kid with cancer to go home and die because he doesn’t have money to pay. And so on and so on. Some how the bills for those that can’t pay get passed on to those that do pay.

    2. Was the trial not about whether the mandate to purchase insurance was constitutional?

      Permit me, if you will, to answer your question with a question: how many cases concerning ACA were argued before the Court, and why?

      Was the mandate not required to keep the pre existing condition protection? Because if you can’t deny based on pre existing conditions there would be nothing to keep people from waiting until they were ill before buying insurance.

      Yes, but that falls exceptionally short of the bigger picture. The mandate’s primary existence is so that younger, healthier people (who wouldn’t otherwise purchase insurance) would be forced to pay for health insurance to offset the cost of higher-risk patients, including, but sure as hell not limited to, folks w/ preexisting conditions. No mandate, no Obamacare. Different from no mandate, no preexisting condition protection.

      Was the pre existing condition protection not proposed in part because insurance companies were denying people who had suffered from serious illnesses as children?

      Yes, and my answer can’t be better than Larry’s.

      1. I am guessing in that ACA refers to Affordable Care Act. I would say that one reason that there are so many ACA cases is that the health insurance industry stands to lose a lot if the movement for universal health care continues. That 10s of Billions of dollars. So of coarse they would do all thy can to fight it. I am not saying it is the only reason but that alone would explain it.

        I would have to say that the assumption that young people don’t need insurance is fundamentally wrong. Lets just look at ATV accidents. After some googleing it seems that it is not unreasonable to say that there are 30,000 to 50,000 ATV accidents a year involving people between 18 to 30, and that they were most likely healthy.

        That is just ATV accidents for one year and that is a pretty significant number. If these people didn’t have insurance and you are not going to pass the medical bills to charity, or write them off some way then what would they do. Apply for an unsecured loan for 10s of 1000s of dollars over the phone before the ambulance comes out. Then live the rest of with crippling debt. Who in their right mind is going to give a $50,000 unsecured loan to a 20 year old kid with no money, and a decent chance of being dead soon or crippled in some way. If someone would give them that loan I could only assume that the terms would amount to indentured servitude for the rest of there lives. Not that any of that matters because I am pertty sure the golden hour would be up be for all the paper work could be filled out.

        As far as Larry’s answer if you want to go that route it means that if someone gets ill and loses their insurance and can find someone to insure them it would be in no way cheep. It would be more then enough to completely F up the rest of their lives. I sure as hell don’t want that to happen to me, or anyone I give the slightest damn about. I can only assume Larry is a social darwinist and respect him for his convictions, or assume he is in denial of the fact that right now the way things are that this can and does happen to people all the time and could happen to him or someone he gives a s**t about..

    1. Will, I’ve got a couple hundred emails I haven’t read. I usually wait and ship all of the orders about once a month.

  16. I think it’s simple- when a good part of the People of the USA stop wanting free stuff, then the government will stop making and giving out poop cake.

    Otherwise, if the people want free stuff, even a President Ron Gault De la Paz isn’t going to cut them off- and if he tries, he’s gone. Because, hey- even poop cake is free cake, amiright?

  17. Larry, I wanted to let you know that even though we don’t agree on poltics I do really like your books.

  18. See, here’s the thing. Congress does have the power to tax, but it was never intended to have the power to directly tax individuals. The original Constitution specifically prohibited a capitation or direct tax.

    The socialists actually won the war in 1913 with the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments, but it has taken a while for the effects to be fully felt. Prior to the passage of these abominations, the system worked very well for 150 years. Now the federal government can do pretty much anything it wants to.

    Individual citizens were never expected to stand against the might of a massive federal government. Their states were supposed to protect them by appointing senators to watch over the states’ rights and interests. When one state wanted some pork project, the others were expected to apportion a higher tax to that state to fund the purchase. Then appointed representatives were supposed to be accountable to state legislatures when taxes went up (as the states had to collect them) and ones who spent too much or cause their apportionment to be increased were very likely to get removed from office. Under no circumstances, however, was the federal government supposed to be able to reach the people directly.

    The 16th Amendment destroyed a major check and balance on the federal power by allowing Congress to bypass apportionment of taxes among the states altogether and reach directly into people’s pockets. The 17th Amendment removed appointment of senators by the states in favor of direct elections. This completely broke the check-and-balance which was originally in place and left the states, and accordingly the people with no effective protection. The combination has proven deadly to a formerly free people. Now we’d all have to eat poop, but the nannies will probably deem that unsafe and order us to eat veggies and tofu. I consider that poop anyway and will proceed to eat whatever I damn well please – and it won’t be poop.

  19. Come on Larry. . . we all know “poop” is code-language for. . . . poop.

    And DATS RAAAAACIST !!!!!!

    Sorry. been around liberals all day, some of it was sticking to me, but, luckily, Charmin removes it and it flushes easily. . .

    What you said. Only Squared and Cubed. . .

  20. OMG, that is frickin’ awesome. I just finished Hard Magic and went looking for you online and this… Damn glad I found you. And thanks for putting this in language even a half-dead monkey could understand. (Extra thanks for the full-on belly laugh first thing this morning.)

