tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post7974420504316223285..comments2023-10-25T06:13:28.265-04:00Comments on The Conservative Wahoo: Healthcare At Supreme Court--Good for RomneyThe Conservative Wahoohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17818674434286683162noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-32646327887226032512012-03-29T17:59:29.264-04:002012-03-29T17:59:29.264-04:00Interesting example that there is no limiting prin...Interesting example that there is no limiting principle. Are you describing the mandate as an "incredible overreach?" I think that overstates it by quite a lot. Neither of us are constitutional lawyers, so I think it would be a bit presumptuous of either of us to make such definitive pronouncements either way. The idea there's no limiting principle and the mandate "opens the door" is very compelling. On the other hand, I've read others make the argument that the idea we are powerless against such next step overreaches as a bit ridiculous e.g., what's to stop them from taxing us at 100% or mandating broccoli purchases or penalizing overweight people?, b/c we can always vote the bums out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-82043536996342943772012-03-29T14:47:48.774-04:002012-03-29T14:47:48.774-04:00Bryan - your final sentances about the debate made...Bryan - your final sentances about the debate made more sense than any Romney has said thus far on this. I hope he reads them and my compliments to you.<br />JerryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-91166064748434567472012-03-28T21:52:25.914-04:002012-03-28T21:52:25.914-04:00Anonymous - From what perspective do you find this...Anonymous - From what perspective do you find this interesting? Interesting as a potentially viable solution or interesting that anyone might believe that such an incredible overreach of government authority into our individual liberty would be justified in the United States of America?Mudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10106218895150473141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-12973306440888261262012-03-28T21:52:12.865-04:002012-03-28T21:52:12.865-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10106218895150473141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-58347439297931435302012-03-28T20:29:40.718-04:002012-03-28T20:29:40.718-04:00Interesting perspective from http://american.com/a...Interesting perspective from http://american.com/archive/2012/march/more-than-just-broccoli-the-real-slippery-slope-of-obamacares-must-buy-provision "Imagine that our current recession goes on, or even takes a turn for the worse. As John Maynard Keynes argued, in a time of economic anxiety and uncertainty, individuals will invariably act in a way that secures their own personal welfare, but which is disastrous to the overall economy: They will sit on their money and refuse to spend it. The bulk of Keynesian economics was to figure out how to get people back to spending their money on stuff, i.e., to increase the aggregate consumer demand....[W]hat if the president had a new super-Keynesian tool—a Congress that had been granted unlimited power to regulate economic activity and/or economic decisions? Under these circumstances, in the midst of a deepening and intractable depression, there would be a temptation to create a legislative solution that would be quite simple in principle. According to an index of their income, people would be mandated to purchase a certain amount of consumer goods. If they fell below this amount, they would then be compelled to pay the government a penalty."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com