Tuesday, November 6, 2012

It would be interesting

...if the election goes in one of these ways.
Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. So Obama's last term is like Bush's first term.

This is not Obama's last election.
Imagine he loses by a close margin. Say Romney gets 50.1% and Obama gets 49.9% or it would be Romney 49.9% to Obama 49.8% with the remaining 0.3% going to third parties.

As a result there would be a call for Obama to run again in 2016

Monday, August 27, 2012

Election predictions

When did this model get created? All the stories suggest that this was created and used in the past. Now if the model existed prior to the 1980 election and had been used prior to the election of 1980 and each subsequent president election since 1980 then I might give it some credence. If it used past elections to develop the model, then I would expect if it did not give accurate results of the past election it would have been worthless.

If the model was developed recently, then we are begging the question. Since the model would have been developed by analyzing past election results, economic factors and any other factors used. So when you say it is accurate, because of predicting the past elections, which were used to create it in the first place, you are begging the question.

I want more info on this, I would like to know when it was truly first used.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

As We Know It

...as we know it.

I hear this once in awhile. Someone will say “Its the end of …as we know it.” What its the end of will vary, but I find my self annoyed by this statement. When used on talk shows, I would like the moderator to ask “So they are going to end 'it'? 'It' won't be there any more?” Because when it's used I don't believe they mean it is going to be eliminated. But I suspect they would like people to believe it is being eliminated. Instead it suggests that 'it' is being changed. But you never have to address the changes if everyone panics at the news of 'it' ending.
If you want to use it, lets talk about the changes being made.


When I watch the Rachel Maddow, I hit pause as I go to the computer and check if the information presented is true. Some things just are odd. For example on June 13th 2012, we are listening to Ezra Klein. Here is the transcript of his opening statement:
>> Biggest oddities in all professional sports. You ready? The great state of New York has three, count them, three different professional football teams. There’s the Buffalo Bills, the New York Jets and the New York Giants. One state, three football teams. Now, there are 22 states that don't even have one NFL team. I come from an hour south of L.A., which is not in itself a state but it also does not have a football team, quite to our annoyance but the great state of New York is blessed with three of them. The odd part, of the three New York NFL teams, only one of them plays in New York. The buffalo bills play in orchard park New York, right outside of buffalo. The jets and giants play not in New York but rather in New Jersey. That’s right. The New York Jets and the New York Giants are both based out of New Jersey.
I hit pause after he said “Now, there are 22 states that don't even have one NFL team.” I had to pause it because It seems like I recall hearing Chris Christie saying how one of the recent teams should be called the New Jersey Giants or Jets. So I looked it up to see that as a matter of fact, New York only has one football team. Despite keeping the New York in their name, the Jets and the Giants do not play or even have a their headquarters in New York, so it seems strange to complain about how New York is blessed with three, when as a matter of fact they have only one. Then he discusses how they do play in New Jersey, and does say they are ‘based’ in New Jersey.
This beginning was a bit misleading. I wondered what his point was. Why this complaint? Well this monologue was to lead mentioning of a water mane break out in front of MetLife stadium home of the Giants and Jets then to a discussion on focusing on infrastructure.
Here are his reasons.
We have construction workers who aren't productively employed. the unemployment rate in that sector is about 14%, it's a depression. The global slowdown has meant a slowdown in construction costs because raw materials are cheap because countries like china and India aren't using as many of them. We have factories lying dormant that could be making those materials and employing people to make those materials and we have money that is on the table to borrow for essentially less than nothing. let's be clear -- putting this stuff off is not fiscally responsible. it's like a dollar of borrowing, a dollar to pay later. when you delay the maintenance, that dollar today can become 50 tomorrow as a bridge you were going to fix has now collapsed. so we need to do it, it cheap to do it and it gives people jobs. it is an unbelievable deal. in any world we should be doing it and yet we're not. there be are some things in American politics and policy we should be having real armies about.
What I don't see here is any mention of the unemployment rate for civil engineers. It takes more than just the construction workers. Tear up a road and you will need adequate detours. It may require pre-construction in order to have detours ready. It is also pointless to tear up the road, if you will go back a few years later, in order to have more construction to deal with traffic issues. So you would first examine what changes could be made with traffic flow. Does the road need to be widen? Or does it need to be narrowed? You would need to prioritize projects, you won't be able to do all the projects at once. So you would need to study what roads need changing, then design it, get some government approval, and public feedback on the projects, besides getting financing, so it may be years before a project is shovel ready.
Oh and remember New York only has ONE football team.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

commerce clause

So the question is who voted with Roberts on the Commerce Clause? Did the the four conservative Justices agree with him?

