Was Hoping SCOTUS Would Stick A Dagger Into Obamacare... quite the opposite, sadly

It's a good day when the intent of a law takes precedence over the letter of the law.

I may not be a fan of Obamacare, however this is a court case effectively about the placement of the comma.

Anyone with common sense should realize the expected result is that the court would uphold the intent of the law as it was passed and not parse punctuation marks.
 
I may not be a fan of Obamacare, however this is a court case effectively about the placement of the comma.

Anyone with common sense should realize the expected result is that the court would uphold the intent of the law as it was passed and not parse punctuation marks.
Well said. Were the shoe on the other foot I'd be unhappy, but I would accept, for the reason you just gave.
 
The Bushes are responsible for 2 turncoats judges.
I hope this very serious issue is pinned on Jeb? everyday during primary season. although he was a good governor... I could never vote for him in a primary and maybe not in the general because of his family's choices. I voted for perot because I read his dad's lips and punched his ticket out of office.
 
I may not be a fan of Obamacare, however this is a court case effectively about the placement of the comma.

Anyone with common sense should realize the expected result is that the court would uphold the intent of the law as it was passed and not parse punctuation marks.


Thats B.S. though the liberals wrote the law that way intentionally to try to force states to create exchanges, they didnt think states would pass up the subsidies, numerous liberals are on tape saying "what are red states going to do not take the subsidies?" The original intent was to force republican states into creating exchanges, they didnt think so many would simply opt out.

Law was written exactly how they intended it to be, then when they didnt get their desired outcome, they simply changed it.
 
Last edited:
This was a horrible ruling by the supreme court they basically leave the door open for any future president to change the laws as they see fit, in order to achieve their initial goal.

 
It was only after I showed you that the investment in GM was a loss, that you admitted that. Prior to that, you were saying it was profitable. You want the link to your post? The AIG was also a loss, but you don't want to accept that "creative accounting" made it a gain. As for the rest of your comments, yeah, you're Libertarian. What a laugh riot!
Yes. You get credit for that! AIG was not of course a loss. You posted some wacko opinion that used an arm waving, and quite absurd, argument to argue that it was a loss despite the accounting which showed a substantial profit that more than covered the loss on the GM resuscitation. It is time you recognized that you are one of the crackpots on ET who time and again has refused to recognize factual data when it runs counter to you biases.

(The accounting used in all the TARP transactions was standard in every respect. Your lunatic friend was claiming that because the stock AIG put up as part of their collateral requirement was transferred from the Fed to the Treasury Dept. that it was a gift to Treasury, and without the transfer Treasury would have made less profit. He didn't know that the reason the stock was only briefly (overnight) on the Fed books was to expedite the transaction, and that, regardless, all Fed profits, after expenses, are routinely transferred to Treasury. Furthermore, your lunatic correspondent apparently did not know that the Fed could not have, in any case, accepted common stock as collateral.)
 
Last edited:
It is time you recognized that you are one of the crackpots on ET who time and again has refused to recognize factual data when it runs counter to you biases.

This could easily be said of you. It is the treasury who used hijinks accounting to make it profitable. The real world - the business world - knows otherwise. Of course, you've never worked in the real business world, so it's not surprising that you follow the government viewpoint. Must be the Libertarian in you - LOL!

(The accounting used in all the TARP transactions was standard in every respect. Your lunatic friend was claiming that because the stock AIG put up as part of their collateral requirement was transferred from the Fed to the Treasury Dept. that it was a gift to Treasury, and without the transfer Treasury would have made less profit. He didn't know that the reason the stock was only briefly (overnight) on the Fed books was to expedite the transaction, and that, regardless, all Fed profits, after expenses, are routinely transferred to Treasury. Furthermore, your lunatic correspondent apparently did not know that the Fed could not have, in any case, accepted common stock as collateral.)

My "lunatic" friend is Barry Ritholtz. He's commonly on Bloomberg, CNN, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, etc...but I didn't expect you'd know that. Hell, you claim to follow the bond market but have never heard of Jim Grant! :) Pray tell, Piezoe, what credentials do you have, again? Regardless, it's obvious you didn't even read the article, for if you had you'd have noted that Barry didn't write it. He posted it and agreed with it. Two other individuals, one a professor in economics at Middlebury (now deceased- his credentials can be found here).

For those who care to read the article, here it is. Feel free to browse the comments as well - one poster had a problem with certain things in Barry's take, but admitted at the end "We will probably never see a true accounting for AIG bailout. That would be an interesting read." - a shot on the transparency of the government and the Fed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top