dayman

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/assets_c/2010/04/Tea%20partiers%20Gallup-thumb-380x660-24176.jpg I mean it looks from that poll like they're just like everyone else in almost every category including wage,(w/ more men maybe). So are half not paying any federal income tax in the "taxed enough already movement?" We to reduce rates and broaden the base (caused many if not most Tea Party people to pay more) to fix this? IN the Taxed Enough Already Party? They're actually chanting to be taxed by the government?

My question is what has the Tea Party brought to Washington? What leaders has the movement sent to actually lead in government for whatever their purpose is and what have they done to be proud of? The idea that there is nobody to target (I believe there are but I guess the movement will deny them all since it's the political equivalent to anonymous now ) doesn't mean a thing. And there is not even a coherent set of policies within the movement. The Tea Party turned into a wave that a bunch of nobodies rode to create the worst Congress in my lifetime. And that was the point of last episode...the elected officials who rode that wave in 2010....hell it shed some good light on some more cooperative Repbulicans who ya know...do their job in office. Are there some principles some people can attribute to the "idea"...sure. But that doesn't mean anything...that I can make sense of anyway as far as being ... ya know... meaningful ... and the tea party is no more grass roots than anything else. Grass roots for grass roots sake means nothing anyway. Grass roots is Paulbot libertarians (as much as I disagree and agree w/ them at the same time). That's a movement. The Tea Party is just a mess that birthed a bunch of nonsense attitude into the house of representative and hurt the country as a result. The bottom line I want to know is do tea party people here think it is unfair to label this congress the tea party congress? Do Tea Party people understand compromising issues in a way that advocates your position w/ out compromising yourself and then moving forward is what being in government is all about? Is there anyone in government of any note that has done anything on behalf of this "party" that anyone can say that about?

Oh God Potbelly why won't you expand to my home region...forgot about Potbelly... broccoli cheddar heaven.

It seems sensible to me to talk to the NAACP the same way you talk to everybody else. So I don't think you are wrong.

Just catching up with this story. No problems here that's one of Romney and the GOP's main issues. He would be a hypocrite to not mention it. And all in all the NAACP clapped a lot. As I see it, there is nothing to see here. He did at one point say he was best for the gay community as well as blacks which was awkward but all in all we all know he just means in general he thinks his policies will help the pocket book.

We'll have to wait and see. I doubt they'll do anything like the hand of god they just dropped on the tea party but I would hope they attack the left in some areas in the future as well. If they don't they'll lose some credibility...whatever credibility they have And anyway it is a tv show I read in an interview not every episode will track real news stories from the past they will have made up news stories and as they latest episode set the ground work for the show will have more than just news focus I'm sure it will evolve into a more character driven show as it gets its feet set as well as exploring "the news industry" more...all that is good (although some of the developing character archs are cringe worthy in their Sorkin dialogue and cliche cheesiness). In any event the third episode should have been the second. The second episode was a disaster should have been cut.

There's actually some pretty back and forth and interesting literature on estate/inheritance tax and it's place in society generally ... the bottom line though is estate planning can do wonders and anyone with that millions at the time of their death has probably done themselves right. I'll say this though ... as a somewhat left of center guy ... 1M at death isn't that much and $250K yearly income while a lot isn't all the money in the world ... bleh

Misleading and sensationalizing things for political gain? Doesn't sound like the GOP to me. Also doesn't sound like politicians in general. Obama should be ashamed he's doing something never before seen. This isn't the politics I know.

Pilot was ok, second episode was bad, last episode was actually good IMO it' starting to actually develop some plot. As for the tgreg, it's a TV show. So obviously it is...what it is. But all in all, the blasting of the Tea Party morphing into nonsense and then pitching idiocy was pretty spot on if you ask me. Then again, I despise the "modern Tea Party" and the show was basically just talking about everything I've already hated the Tea Party for. It included some positives for some non-tea party conservatives and didn't mercilessly blast all the GOP...giving props to some ousted Repubs and even in a round about way John Boehner (talking about his endorsing many of the "reasonable republicans" ousted). Bottom line though is the overall slant of the episode was that in 2010 a bunch of maniacs got elected to the House and as a result there failed to be a reasonable opposition party in government. Tea Party supporters are going to hate that. Hard line conservatives may feel uneasy. Many "moderate conservatives" I know in real life will agree on it (and want their party back). And obviously most left of center folk agree as well. It all comes down to me on how you view the Tea Party. If you see them as what they might have once been for, or if you see them as the actual people in Congress who call themselves "Tea Party" and what has happened with their "leadership" (if you can call it that). In any event, the "Tea Party" Congress IMO (and in national approval for what it's worth) is by far the worst Congress in my lifetime, and I'm glad they called out the "grass roots" myth behind the "movement" as it grew and lost that element. All my opinion. Anyone to the right of "moderate conservative" won't agree of course. No hard feelings. But to me the show was a blow below the belt to the Tea Party but it wasn't as if it was completely baseless...it was based in the real justifiable criticism the far right has brought upon itself.

.........and if any tea party people were still watching they are no longer watching

I choose to call that the "American Enlightenment" thank you very much. I pay tribute to our period of enlightened revolution by drinking 20 beers and eating 10 hot dogs and watching other people launch colorful explosions...in doing so I mark myself as their legacy.