If Roberts is motivated by political pressure and media pressure, I wonder if he is being a bit passive and aggressive on his opinion. 

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Health Insurance Tax Credit

The idea of taxing an individual who does not have insurance, seems to be a method of taxing never before seen.  Show me a tax where inactivity triggers it. Saying inactivity does not protect you from some type of tax ignores that activity would not also protect you.
The biggest problem is the tax is not big enough to make it an economic incentive to purchase Health Insurance. 
Provide an economic incentive by increasing everyone's income tax rate, and offering a Health Insurance Tax Credit. . Nothing prevents congress from raising income tax rates, and nothing would prevent them offering a tax credit. Inactivity does not trigger the tax.
It seems its doing it the same way, but you could have increased the tax on some to be higher than average cost.  But since the current method increases your tax when you don't purchase health insurance, and it could not be punitive by being higher than the price of insurance. But increasing a person tax rate can always be done. Looking back at National Taxpayer union website pulled (July 4th, 2012)
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html  We see rates of over 90 % at times for income over 200,000.
So Congress could increase the income tax rate, of all tax payers. The higher income levels would have their rates increased to a spot higher than the cost of insurance and lower income. The size of the credit would be income based.
A person with income above the poverty level, could have a larger credit, as you reach higher incomes they would receive a credit slight less.
Each year would be adjusting the tax rate and credit to best fit insurance rates.. Hoping the price of the insurance would go down over time. As the insurance pool would be increased and the amount needed to cover the cost of treatment would go down. Even the cost of treatment would go down as you may be able to get earlier diagnoses.
Stu Burguiere analysis would be correct. as soon as preexisting conditions are covered, companies would drop their insurance plans, setting up some money to cover some things, and then only have people part of the plan when they need the insurance.  But with this possibility, insurance rates would have to be increased for everyone. But that would drive people away from insurance and just pay the small fine. Could health insurance premiums be cut enough to encourage people to get the insurance over paying the fine?
I wonder if we could set up a game, an online game, and let people play out the effects of the health care laws. Call it SIM Insurance or SIM  Health Care, and maybe we could play out the effects of the law before we get to far in and find out we have major problems. I would enjoy playing this game.

Monday, July 2, 2012

listening to analysis of Supreme Court ruling

Now in trying to find a good analysis of this law, I hear one section brought up which is on page 37 of the ruling.
In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has explained that “if the concept of penalty means anything,it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission.” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996); see also United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931) (“[A] penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act”). While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Brief for United States 60–61; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49–50 (Mar. 26,2012).

With the point being, This does not solve the preexisting condition problem. People could chose to pay the tax, which could never exceed the price of insurance, and only get insurance when needed.
So if Chief Roberts is a genius and is playing some great game of chess, this opinion will lead to the incredible future ruling (9-0) overturning the law.
This lawsuit was done by NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. This does not mean it must be the one and only lawsuit filed. Insurance companies can now file suit. Insurance companies claim harm by this law not fixing the preexisting issue, and could claim instead it destroys them.

Is OBAMACARE upheld? Would not the insur­ance companies be able to bring suit? Could some people sue later when they are paying the tax?
Some part of the decision has support while others seem to have a lot of decent. Is all the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts considered to be in effect? If Ginsburg Et Al (not sure if that is the proper use of it) descent on some part of the decision, does it have majority power? Is the the entire opinion of Roberts C. J. even if that section is only aggreed to by some?

Suppose in some decision lets say (Kramer v Kramer) in this decision we have four justices agreeing on one opinion, three on another opinion, and 2 on a third opinion. Who wins? The four? Or would the three and two person opinions be consider the majority?

I am also hearing that by having this declared as tax this eliminates the need to overcome a filibuster in overturning the law. This become part of budget reconciliation. So Chief Justice Roberts has made it easier to repeal.

Is Chief John Roberts playing chess? Or are people just trying to find some reason not to hate him and his opinion. It sounds like people are saying “Yea Yea he was playing a game a chess. He just being clever, he has plan, yea he has a plan for it never to be ever attempted ever again. See he's smart, he's thinking. Its all part of a big plan.”

Some people mention some part of it being a 7-2 ruling. I want to see a good box score on this case. I am not finding where this is. It is probably the case but not sure where this is at.

