novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

The text of the law is clear

SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

……………

(8)(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT.—The prem-
ium assistance amount determined under this sub-
section with respect to any coverage month is the
amount equal to the lesser of—

(A) the monthly premiums for such month
for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in
the individual market within a State which
cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any
dependent (as defined in section 152) of the tax-
payer and which were enrolled in through an
Exchange established by the State under 1311 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,

or
(B) the excess (if any) of—
(i) the adjusted monthly premium for
such month for the applicable second lowest
cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer,
over
(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the
product of the applicable percentage and the
taxpayer’s household income for the taxable
year.

It looks, at first glance, that part A does not obtain, since there is no such exchange, and so there is only part B.  However, lower down, part B is clarified:

(8)(3)(B) APPLICABLE SECOND LOWEST COST
SILVER PLAN.—The applicable second lowest cost
silver plan with respect to any applicable tax-
payer is the second lowest cost silver plan of the
individual market in the rating area in which
the taxpayer resides which—
(i) is offered through the same Ex-
change through which the qualified health
plans taken into account under paragraph
8 (2)(A) were offered….

That’s definitely a problem.  Neither of the two possible pricing options to determine the subsidy exists.

Some pundits have said it comes down to ONE word, “by”, not four words, “established by the State.”  The fact is, it is FOURTEEN words: “established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

The Federal Exchange is defined in section 1103, not 1311.

So what will the Supremes do?

Well, we know the progs on the bench will ignore the law — progs don’t care about laws.  (Well, they don’t care about laws they don’t like.  If they like a law, they’ll dig in like a tick on a hound.)  So the progs will rule to uphold the subsidies, and the conservatives will vote to uphold the law as written.

I expect the swing votes to go to the progs.  Why?  Because they have shown no integrity.  When Roberts ruled that the penalty is NOT a tax and thus the Supremes can rule on it before anyone actually pays it, then rule that it IS a tax and thus it is constitutional (the first time the Supremes have overturned a prior decision in the same decision), he has signaled to the world that he has no logical integrity, and is thus really a prog.  He will rule to uphold the subsidies and write up another steaming pile to support that ruling.

This seems to be what the BATFE is trying to push off upon those ignorant masses called American citizens. Townhall picked up on this and reported it here. (NOTE: The report date of 2014 is in error. The guidelines are for starting date of January 2015.) So is this an error or just another end around from the Obama administration? When are these people going to be held accountable? When will they be fired and permanently banned from working for or with the U.S. Government? When will they be IMPRISONED? I would ask when they would be executed but the government and the liberals don’t have the stomach for Capitol punishment because they may be caught in the web themselves. Imagine that. Anyway, with his new enlightenment to the general public, do you really think that the public comment period is going to have any impact on the already “conclusive” decision the ATF has made to ban this ammunition? Can you say “fat chance”.

Sometimes I wonder if, when my grandkids are my age, this country will still have standing in the international community…or maybe just be standing at all. (Wolve)

I would not bet on it.  The forces of liberalism and illegal immigration are too great.

Internally, the more intelligent people are having fewer children and having them later, while the less intelligent have more children sooner.  The intelligent people are barely (or not even) making replacement rate, while the intellectual proletariat are doubling each generation or two.  (And then they wonder why income inequality has increased.)

Externally, we have dropped all pretense at border control, and are importing the intellectual dross of the poorer nations to our south.  Why are those nations poorer?  Do they have fewer natural resources?  No.  They have less civilization.  Their legal systems are a joke, and their educational systems are even worse.  So they come here, and vote for the same political system that destroyed their own country.

Civilizations have been destroyed by such migrations of the uncivilized since the dawn of civilization.  The Aryans destroyed the Aegeans and Semites in Greece and Mesopotamia thousands of years ago, the Huns and Goths overran the civilizations the Aryans built, and the Mongols and Turks overran the civilizations Huns and Goths created.

So what hope is there that our nation will stand?  Very little.

The progs undermine this country at every turn.  They welcome the invaders.  They fight against enforcing our borders.  They fight to reduce the overall intelligence of the population.  They fight for the enemies of our civilization.

In the oral arguments of King v. Burwell, Justice Ginsburg brought up the question of “standing”:

A plaintiff “has to have a concrete stake in the question,” Ginsburg said, interjecting almost as soon as Carvin began his argument. She noted that two of the plaintiffs had served in the military, one would soon turn 65 and be eligible for Medicare, and the fourth could qualify for a hardship exemption and not be required to pay the individual-mandate penalty.

Carvin countered that the lower courts had not raised a standing issue.

“But the Court has an obligation to look into on its own,” Ginsburg said. Carvin asserted that at least one of the plaintiffs did have standing before Ginsburg allowed him to move on to the merits of the case. (National Journal)

So what I want to know is, why doesn’t every taxpayer in the country have standing in cases like this?

Sorry. I wanted to get this out earlier but the transcript wasn’t available. I watched it live and was very excited through the whole speech. Unfortunately it wasn’t the leader of MY country making me feel good, but that of ANOTHER country. This speech was needed to be said and heard. READ THE WHOLE THING SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND ITS IMPORTANCE.

