Whirly Might Be Right

So wouldn't that be 2008 all over again??? Wasn't McCain a moderate and isn't Palin a Tea Party favorite although they weren't a strong voice in 2008- nevertheless Independents are not going to flock to a Tea party right winger. Also doesn't Mittens view himself as a strong conservative??
Also Bush wasn't above 50% in 2004 and Kerry still lost.. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Palin helped McCain. She did energize the conservative base. McCain was catching up to Obama, and in some polls had passed him, when the market collapsed, and the Republicans got blamed. McCain lost because the economy collapsed, not because Palin was a poor VP choice.

McCain also lost because Obama failed to honor his pledge to take matching funds, and consequently, was able to outspend McCain by more than three to one. In some battleground states, Obama outspent McCain by five to one. Considering the perfectly timed, for Obama, economic collapse and the huge disparity in spending, it's remarkable that McCain did as well as he did.

This time around, the failing economy will be blamed mostly on Obama, and campaign spending is likely to be similar on both sides. I don't see Obama winning under those circumstances.

Interesting opinion http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-...care-decision/

How far might the Federal Government really go with this, now that the door has been opened and precedence set?



Lets see who is the first to attack the author rather than the message. Any bets? Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold Obamacare may increase the ability of the government to use taxes to control our behavior. However, the federal government has been using the income tax to control our behavior, in all sorts of ways, for a long time.

For instance, you use the example of using taxes to force someone to buy a house. In a way, the government is doing that now. If I'm a renter, who can afford to buy a house, but continues to rent, I don't get to right of my rental payment on my income taxes. The home buyer gets to right off the mortgage interest on his home purchase. So in essence, the federal government currently penalizes people for not buying a home.

The federal government also uses the income tax to punish people for not having kids. People who have kids can claim them as dependants and reduce their taxes. The reduction in tax revenue is payed for by everyone else including people without children.

In choosing to call the funding mechanism, in Obamacare, a tax instead of a mandate, Roberts has given the Republicans a powerful political campaign tool for the presidential election in November. Obama campaigned on not raising taxes on the middle class. Obamacare is actually the largest tax increase, on the middle class, in American history.
Also, by reclassifying the "mandate" as a tax, Roberts has given the Republicans the ability to repeal Obamacare by using reconciliation in the Senate which only requires 51 votes instead of 60.

The argument is being made, that because of the wording in the majority opinion, SCOTUS's ruling to uphold Obamacare, will also reduce the ability to use the interstate commerce clause to justify further increases in growth in the federal government.