A Look at Cheif J Roberts Opinion

It seems as if Chief Justice John Roberts is very hated. But I would like to withhold judgment on this until some further examination. I keep hearing the beginnings of some conspiracy theory on BOTH sides.
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.
I would hope I do not hear people saying “Obamacare is now law of the land.” meaning to say it should not be overturned or changed in any way. This decision was about what authority congress has.
Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
One of the initial replies I hear are since it was not framed as a tax, it should not have been considered a tax, even if it was argued by the Government as a tax in oral arguments. But do we really want the Supreme Court to rule like that? I would not want the U.S. Congress to frame something in constitutional terms, and not have the Supreme Court call it what it is and strike it down. I do not want the Congress to tie the hands of the supreme court by limiting their interruption of a law to the specific language used to frame the law.
The commerce clause is used too much. It becomes a source of limitless power. In my reading, this is an attempt to limit the commerce clause, to put boundaries on it. Had the ruling been 6-3 and Roberts went over to the other side in order to “right” the opinion he would be praised in an attempt to salvage some of the damage caused.
Now from the decision:
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of com­mercial activity to be regulated. If the power to “regulate”something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous. For example, the Constitution gives Congress the power to“coin Money,” in addition to the power to “regulate the Value thereof.” Id., cl. 5. And it gives Congress the power to “raise and support Armies” and to “provide and main­tain a Navy,” in addition to the power to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Id., cls. 12–14. If the power to regulate the armed forces or the value of money included the power to bring the subject of the regulation into existence, the specific grant of such powers would have been unneces­sary. The language of the Constitution reflects the natu­ral understanding that the power to regulate assumes there is already something to be regulated. See Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 188 (“[T]he enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said”).4
But the use of taxation powers is used to encourage activity. If you do some activity you maybe given a tax credit or a deduction. And reducing or eliminating a credit or deduction discourages the activity. By increasing your income tax based on your lack of your health insurance, it would increase economic activity.
Taxation can be used to pry open the can which would expose the contents to the commerce clause. While I would like to see the commerce clause limited more, to see taxation being used to start or encourage more activity THEN bring in the commerce clause for further regulation seems to go against the above principle.
In time the use of taxation will bring out more commerce, which would then allow the commerce clause to be used.
Where would tax laws be placed? Must the health care tax be placed into the tax code? (If it is not already is in there.) What I wonder do tax laws, creation and implementation, require certain procedures be followed?
Maybe more importantly, could new tax laws be written to counteract the Health Care Tax without amending the Health Care Law?

Chief Justice Roberts indicates he holds a principle value of preserving as much of the laws passed by congress. It seems to me he is also saying that this law maybe CRAP! But if Congress has the Constitutional authority, it can pass CRAP!
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax. (Emphasis Added)
What did this just say?
Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
What WHat WHAT! ..[G]oing without insurance [is] just another thing the Government taxes like buying gasoline or earning income.
What do you mean Like? Gasoline is a thing, earning an income is something, Not getting health insurance is NOT A THING! Is there ANYTHING taxed if I don't have it?
It is not sufficient to raise taxes if someone does not do something. In my opinion, raise everybody’s taxes, and give a Health Insurance Tax Credit (HITC) to those who have health insurance. Insurance companies will give out a proof of insurance forms as well as an electronic form which you would file with your taxes. Thus allowing you to claim you tax credit.
Show me precedent of taxing the lack of something. Where in the History of the United States has our lack of doing something or lack of having something results in us being taxed. Such an example should be used if it ever existed. To compare it like buying gasoline or earning an income, is the fitting of a square peg into a round hole.
As we have explained, “every reasonable construc­tion must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895).
This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 28 n 4 (1953)
But look at this case a bit closer and it describes the collection of revenues (any amount even a tiny amount) from activities (those engaged in the activity of collecting wages).
Revenues come in from Taxes on activities or Taxes on ownership of property. (Which seems to say State Government but not the Federal?owns the land and you pay for the privilege of keeping it.) So I win a huge lottery one year, I pay my taxes for that year, and I pay two years in advance all my expenses. Now my post tax winnings (500 million) are in an account collecting no interest at all. I stay in my apartment whose rent is prepaid for the next two years, furnished with items purchased in the year of my good fortune. As a result I engage in no economic activities the next two years after my win. So could the federal Government tax my inactivity? It contains “the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government.” It would have a code in the IRS, and be collected by the IRS. When the federal government places a tax on the inactivity of a person or persons, no matter what they do not do, the federal government is stealing.
Congress encourages getting health insurance in the form of a deduction or a tax credit. Raise everyone's rate which would amount to penalty if you must, giving a tax credit or deduction for those with health insurance.

