Hey, just make less money, dude!
So what if that means your kids go without shoes and have to eat dogfood? It's not as if you don't have options.
Posted on 06/03/2011 4:02:46 AM PDT by stevie_d_64
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.
During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.
Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Item number 1 for today...
Dear President Obama, (and your minions)
K.M.A.
Peace Out!!!
Steve
It is ways to earn less with these Vermin in the White House.
WTH?
I’m sure the Judge just loved that response. I’ve heard Judges loved to be mocked by adolescent lawyers.
The way things are going, it wont be a problem with real unemployment at 15%.
We're way ahead of you, Champ!
Real average hourly earnings for all employees declined 0.3% from march to April 2011, seasonally adjusted, the US Bureaue of Labor Statistics reported. Real average hourly earings fell by 1.2%, seasonally adjusted, from April 2010 to April 2011. A 0.6% increase in average weeklly hours combined with the decrease in real average hourly earnings resulted in a 0.6% decrease in real average weekly earnings during this period.
Of course, since much of this fall is due to increasing prices, the actual dollars earned has not dropped so much, so because the mandate is not indexed for inflation, you're still screwed. (Of course)
That is precisely why “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” fails. People are clever at hiding abilities, and demonstrating needs. There will be people who will be good at hiding income, others will work less, earn less, and, therefore, produce less, and oops, there goes the economy, and the tax revenues to pay the subsidies.
No Prob for my family. Our income has been sinking dramatically over the
last 3 years and I have tax returns to prove it. I am at a tipping point like
everyone else and it angers me. I didn’t vote for this and it surely is hard to
swallow. So this judge tells me to earn less, huh, well he is lucky he didn’t say
that to my face because I would rip his heart out!
Or just go Galt.
Excellent Point I have not seen put forth elsewhere.
Work you do for yourself is not yet directed taxed either.
Kumar just blew it.
Even Kagan could connect with the American backgrounds of the judges she usually had to deal with (although there are some really strange folks on the bench these days). Kumar managed to reveal that he really has no idea where he's living.
Many people work very hard, myself included. I work hard because I want to make more money and produce results for customers and my company. I have a strong work ethic and want better things for me and my family. This jerk is useless to me and I literally want to spit in his face. Why should I hamper myself because of some draconian mandate telling me I will be punished for succeeding? Who is this jerk telling me what I need to do with the things I legitimately earn? Screw you.
“During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal
if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which
Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.”
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0295_0495_ZO.html
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Excellent for us and keep it coming Obamabots. This is an election winning idea...for conservatives. This will play well and I hope our Presidential candidates play this up big.
This is the true core of liberalism - destruction.
The corollary is that evil cannot create.
Hence liberalism is evil.
Or how about we get rid of your sorry @ss next election? How about them apples?
Hey, just make less money, dude!
So what if that means your kids go without shoes and have to eat dogfood? It's not as if you don't have options.
Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less moneyOH. Earn less money. Yeah 'Kumar', that sounds like a plan -- you %$@# %$%ing &*#_hole!
IMO, mr Neal Kumar Katyal, 'Esq' (/s), needs what we used to call in my old Chi hood, 'An Attitude Adjustment'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.