  21. This rant (and subsequent comments by the author) is one of the reasons that I keep making sure that Larry gets a portion of my income.

    1. I totally agree, I have purchased all of Larry’s books in eARC, regular ebook, dead tree book and audible versions. I do whatever I can to help support Larry’s miniatures habit to keep him happy so he will keep producing awesome books and rants, keep up the good works.

  22. Thing is, this decision has made it pretty hard (if not impossible) for Romney to oppose eliminating Obamacare. If he gets onto the debate stage and starts talking about how Obama is a right-on guy and he’s gonna make sure Obama’s signature achievement goes forward, he’s gonna lose- and he knows it.

    1. I don’t know. Both versions of [person]Care seem functionally similar, and though there are differences, I don’t think there’s much point in Romney spending much time trying to highlight those differences. They’re not quick, easy, or (most importantly) clear to describe outside of a few talking points, like highlighting the 70 vs 2700 pages, for example.

      That’s the sort of thing that needs a presentation, not a press conference or a debate to get across, and honestly, the electorate doesn’t have time or patience for that. Anyone who’s worked in sales knows you have at most a minute, maybe two, to make the pitch of how your version of a product is Totally Different from, and Way Better than, those of your competitors. If you had an hour or two, you could make the case for the devil being in the details, but you don’t. So, there isn’t much point in doing more than releasing a breakdown of the differences and focusing on better uses of time.

      However, I don’t think this ruling leaves Romney in as big a lurch as it seems. The obvious play is to ask some direct questions about what exactly Obama meant when he said it totally isn’t a tax, no siree-bob, but the SCOTUS says the whole thing’s only legal if it is a tax in every practical way. The only options then are for Obama to run on a platform of either explicitly having suckered the electorate into something, or of his biggest “achievement” being the result of blithering incompetence.

      As I understand it, Obama is trying to say it’s a ‘penalty’ and not an outright tax, but that argument is as thin and filmy as cheap detergent. Sure, right, it’s not a tax. Just ignore the fact that the SC says it is, that it’s implemented through the tax system, that it’s enforced by the IRS, and that the power to pull stunts like this is only possible (sort of) because of Congress’s ability to levy taxes.

      Obama’s argument is like saying that people can fly because of tickets, rather than jet engines. The fact that Obama issued a defense of a “successful” piece of “legislation” means there’s blood in the water already.

  23. Oh, and somebody above said “I don’t know which is worse corporate greed or government stupidity.”

    I see you’ve never worked with the government…

  24. I’m in the minority in an aspect of the decision. I don’t think it was a “bad” decision. Weirdly reasoned but not bad. Just because the law is bad does not make it illegal per se (I note there are differences between ‘can’ and ‘should’ as well as laws and ethics).

    This has been building in jurisprudence for a while. Roberts could have struck it down, but I find Pounelle’s reasoning persuasive in that Roberts has moved the court away from the business of saving us from the lawmakers we selected our ownselves. IIRC there was a line to that effect in the opinion. SCOTUS only decides ‘is this legal, and if so how it works’ not ‘is this a good idea’.
    Do I like the decision? Nope not a bit, poop sandwich is still the only menu choice.

    But the court has decided that if we want to change it, we need to change the lawmakers. We want to keep on this road, keep the bums in power, otherwise throw them out.

    IMO if/when we can kill this stupid law, our lawmakers need to tackle the underlying jurisprudence (Wickard v. Filburn comes to mind, as does the Kelo decision and a couple of others) to prevent it from occuring again.

  25. Wow, Larry you are one of my personal heroes. I will be retelling your story to my friends and family on the 4th at the cook out I’m having … correct citation will be provided of course, is MLA formatting ok with you?

    Also, what are your thoughts on the Fair Tax … seems to look better every time I look into it.

    1. Yep, and if’n you don’t they’ll tax…er, penalize you so that you can’t pay your property tax. Then they’ll take your land because you haven’t paid your taxes… Or was it a penalty? Well, either way, IRS agents will show up, take your land (and your cane) and shove poop cake down your throat. Then you’ll be in the hospital saving the taxpayer thousands of dollars somehow…

      1. ooo I hope they do take my cane. I’m disabled and if I fall when they take my cane that’s a lawsuit.
        Personally I hate how litigious society has become, still if they are going to play screw the citizen over with BS laws I’ll gladly lawyer up and stick it to them.

        Imagine those headlines IRS enforcers take cane from crippled 27 year old 🙂

  26. What kind of icing will be on the poop cake? Because I don’t like that whipped cream stuff.
    What this means is that by calling anything a tax, the .gov can control it. Just like the 1934 NFA was a “tax”. If this stands we’re even more screwed than we were.

  27. “electing him is now our only realistic chance to kill Obamacare. Period.”

    Exactly correct.

    SCOTUS has made me a single issue voter. So be it. I will now support, contribute to and vote for Romney.

    1. Part of me things the Chief Justice did that on purpose. While he could have struck down the law because it was unconstitutional finding a way to basically say “you voted Obama in now deal with the results” is kind of a way of saying “voting matters you idiots”. I’ve heard from countless sources that said they actually didn’t vote in 2008, on top of that 30% of those who identify as conservative don’t vote or aren’t registered.
      It’s as much the voting populous’ fault as those in office that the law passed in the first place.