We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress’s power to tax. In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets—for which the licensee had to pay a fee—could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power. 5 Wall., at 471. And in New York v. United States we upheld as a tax a “surcharge” on out-of-state nuclear waste shipments, a portion of which was paid to the Federal Treasury. 505 U. S., at 171.
In these examples we have the purchase of licenses and nuclear waste shipments, all seem to be activities being taxed.
They reference Drexel Furniture and look at how it was not viewed as a tax compared to the penalty of the Health care laws
  1. In Drexel Furniture it involved a 10 percent 'tax' on income, regardless of size of infraction. The Health Care Tax then could never exceed the price of Health Care.
  2. The offender must know they are breaking the law.
  3. The agency collecting the 'tax' has to have had a history of collecting taxes. IRS yes, Dept of Labor No.
The Health Care Tax could never exceed the price of insurance. So what if one year the 'Tax' could be shown to exceed the price the person would pay for health insurance? one could sue and now the Tax would be unconstitutional.
None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct. ...But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry ...Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes, not just to raise more money, but to encourage people to quit smoking. And we have upheld such obviously regulatory measures as taxes on selling marijuana and sawed-off shotguns.
We again have taxes being laid on the activity of purchasing or selling of a product.

When we hit to pages 41-44
A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other cir­cumstance.” … There may, however, be a more fundamental objection ...Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.

Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that every­one must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal
So Chief Roberts is now attempting to address my concern of “taxation without activation”. He first says this NOT a capitation since not everyone pays for it. Then in an attempt to allay my concern, Chief Justice says the Constitution does not guarantee avoiding of tax through inactivity. His example is Capitation. How is it phrased? “Capitations are taxes paid by every person, without regard to property, profession, or any other cir­cumstance.” This is a tax which is not able to be avoided by inactivity it also can not be avoided by activity. It is a tax laid “without regard” to action or inaction.
If you are going to give an example of inactivity not protecting from taxation, give me a better example. Don't go from this tax is not a Capitation to Capitation is a great example of inactivity not being protected. In fact it is not a great example. Since neither inactivity NOR activity would protect a person from the tax.
Tax incentives already promote,for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A.
Now I am having trouble to find the 26 U. S. C. mentioned above. But we are not being taxed for not buying a house are we? How about being taxed for not getting a professional education
We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power.
Talk about narrow! If the IRS collects money its a tax. As long as it was not too heavy its an allowed tax.
Here is the part I am a bit confused on. So this narrow definition involves not intending to break the law. “Such scienter requirements are typical of punitive statutes, because Congress often wishes to punish only those who intentionally break the law.” What confuses me is that it seems to involve people who may chose to 'break the law'. It was not unintended.

It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be interpreted as a tax. Without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction.
When you have to narrow the definition of a tax in order for it to fit, so narrow taxation can be applied to inactivity. When it is not argued as a tax in a prior court. (even now when it is not even being called a tax by the administration) The larger the law the greater the interruption of the alternate meaning needs to be.

Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes.
A foot note from page 44 of Chief Justice Roberts decision. So having health care will reduce our taxes, or is it really just our taxes won't go up.

The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.
Reasonably? You had to narrow the definition of tax down, and could not find any tax in which inactivity is the ONLY reason for being taxed. You said it is not a capitation tax, then later say how capitation is a good example of inactivity not protecting you from a tax, but also activity does not protect you from the tax. Because it is not a penalty, since you can not disobey something which can not be commanded of you.
In dealing with the Medicaid expansion, Chief Roberts opinion is the Federal Government can not make it so burdensome to the States they have no choice in whether to follow the new expansion or not.

What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.”

