Kansas Crimson

I'm a big believer in letting the Article III judges resolve this.

seahawk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:13 am If this were not solely an activist and political opinion, why did the Trumpies request that the judge hold off on issuing it until after the midterm election? Why did Judge O'Connor not do so? Again, this is the absolute height of judicial activism.

I'll ask again who to believe, DC or a law professor?

“It’s absolutely ludicrous to hold that we do not know whether the 2017 Congress would have wanted the rest of the ACA to exist without an enforceable mandate, because the 2017 Congress did exactly that when it zeroed out the mandate and left the rest of the ACA standing,” Gluck said. “He effectively repealed the entire Affordable Care Act when the 2017 Congress decided not to do so.”

Even conservative lawyers agree:

Ted Frank, a lawyer at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who is critical of the ACA, called the decision “embarrassingly bad” because “you’re twisting yourself into knots” to reach a particular conclusion.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/12/15 ... w-invalid/

Seriously. Do you ever bother to read either the links you post or the words I post? If you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, I think Illy is available. Otherwise, what's the point of posting articles that say essentially the same thing I've said, along with the usual "HA! DC is wrong!" triumphalism.

It's...uhh...kinda strange.

Illy makes a great sidekick for DC.


Kind of a Robin to DC's A-Hole.

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:14 pm Illy makes a great sidekick for DC.

Which just makes me miss Badair. RIP.

Feral wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:42 am It's hard to overstate what a gift this ruling is if you care about health care, or politically, if you're a democrat.

Seems like there are quite a few people who have pre-existing conditions and folks who want to keep their children on their insurance until age 26. They don't seem excited to lose that.

Pelosi advised, "just pass the bill and THEN read it". Apparently too many followed her advice (the passing part that is). I seriously doubt if Obama ever read it, because he said you can keep your Dr. lol

dolomite wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:57 am Pelosi advised, "just pass the bill and THEN read it". Apparently too many followed her advice (the passing part that is). I seriously doubt if Obama ever read it, because he said you can keep your Dr. lol

I think it would be a safe bet that more of those who voted for the ACA have a better grasp (and agreed with the contents) than those who voted for the most recently passed tax scam....I mean scheme.....I mean....

Anyway, it would also be a safer bet that the ACA has delivered on more of its intended goals than the aforementioned tax bill. I seriously doubt most Republicans even saw the bill, let alone read it, in its final form before voting. Deficits, what deficits??

zsn wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:25 pm

dolomite wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:57 am Pelosi advised, "just pass the bill and THEN read it". Apparently too many followed her advice (the passing part that is). I seriously doubt if Obama ever read it, because he said you can keep your Dr. lol

I think it would be a safe bet that more of those who voted for the ACA have a better grasp (and agreed with the contents) than those who voted for the most recently passed tax scam....I mean scheme.....I mean....

Anyway, it would also be a safer bet that the ACA has delivered on more of its intended goals than the aforementioned tax bill. I seriously doubt most Republicans even saw the bill, let alone read it, in its final form before voting. Deficits, what deficits??

Wasn't the tax bill going to spur all this amazing economic development and investment? On pace now for the worst stock market month of December since the Great Depression "shockingly" coinciding with a ton of companies using their tax breaks to buy back their own stocks. And the rich just get richer and richer.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:54 pm coinciding with a ton of companies using their tax breaks to buy back their own stocks. And the rich just get richer and richer.

Is there some sort of list of those companies?

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:09 pm https://www.marketbeat.com/stock-buybacks/

Thanks!

It's a long list of companies...but as I go thru the list of years past on that article it looks pretty similar?....so why is it wrong now?

https://www.marketbeat.com/stock-buybacks/2014/

Apple – $100 billion
Cisco – $25 billion
Wells Fargo – $22.6 billion
Pepsi – $15 billion
AbbVie – $10 billion
Amgen – $10 billion
Google parent Alphabet – $8.6 billion
Visa – $7.5 billion
eBay – $6 billion

http://time.com/money/5267940/companies ... -buybacks/

On 10/24/14 IBM bought back $5B of their stock (39%).......was that wrong too?

(I can keep listing from the link Geezer provided....)

This feels like fake outrage...

Are the 2018 buybacks way out of line with historical buybacks over the last 20 years or so?

Probably deserves it's own thread...

Reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% is the issue here?

35% tax seems pretty excessive.....how much do you guys think is a fair amount of tax for a company to have to pay to the government? I know I sure feel like my personal income tax rate is excessive.

Oh jesus

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:20 pm On 10/24/14 IBM bought back $5B of their stock (39%).......was that wrong too?

(I can keep listing from the link Geezer provided....)

This feels like fake outrage...

Are the 2018 buybacks way out of line with historical buybacks over the last 20 years or so?

In 2014, did the the government give a huge tax break to those companies under the guise that they would "reinvest that money in the economy"? No.

It isn't fake outrage; you just don't get the point. I am not bashing the companies for how they are using the money. I am bashing Trump for trying to convince us that they would do anything different with their huge tax break than what they are doing.

And what I was trying to show you is that companies frequently buy back stocks regardless (of the Trump tax break).

Nobody told you that the reduction in corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% would result in companies no longer doing stock buy backs....it also doesn't mean they aren't doing what you want them to be doing with the reduced tax burden (them getting to keep more of their income), but I'm also not sure what you are wanting so I don't know if they are or aren't doing those things too.

You don't feel like we're getting a fair cut with the current corporate tax rate? Or you're just mad because Trump implemented it? Or....?