CougarCorner

ABYUFAN wrote:I wonder how long it takes untill people start correctly asserting that Obama has now raised taxes on the poor and the middle class

I heard an analysis today that Obama-Care will increase taxes close to $2 Trillion over the next 10 years. This is a far reaching, massive, intrusive tax increase.

Also, since the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) announced their decision Romney has raised over $4 million. People are angry and responding. Good!

The real battle isn't the presidency. Its for seats in the house and Senate. We've all become so focused on the president that we aren't recognizing how bad Congress has become.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I am so disgusted with Washington that I am not voting for any incumbant including my rep.

scott715 wrote:I am so disgusted with Washington that I am not voting for any incumbant including my rep.

How did Hatch get back in??? I don't live in Utah but I'd never vote for him. I'll go along with you though Scott, I didn't vote for our forever representative and probably won't for the 2 senators when they come up although they aren't as bad as the rep.

Ddawg wrote:

scott715 wrote:I heard that Romney got $2M in donations today.

Yes - plus $1 million. I saw on FOX News tonight that Romney raised $3 million today after the SCOTUS announced it's Obama-care decision. People are angry. In hindsight, the Obama folks will rue this day. It will serve as a rally cry as Nov. approaches. "Out with the tax raisers!" "Out with the Socialists!"

I have talked to about 15 people at work today about this decision, every single person is angry - and this is in liberal California.

Here in Colorado, the people on the left are giddy, the people on the right are pissed, and the people in the middle want to learn more about it now that it's been blessed by SCOTUS.

Polling is already showing an even split in opinion on the SCOTUS opinion:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78031.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was pleased that the decision wasn't purely political, and admire Roberts for thinking for himself. I think way too many people decide they don't like something based on who is providing it. The conservatives loved Romneycare initially.

I'll also admit that I'm glad that something being done about the freeloaders in the health care system.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I have a gut feeling that what Roberts did was just as distasteful to him as to us. And I think he did it to hang a HUGE albatross on the necks of the dems. When I look at what happened I can only surmise he did it for specific reasons which I believe are
1. To get Romney the presidency
2. Very possibly get the Senate (and keep the congress)
3. To get rid of every part of Obamacare.

What makes me think this is the following:
1. Robert's voting record is completely the opposite making this vote not just an anomoly but an actual outlier.
2. The maniority was actually written in majority speak meaing an 11th hour switch.
3. He labled it a tax hanging the biggest tax increase ever on Obama and the Dems.
4. The decision was an idiological dicision and Robert's has always ruled on principle (idiological because he basically rewrote the legislation and therefore was "legislating from the bench").
5. His statement about not being able to protect the people from the people they elect.

These things make me have to concider that this "ruling" was done with the purpose of energizing voters against the most corrupt and lawless administration to ever walk the halls of the whitehouse and the congress.

I personally think we will see a landslide election in November with just about every state ending up red for Romney. I also think we have a great show to pick up a lot more seats in the Congress very likely taking the Senate back from today's liberals.

imuakahuku wrote:I have a gut feeling that what Roberts did was just as distasteful to him as to us. And I think he did it to hang a HUGE albatross on the necks of the dems. When I look at what happened I can only surmise he did it for specific reasons which I believe are
1. To get Romney the presidency
2. Very possibly get the Senate (and keep the congress)
3. To get rid of every part of Obamacare.

What makes me think this is the following:
1. Robert's voting record is completely the opposite making this vote not just an anomoly but an actual outlier.
2. The maniority was actually written in majority speak meaing an 11th hour switch.
3. He labled it a tax hanging the biggest tax increase ever on Obama and the Dems.
4. The decision was an idiological dicision and Robert's has always ruled on principle (idiological because he basically rewrote the legislation and therefore was "legislating from the bench").
5. His statement about not being able to protect the people from the people they elect.

These things make me have to concider that this "ruling" was done with the purpose of energizing voters against the most corrupt and lawless administration to ever walk the halls of the whitehouse and the congress.

I personally think we will see a landslide election in November with just about every state ending up red for Romney. I also think we have a great show to pick up a lot more seats in the Congress very likely taking the Senate back from today's liberals.