It was interesting to hear a discussion by George Washington University Constitution Law Professor Luis Seidman claim that Chief Justice Roberts did this for political purpose, by giving Romney something to run against. Really? Roberts is trying to be conservative. But not by overturning a law he would find objectionable as a conservative but by but letting congress pass any constitutional laws it wants even if he would personally disagree.
But while you could agree the mandate needs to be a tax, it could be stated that the way the tax is applied is not constitutional. No example of a tax has been shown to be activated by inactivity. If it is a penalty, which would not be allowed under the commerce clause, inactivity (failure to obey a lawful and constitutional command to acquire health insurance) triggers the penalty. Inactivity may not protect a person from avoiding a tax as in a capitation, but it is not what triggers the tax. In the capitation tax, existence would trigger the tax,activity and inactivity would not protect a person from the tax.
Taxing someone for inactivity when they never has been a tax in which failure to do something caused the tax. Give me an actual tax in which it happened.
So what would stop congress from having you pay a tax, if you don't show proof of belonging to a gym?
Inactivity may not protect you in a capitation or property tax. But inactivity does not trigger the tax. Inactivity my trigger a penalty but where in history has inactivity triggered the tax?
Well this concludes my thoughts on the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Obama VS Health Care

So I am watching “The Rachel Maddow Show”. The argument is Republicans first suggest and individual mandate. This was to allow for individual responsibility. But now are opposed to it.
At the time it took the use of filibusterer to stop the Clinton's and Democrat's plans. Now we are seeing it might have been good for the other side to learn to compromise better. Don't be quick to dismiss an idea. Especially one you promote about sixteen years later.

This idea had specifically stated it was to be a Tax, if health insurance was not purchased. One of the problems of the current plan is they avoided calling it a tax. So in oral arguments we have one day it is not called a tax, but on another day of argument it is a tax. The 'its a tax' and 'its not a tax' argument hurt the Government’s case.

The other issue is the question of limits. The Government needed to be able to argue this would not give congress limitless power. The Government needed to show it could not require people to purchase any item in the name of commerce. They needed to show it would not lead to tyranny.

To address per-existing condition, some form of mandate would be necessary. To address per-existing conditions with out using a mandate would put undo pressure on insurance companies. So when the broccoli issue was raised the Government needed to argue broccoli represented a form of health care received. Vegetables would represent health care in general. Not everyone needs to Broccoli or Carrots. But if an industry was created to cover the cost of vegetables something who nutrients are needed by everyone. To deny vegetables would deny their right to life, to allow all access to vegetables but not protect the means of payment for the vegetables, would result in a denial of vegetables to all.

The Government failed to handle this question, it seemed to be a dismissal by people as irrelevant. A great answer to this question could have been the key to the Government winning this case.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Do the Math...

Was at a “Family Dollar” buying someone Arizona Ice Tea. She wanted some cans but they were out, I noticed a gallon jug of it, and checked its price. For $3 you get 128 fl oz, while for $0.95 your 23 fl oz.
But the price tag lists the gallon jug as being priced at $0.0468 per fl oz (which is twice what it should be) it should be listed as $0.234 per fl oz.

Just a quick run of the numbers tell you the label is wrong. Consider buying 5 cans. It would be 5X$0.95=$4.75 which is more than $3.00 and the amount you would get is 5X23 fl oz or 115 fl oz so you are not even up to the same amount of tea and you are already way over.

I should have taken a picture of the price tag, I will at the next Family Dollar I check. Check your local “Family Dollar” is the amount listed per fl oz correct?

Friday, May 4, 2012

Advice to Atheists: Get together

I am part of a Christian 'Life Group', and this group will each week meet at a local restaurant for breakfast, followed by a study.  Atheists should take a lesson from this. 

Many things Atheists disagree with Christianity but in the process allow Christian to have things for which they  should not be denying yourself

Being organized. Some will say they are against organized religion and never organize them selves. There is power in numbers. Lack of organization weakens you. 

Get together with other Atheists and have a study at local restaurants similar to what Christians do.  Develop a study called "The Cross-Examination". In this study you will take a look at Christan apologetics and develop a reply to it.  Take "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" . and cross-examine it.

Get together and sing. Unless you believe the singing is bringing God's presence  why do you think nothing positive can come of it. You should be doing most of the same things but just not giving a higher power credit.

Get together.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Some Polls have Romney Ahead

OK So some polls have Romney ahead. But this is a bit meaningless now. It becomes significant only when more polls have him ahead, and he has increased his lead in the others. If the overall average of the polls watched by real clear politics has Romney being ahead.

People will paint Romney as being too rich. But Romney needs to consider finding a strong VP candidate. One who will help him gained votes in the South. Find one which would give him a stronger lead over Obama.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

The Case of Broccoli

In the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs I am hearing about broccoli. Some say it’s a meaningless argument but others seem it makes a good point. What would be the case of Broccoli? Should we have it?

(BTW in looking at the case it states it as Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs and Department of Health and Human Servs V. Florida in the oral arguments. So was this officially two cases, and we could have two different decisions (i.e. two majority decisions and two descending decisions.)? May be it was just an error.

