Do you considering driving to be a luxury or in some cases is it also pretty much a necessity? If it is sometimes necessary then my comparison stands. But I guess it's arguable, so I'll drop it.
To flip that around I can also say you would have to buy insurance because you choose to live here. But I won't go down that path as I am not sure how I feel about the constitutionality of it- we'll see what the SCOTUS thinks on Thursday. From an economic standpoint though, I do not think this mandate is good which is why I don't support it. But we can drop this point too.
What I want to ask you in response is: If a mandate is tyranny, then what about taxes in general? Are they also tyranny because you are being forced to pay for the military and whatever else the government spends the money on?
Fair enough, except there is one issue with that logic. "Waste" is subjective. As are what taxes are extortion and which aren't. That is why I do not think it makes sense to argue in terms of what is and is not waste based on intuition. That will vary from person to person. It makes more sense to look at things in terms of costs and benefits and to argue those as those are more factual and less opinionated.
Okay I feel that My opinion of the mandate is fair since it does not change my life in any way. I will not have to pay it, but still honestly feel it is wrong.
Now as for Air Force One being used as a bus. Would all those happy faced people be so happy if they thought of the cost.
The president can stand in front of the cameras and give the same speech for next to nothing. And even more people will see and hear him. Who does it benefit and who does it cost when he takes the circus "on the road"?
Okay, but your opinion or my opinion does not inherently matter. Because it may well be that our country of 300 million has 300 million different opinions on any particular issue. It is the facts and logic behind the opinion (preferably to the point where it isn't even opinion anymore) that matter.
That aside,
Costs are not only financial. Unfortunately, appearance matters. Expectations have a role in guiding what happens. When the rest of the world has a circus, it might look silly if one of the most powerful in the world is riding up in a single sedan.
Beyond expectations, that is more of a security risk also.
And in particular with Air Force One vs. a bus, one saves a lot of time- another cost to consider. The President has a lot of duties- his time might easily outweigh the costs of the plane and fuel. Even everyday people make this decision when they decide to fly cross country instead of driving.
By the way, going back to the original topic, it looks like the InTrade market thinks the mandate will be deemed unconstitutional: http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=745353
Big difference in the cost of everyday people flying than Air Force One. And I really don't think most days he does enough to pay the cost. I know he really wants to make those campaign stops. But do you think even he thinks it is cheaper than doing it on TV?
TV is faster, safer, and cheaper than most of the trips any president takes. It is I do, because I can. And it feeds the old ego too. Look how important I am. I am setting new fuel standards for "regular" people.
This says it better than I can.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4962384-503544.html
Everyone does not agree that it is wrong either though. (again if every country has a circus, we might need it too in order to sit at the adult table, so-to-speak)
Oh I understand "Symbolism". Keeping up with the Jones is very important to some people. Taking care of assets is important to other people. I would have thought the people screaming we need to raise taxes would try to take better care of what they have. But I know they are just not wired that way.
You can say what you want but expectations matter. You might not like it (I do not like it a lot of the time), but that's the way it is. When a person first meets you they often look at what you are wearing and try to create some sort of rough story. And that (how you start off) affects your relationship in a very real way. Such is the world.
edit: Also it could well be that Air Force One brings more benefits than negatives. I was doing some research out of curiosity and found that it is the most photographed aircraft in the world. That certainly has a benefit to the US. But at the end of the day, Air Force One costs nothing compared to our budget at large and your GDP. It has been used since the 60s and planes even earlier. There are better ways to go about cutting spending- targeting such a small thing when there are such big things around is a waste of time.
It will be interesting to see where the debate goes from there if that is true. Some seem to think that the Democrats will just focus on expanding medicare/medicaid if they lose this as they can be sure it won't be unconstitutional (at least more sure). Seems to be a legitimate point.
That may well be true. But if the "boss" is wasting company money it "signals" the other employees that saving is not important here. A few billion here and a few billion there can add up to real money. But too many see the nations money as "Monopoly" money to play with. As for our seat at the table we always have to buy a ticket anyway.
I know my opinion does not count. But I see 90% of our government as sellouts and crooks.
I think that portions of the bill will be found unconstitutional. They way the questioning went seemed to indicate that there was some consensus that parts of it would fall apart and they were trying to figure out if the remaining bill still met the intent or should be tossed too.
I also believe that this would have never made it before the SCOTUS had the Democrats not chickened out and instead went for an SPHI or fully socialized healthcare system. They could easily defended this kind of bill under the letter of law through the tax and spend powers given to Congress.
I also believe that this would have never made it before the SCOTUS had the Democrats not chickened out and instead went for an SPHI or fully socialized healthcare system. They could easily defended this kind of bill under the letter of law through the tax and spend powers given to Congress.
Similar threads