There were many Congress critters absent, although you could not tell because this was a PACKED HOUSE! Even Feinstein was there after she said she wouldn’t be. Pelosi was there, annoyingly and continuously turning around to talk to others. Who was very conspicuously absent was Plugs Biden. Well, his schedule says he is doing this. Not sure what it is but it is consistent with this administration: when things are in crisis mode, there is always time to f#^koff and be political. Nature of the beast.

When you read this transcript, you will see things like “the enemy of my enemy is my enemy” and “Israel can stand up for itself”. He is giving Obama a chance to do the right thing but he is stating that the U.S. will not keep Israel from doing what is necessary for its protection. Bravo BiBi, bravo.

As I await the speech to AIPAC from Netanyahu, I hear from members of Congress who will snub him when he gives his speech to Congress tomorrow. Most of the Obama administration “heads” will be conveniently out of town. They’ve had enough notice to redo their schedules to be present , which means this is really just a snub. Here is one article on the issue.

Now when Amb. Samantha Power spoke, she said many things. She got some applause but then raised her eyebrows each time, like she had just hit a home run. I, personally, thought it a disgusting display, as my interpretation was that of “politics being played”. To strengthen that belief, she stated that Obama reiterated that Iran WILL NOT GET A NUCLEAR WEAPON. PERIOD. What does “will not get” mean? Won’t be able to buy one? Won’t be able to make one? Won’t be able to steal one? All ambiguous and subjective from my point of view. Above all, we have another “period” statement. That tells me a lie is being perpetrated and something underhanded is moving forward; based, of course, on past behavior from this administration.

When Netanyahu spoke, he only spoke as to why he would speak to Congress tomorrow. He believes that there is a strong relationship with the U.S. and Obama. He only wants to let our governing body know how Much Israel is in danger. But there are ads from Jstreet, supposedly objective and conservative Jews, who say this is a bad idea for both Israel and the U.S. I did some research into Jstreet. This article should sum it up pretty well. All in all, there seems to be great opposition towards this visit and speech from Netanyahu. I won’t ask why because I already know. Unfortunately, Israel, on this subject, also has our best interests in hand because our administration is willing to weaken the world and put everyone in jeopardy by allowing a nuclear terrorist state. People who have openly declared destruction of their perceived enemies, of which we are one.

And then you have John Kerry, chief lackey for all affairs foreign, trying to assemble some type of coherent speak on the issue. When he stated that “Israel is safer” because of the interim agreement with Iran. After all these Obama years of indoctrination, this should be easily believed by the masses, no? Trying to remember what that interim agreement was. Something like we will lift sanctions and Iran will stop buying and using centrifuges while allowing inspectors to see every aspect of their nuclear program. How is that working out?

In Part One, I wrote of how “privilege” is the result of actions.  If a recognizable group tends to make Good Choices (work hard, don’t break the law, etc.), then members of that group achieve some “privilege” accordingly.  When Blacks are committing crimes at ten times the rate Whites are, then Blacks are looked on with greater suspicion.  This is only natural.

(This is why I advocate a truly blind justice system.  The jury should not see the defendant, and he should always be “John Doe” to the jury.  Even if the jurors do not see the defendant, they will be more favorably disposed to Mike Jankowski than to LaShawn White.)

But now, I want to turn to education.  Specifically, the education of women.

Individually, this is a fabulous thing.  I certainly want my daughters to be educated, and to get professional degrees.  I would love for all of my daughters to get their doctoral degrees before they marry.  I want them to marry other professionals, and to raise their children the same way.

But what does that do in the aggregate?

Back in the days when few women went to college, college-educated men were more likely to marry women who were not college educated.  Now, we have a fairly clear split.  College-educated men marry college-educated women, and non-college-educated men marry non-college-educated women.

Well, it does tend to be the more intelligent people who are college-educated.  So more-intelligent men are marrying more-intelligent women, and less-intelligent men are marrying less-intelligent women.

Furthermore, more-educated women tend to have fewer children, and to have them later in life.

So let’s look at some made-up, but hopefully reasonable numbers.  (“Fake, but accurate”?)  In a century, an educated couple who has two children at an average age of 33, will have three generations of offspring: 2^3=8.  Eight intelligent great-grandchildren.  But of course, those great-grandchildren also have other, presumably similarly-intelligent great-grandparents, and we are just making replacements, not increasing the population of intelligent people.

Meanwhile, the less-intelligent couple will have four children at an average age of 25.  Four generations in a century: 4^4=256 less-intelligent great-great-grandchildren.  They, too, will have other great-great-grandparents, of course, but they have doubled the number of less-intelligent people every generation.  So for every pair of less-intelligent great-great-grandparents, there are thirty-two (32) less intelligent great-great-grandchildren.

With intelligence and education’s being prime indicators of income and wealth, we now see a significant driver of increasing income inequality.