      1. Occam’s Razor says that Roberts did a stupid thing because he meant to do a stupid thing. One of our problems is that the Supremes are too powerful, far out of line withthe intended Checks and Balances. This is why SC Justice picks are so supremely important: jsut one can warp the trajectory of legislation for decades.

        My solution is to actually employ the Forgotten Check on the Court: impeachment. If it’s important for the Court to be nonpartisan and to use the Constitution as a yardstick, removing activist or capricous justices (I’m looking at YOU, Ginsberg) isn’t jsut a good idea- it’s darn near obligatory.

      2. It may have been a stupid thing, but it may have been his only choice. I think the law sucks, but technically it’s up to us to vote the POTUS out and as many Senators as possible and then have their replacements remove the law. You’re right the court is powerful, and I would like to hope they went this way so as not to use their power too much. To strike down the whole law would have been activism, we can’t complain when Liberal judges legislate from the bench and then expect Conservatives to do the same.
        Our job now is to put people in office who will remove this law as fast as possible.
        Is this the simplest answer no… Occam’s Razor doesn’t alwayse apply as humans don’t alwayse do the simplistic thing. We are prone to making things complicated.

      3. Will respectfully disagree with you there. Even Roberts admitted that the law was unconstitutional… then he effectively rewrote the State’s arguements, torturing logic until he could pass as a “tax” a law that was invalid any other way. Now THAT was ‘Judicial Activism”. Doing a justice’s job- striking down laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster- is not activism, but the job the Supremes claim as the basis of their authority.
        And where in the world did this “duty of the court to uphold Congress’ will” come from?!

      4. Yes the way it was written was unconstitutional. I think Roberts looked at it like this, “there is a way that the law could be legal” and often times the SCOTUS looks to the intent of a law not just the way it was written. That is as much of what they do as is making sure it stands up to constitutional muster. I think Roberts realized that if there was any way to read it that would make it legal it was the courts responsibility to read it that way.
        I wish he had struck it down, but I can understand what he did.
        I still think it was stupid, but I can see how he could justify it to himself.

        Like I said it’s up to us now to vote out the wrong people and get this law removed.

      5. Sorry for the double post, to much celebration today maybe

        I also respectfully disagree. Much of what you mention is NOT the Supreme Courts role. The only option that I can see is that this is judicial legislation for political reasons. How can a Supreme Court find this as a Tax when it was specifically pointed out several times by Obama and his administration that this was NOT a tax. Such as the interview with George Stephanopoulos

        STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

        OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

      6. Steve: Because words mean exactly what they say they mean, when they say them, not what any stupid old book says, and they can change the meaning any old time they want.

        Superpowers are fun, no? 😀

      7. I have to admit that I was wrong. It seems while Obama was (and still is today) is denying that this was a tax his solicitor general (verrilli) was standing in front of the Supreme Court arguing that it was a tax

        I think this sheds a bit of light on Roberts actions (at least for me) but I still dont agree with it. I assumed he pulled this tax stuff out of his butt but he had to consider it because it was part of the oral arguments

      8. I’m not happy about the ruling at all either. You’re right about it being part of the oral arguments, as well as the written brief(almost dead last though). I still don’t get how the administration can continue to say it’s not a tax, when they even argued for it being a tax as the last ditch part of their case.

        I just can’t wait till the law is gone for good and it will all be just a bad memory.

        1. It is worse than a tax it is an intrusive edict by the government compelling individuals to do something that is not in the tenants of common law. It is autocratically and puts asunder any notion of liberty. A true fur lined bear trap we cannot afford and which will not remedy the problem of health care it will rather decrease the current system to 1950’s public heath standards. And shipwreck Medical Research and Drug research. And worse, it will result in death squad decisions for older Americans ultimately.

      9. I know you’re preaching to the choir. There isn’t one thing good about this law, and no part of it is in line with the spirit of American Individualism.

  28. I also respectfully disagree. Much of what you mention is NOT the Supreme Courts role. The only option that I can see is that this is judicial legislation for political reasons. How can a Supreme Court find this as a Tax when it was specifically pointed out several times by Obama and his administration that this was NOT a tax. Such as the interview with George Stephanopoulos

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

    OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

    1. Steve, you really need to read more, instead of simply listening to the lamestream media. The Obama adminstration argued that the mandate WAS a tax before the Supreme Court. Just another example of Obama’s lies.

      1. That’s what really irks me. They argued both ways fine they were rats on a sinking ship and needed to try whatever means possible. Now that they “won” though they are out their lying saying it’s not a tax. Nancy Pilosy(don’t care enough to spell her name right) even said “it only affects 1-2% of people I would hardly call that a tax. First it affects more than that, second it affects the poorest among us. How the hell can they be the party of the people and then say taxing the poorest is hardy a tax…

      2. I think we both should have read a bit more. See the post about 5 up from this spot and done days ago. But you are right, the Administration Attorney argued in front of the Supreme Court that it was a tax (I also provided a link to the transcripts)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.