Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re: Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning (Score 1) 588 588

by mattwarden (#49991653) Attached to: Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare Subsidies

Let's say the authors did intend it as you say. Did the representatives voting on it understand that when it said what it said, it really meant something else? How about the people who decided whether to call their reps in support or opposition? How about the citizens and companies planning to comply with the law: did they know that what it said wasn't really what the authors meant?

Do you see the problem here? There is a legitimate enough debate for this to make it to SCOTUS and you're saying we should let it go because obviously the authors meant it that way.

Except John Gruber is on video explaining how the states who try to stop Obamacare by refusing to set up an exchange will get pummeled by the people who realize they are paying taxes for Obamacare but are not eligible for any of the tax credits because their dumb Republican governor played politics and didn't set up a state exchange.

So what really happened here is revisionism after the fact, at worst, and definitely no consensus amongst authors, reps voting, and the citizens deciding on support.

Comment: Re: Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning (Score 1) 588 588

by mattwarden (#49991625) Attached to: Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare Subsidies

The govt argued it was effectively a typo and when the authors wrote the section on subsidies they didn't have in mind the definition in the definitions section and obviously congress meant it to apply to exchanges set by state or the Feds. There was wording that said "such Exchange" and the govt argued that referred to an exchange set up in either way. SCOTUS bought it because they wanted to, just like the first ACA case.

Comment: Re: Prime Scalia (Score 1) 588 588

by mattwarden (#49991589) Attached to: Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare Subsidies

Laws define words within their own coo text. There is nothing wrong with one law using "state" to mean any govt or the fed govt and another law meaning one of the 50 states and another law meaning any of the 50 states or a territory. Most laws have a definitions section. So your point suggesting Scalia is hypocritical shows ignorance.

Comment: Supply and demand (Score 1) 937 937

by mattwarden (#49987301) Attached to: The Vicious Circle That Is Sending Rents Spiraling Higher

High demand creates increasing supply. Land is finite but we are not anywhere near bounded by land supply. 350 million people can't live within 2 miles of a city center, and prices will take care of that too (and they have been for decades; google urban sprawl). Sprawl will make new transportation modes and work models viable. It already has.

No need to run around telling everyone the sky is falling. Markets are very resilient, especially when not heavily distorted.

Comment: Re:Ignorant (Score 1) 226 226

I think you are quite off here, my friend. Your collective freak-out suggests total ignorance that this is standard operating procedure. So while you're spending time judging me for being aloof and resigned, I am trying to point out that my aloofness or resignation is pretty irrelevant if all you clowns don't even know this is happening all the time. Even in this thread I have people telling me this isn't happening all the time. How am I supposed to be anything but aloof and resigned? Your ignorance makes it a waste of time to be anything else.

Comment: Re:Ignorant (Score 1) 226 226

The author of laws has exactly zero relationship to democracy or anti-democracy or whatever. If you want to be OMG OUTRAGED about something, how about being outraged that your elected representatives don't read the laws that they vote on? I don't care if Satan writes a law; democracy starts when the law is considered.

By the way, are you also OMG OUTRAGED that most of our laws are not even considered by Congress? Authority has been delegated to executive agencies and are handled through regulations "passed" by people you have never heard of and never elected. Who do you think writes those regulations?

But if I had to make a bet one way or the other, I would bet that you are on the side of the political spectrum that supported this delegation, ignoring the warnings and protestations of "my" side of the spectrum. So...

Comment: Re:Ignorant (Score 1) 226 226

Bud, I don't know what to tell you. You are making my point. You are flat out wrong. Think tanks, lobbyists, and associations write laws. Period. Congressional staffers do little more than piece things together and strike sections out based on macro-level political negotiations.

Comment: Re:You Must Be New Here (Score 1) 356 356

by mattwarden (#49858391) Attached to: How Elon Musk's Growing Empire is Fueled By Government Subsidies

I'm not new here, as I'm sure you know. You said that for effect and to be true in spirit, not because you believed it literally to be true in every respect.

Follow me so far?

Great, now apply the same understanding to my original post. Slashdot leans heavily in support of subsidized technology spending, green or otherwise, and now there are a bunch of clowns complaining about the subsidies being used.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

Working...