"I would like to play Supreme Court. I get to be Chief Justice!”

Well I would like to read the oral arguments and listen to them and then write my opinion, I would also work on writing opinions of both sides and see if how I argue it would agree with the final decision.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Supreme Court

I wonder how the Supreme Court makes decisions?

During Ruth Beta Ginsburg's confirmation hearing she was asked “What is the worse Supreme Court case” She had said the case of “Roe V Wade” but she had a better argument for Abortion rights, but would not state what it is in case it is brought up before the Court.

So how much do the oral arguments play in the decisions of the court?If a justice did not think one side may a good case, would they be willing to make the better case in their opinion. If someone would make a bad argument, would that side lose because of the poor argument or will a justices better opnion be used in its place.

If the case is going to be based on the quailty of the oral arguments it would seem the Health Care Reform law would be overturned.

I will try to take sometime to further study of the oral arguments. It would be interesting to be able to create my opinion of the case and examine if how I wrote it would in anyway be close to what is finally presented.

Supreme Court and Health Care.

When the Supreme Court is making decisions, I would hope they would be willing to grant individuals freedom before they would grant greater power to the Federal government. If it is a choice of say, an individual's right to have an abortion or the Federal government being able to exercise greater power to require abortions in certain cases I would hope individual freedom is chosen. The Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal government to those given to it by the people through the Constitution. If the constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to do something then it should not be allowed to do it.

If every one but one person or a small minority of people in the United States of America, wanted to band guns, but the constitution was not changed, then the constitution should prevail, and even if strict gun control is in the main stream it should not be the ruling of the court. But they should defend the Constitution even if a small number or even if no one is for the 2nd amendment.

You may hear at the confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court nominee, someone wanting to make sure he/she is in the 'main stream' but if the 'main stream' is unconstitutional, then don't be main stream. To change the constitution is tough, and it should be. If something is main stream enough it should be easy to alter the confirmation.

So as the Court is considering the Health care Act they should be much harder on the government, than on the plaintiff. If the government has difficulty defending the law, then it should be over turned. It should be a very strong and compelling case for the court to allow a federal mandate to occur.

Lets hope the court protects freedom, and puts down tyranny.

Thursday, March 22, 2012


A sign of strength for Romney would be winning Louisiana. If he can win that state, he can soon win enough delegates for the nomination. This will allow him to win Texas.
If he does not win, then he needs to consider on getting a V.P. who is from the south and will do well in debates. Newt will do well in the south but won't be enough to help him. Santorum showed he can win in the south so he could work, but would he be good and debating V.P. Biden? He would need to work a lot to prepare for the debate.

So, assuming Romney get the nomination, here are some options
Rick Santorum
Bobby Jindal
Phil Bryant
Haley Barbour
Robert J. Bentley
Rick Scott
Jeb Bush (Could help get Florida, and attacks about Bush would back fire)
Sam Brownback
Nikki Haley (she is young, would be compared to Sarah Palin and would need to do a lot of prep work, She has to study hard to do ok against Biden.)

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Newt Gingrich and The Convention

Well I downloaded the information about the delegate count, and I worked on trying to figure out how could the rest of the contests go. Santorum has to win either Texas or California. I suspect he will be able to win Texas but I don't think he will be able to win California. I wanted to know how would the breakdown be in order for Romney not to come into the convention with enough delegates to win the nomination. Some of the delegates in the past caucuses or primaries have not all been allocated, I tend to be missing a few, so the missing ones could go to Romney and he would win.

If it would be possible for no candidate to have enough votes, it is thought we will have a brokered convention . But I don't think that is what Newt Gingrich wants. I think he would like to be the vice presidential nominee. So if Mitt Romney wants his supporters, he would add Gingrich to the ticket, bringing his delegates over to Romney.

Now I question if it would be possible to be part of the ticket, with out releasing his delegates. It seems like he would have to but would be depending on them to vote for Romney.

Also if Romney rejects the proposal, would Santorum have enough delegates to allow the Gingrich delegates to give Santorum the nomination? I don't think so.

So Newt Gingrich is going to have to use the threat of a broker convention against Romney in order to get the vice president spot on the ballot. But are any of these candidates willing to settle for be the number two?

How about Romney and Santorum put aside their differences, and work together. If they would join forces, it would neuter Newt. Polls need to be done checking on the Romney and Satorum vs President Obama and Vice President Biden race. Could they together, beat President Obama? Maybe.