If this is indeed what Roberts didn, then he took an AWFUL big gamble.

imuakahuku wrote:I have a gut feeling that what Roberts did was just as distasteful to him as to us. And I think he did it to hang a HUGE albatross on the necks of the dems. When I look at what happened I can only surmise he did it for specific reasons which I believe are
1. To get Romney the presidency
2. Very possibly get the Senate (and keep the congress)
3. To get rid of every part of Obamacare.

What makes me think this is the following:
1. Robert's voting record is completely the opposite making this vote not just an anomoly but an actual outlier.
2. The maniority was actually written in majority speak meaing an 11th hour switch.
3. He labled it a tax hanging the biggest tax increase ever on Obama and the Dems.
4. The decision was an idiological dicision and Robert's has always ruled on principle (idiological because he basically rewrote the legislation and therefore was "legislating from the bench").
5. His statement about not being able to protect the people from the people they elect.

These things make me have to concider that this "ruling" was done with the purpose of energizing voters against the most corrupt and lawless administration to ever walk the halls of the whitehouse and the congress.

I personally think we will see a landslide election in November with just about every state ending up red for Romney. I also think we have a great show to pick up a lot more seats in the Congress very likely taking the Senate back from today's liberals.

Imua, you always have good points to consider and you may be right, but I have a slightly different view. As Chief Justice Roberts can assign himself the majority opinion if he is in the majority and Roberts wanted to do three things: declare that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to enact such legislation because if it does there are no limits to that authority; (2) stop Congress from coercing States in Mediciad matters and (3) prevent a repeat of Gore v. Bush. For better or worse that decision significantly damaged the Court's reputation. Roberts is the Chief. He is not about to let the Court be the institution to cast the bill out. That will be up to the voters and the repubs. It is clear at least to my non expert understanding that the bill is sustainable under the Taxing Clause and so while the sponsors said the bill is not a tax, if it waddles like a tax, quacks like a tax, it is a tax and Roberts could sustain it on those grounds. So doing it this way he accomplished all three things of vital import to him. Now let the campaigns begin!

BoiseBYU wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:I have a gut feeling that what Roberts did was just as distasteful to him as to us. And I think he did it to hang a HUGE albatross on the necks of the dems. When I look at what happened I can only surmise he did it for specific reasons which I believe are
1. To get Romney the presidency
2. Very possibly get the Senate (and keep the congress)
3. To get rid of every part of Obamacare.

What makes me think this is the following:
1. Robert's voting record is completely the opposite making this vote not just an anomoly but an actual outlier.
2. The maniority was actually written in majority speak meaing an 11th hour switch.
3. He labled it a tax hanging the biggest tax increase ever on Obama and the Dems.
4. The decision was an idiological dicision and Robert's has always ruled on principle (idiological because he basically rewrote the legislation and therefore was "legislating from the bench").
5. His statement about not being able to protect the people from the people they elect.

These things make me have to concider that this "ruling" was done with the purpose of energizing voters against the most corrupt and lawless administration to ever walk the halls of the whitehouse and the congress.

I personally think we will see a landslide election in November with just about every state ending up red for Romney. I also think we have a great show to pick up a lot more seats in the Congress very likely taking the Senate back from today's liberals.

Imua, you always have good points to consider and you may be right, but I have a slightly different view. As Chief Justice Roberts can assign himself the majority opinion if he is in the majority and Roberts wanted to do three things: declare that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to enact such legislation because if it does there are no limits to that authority; (2) stop Congress from coercing States in Mediciad matters and (3) prevent a repeat of Gore v. Bush. For better or worse that decision significantly damaged the Court's reputation. Roberts is the Chief. He is not about to let the Court be the institution to cast the bill out. That will be up to the voters and the repubs. It is clear at least to my non expert understanding that the bill is sustainable under the Taxing Clause and so while the sponsors said the bill is not a tax, if it waddles like a tax, quacks like a tax, it is a tax and Roberts could sustain it on those grounds. So doing it this way he accomplished all three things of vital import to him. Now let the campaigns begin!

Those are great and important points but I think they are his "overt" points and the ones I describe are more of his "covert" points. Nonetheless I beleive your points are indeed correct.