The HSA's and the tax treatment? I mean ultimately nobody can afford the catastrophic costs. Nobody. So you will always need insurance for that sort of thing anyway...and that's where all the costs are...5% of us use 50% of the money. So say we go to that system and bite the bullet and the catastrophic insurance plans are basically huge subsidies everybody gives to 5% with no real care they get out of it....then the "lower level" is a choice (I guess) of HSA's or some supplemental insurance? Pretty obvious looking at my situation I'm going with an HSA...as will everyone like me. Pretty obvious the fat guy next door with diabetes is taking the supplemental insurance. So the supplemental insurance plan is now sky rocketing. So the higher level insurance is even more of a rip off than what I have now b/c I pay only for that (which I don't use unless I'm hit by a bus)...and the supplemental market is through the roof b/c everybody that is healthy gets out and runs to HSA's. So insurance is now even more ****ed. Now...if I could just get ripped off on the high level policy but know I'm secure, and take my HSA and use healthcare wisely and the costs came down...I have to tell you for me that would be something (given my relative youth and health) that would be a huge win. But are Americans going to use less healthcare? Is this HSA option (which only the healthy people really want to use) going to have a significant effect on fat/unhealthy America to drop costs? They're going to consume less as a result? The market forces take control here? I'm not so sure. Plus, the hardship on those who are sick...gets pretty rough in that situation. I don't have the answers obviously but I think we should go with what we've got...but please bring back those "death panels" b/c we all need those and we have got to accelerate the pay structure shift even more dramatically medicare should get even more ambitious on that end. To be honest though I'm still evolving on the whole issue. The side of me that strives for some sort of a system wants to improve the ACA. The side of me that just wants the lowest price healthcare for myself would take the HSA and catastrophic plan and just let everything else burn...hell throw some panels into the catastrophic care plan to make some calls on this end of life stuff and I'm basically out clear and free (until I'm old or get some nagging sickness and my HSA runs out...in which case I'll be clamoring for a system more like the ACA)

Here's a link to one innovative program that people think has momentum in upgrading our ability to teach math: http://www.ted.com/surpriseme/211500#1

Whooo your avatar is accurate. I get it though no problems.

LOL. An interesting interview from just a year or two ago... (spaces worked into the links to bypass the media limit on this retarded message board) Parts 1-5 (to watch parts 2-5 copy/paste link and remove the space after youtube.com/) http://www.youtube.com/'>http://www.youtube.com/'>http://www.youtube.com/'>http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=WXy3-Qn1dos&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Wgr41TxxLi0&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=oQD9r1jRIqs&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=dtutiPP82G0&feature=relmfu

The states rights (in huge letters) argument suggest UConn James is against Federal healthcare reform. For obvious reasons, neither party takes that position. So question is "how" not "if" ....

Anyone interested in this debate should watch the GPS Special "Fixing Education." You can buy it for $2 on Itunes. It's a great piece on education. Actual smart reporting and analysis on the problem...ya know...something this board probably isn't interested in.

Touchy?

Secretary Palin

LOL lawyer speak. I drain porta potties for a living. In fact I ranked 51 in seniority so last Thursday I became a independent contractor around 10am. Don't doubt my **** speak.

It is your duty, if possibly, to fairly construe his words under the presumption that they were accurate.

Haha, I will agree that you find the dissent more compelling and I find the controlling law a better ruling. (in other words I'm right and your wrong )

As is always the case the court does not rule beyond what is necessary. As such you don't he didn't proclaim a bright line rule as he found: We have already explained that the shared responsibil¬ity payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as atax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. That's not to say he was without comment, just read the back half of the summary on the first page. There you will find factors and considerations he used to reach that conclusion. As for the broader end of that spectrum, he references cases where they "policed these limits aggressively"...(so we could read those cases for more information on the outer limits) Just read the short summary in the first post for more specifics all the quotes in this post are taken from there.

The Congress can monkey with appellate jurisdiction b/c it is expressly in the text of the constitution. That's besides the point. The challenge to the validity of the Mandate necessarily turns on whether it's an exercise of commerce clause or taxing clause power. The Anti-Injunction act is relevant not b/c it would invalidate it but as you said early, it would effect standing. The relationship between creatures of congress to themselves and to the constitution is inherently different. As for there being no limits on the taxing power, that ignores the entire opinion Roberts wrote. While the limits are far broader than under the commerce clause, he went through the tax analysis precisely b/c at some point an exercise of that power ceases to be a taxing clause question and crosses over into the more limited commerce clause power. There is case law on that issue, and will no doubt be more in the future.

What you have described is your experience with your health insurance company. Nothing more. Lucky for you, the ACA will help people like you in the future a lot by regulating the behavior of insurance more closely and controlling the price of drugs. To suggest that is insurance generally, it wrong. I don't blame you for feeling as you do about your own policy/company and situation under those facts. Once again btw, many insurance companies have no investors and run not for profit models. And many that run for profit models vary in terms of their response to stories such as yours. Characterizing the entire insurance industry based on that example, is no accurate for the purposes of this discussion. Generally speaking the profit they pull is between 2 and 3 percent.