Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (765080)	1/21/2014 7:38:16 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bonefish FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573041

And crooked Terry McAuliffe is not indicted.

To: puborectalis who wrote (765080)	1/21/2014 8:36:04 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573041

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Harry Reid .................................................................................... Washington Free Beacon ^ \| 1-21-2014 A government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) for allegedly campaigning federal officials to approve visas for foreign Las Vegas investors. The group, Cause of Action, wrote a letter to Senate Ethics Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and Vice Chairman Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.) accusing the majority leader of contacting two U.S. Customs and Immigration Services officials, Watchdog.org reported: “Despite the fact that these applications were ineligible for appeal, Sen. Reid’s efforts to lobby USCIS resulted in the reconsideration and approval of these applications, as well as the subsequent securing of millions of dollars in foreign and domestic funds for the (Las Vegas) SLS Hotel & Casino and American Dream Fund EB-5 Regional Center — both of which are major contributors to the Democratic Party,” Cause of Action executive director Daniel Epstein wrote. Mayorkas, recently confirmed by the Senate to be deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, remains under investigation by the DHS Inspector General’s Office over his handling of EB-5 cases. Approved without Republican votes, Mayorkas benefited from Reid’s newly instituted “nuclear option,” which effectively blocks filibusters on confirmations. The EB-5 program enables foreign nationals to receive green cards in exchange for $500,000 to $1-million investments in participating U.S. companies.

To: puborectalis who wrote (765080)	1/21/2014 8:56:55 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573041

Intended strictly as a political prosecution, just like NJ and Wisconsin. Initiated straight out of the corrupted DOJ. The only purpose of this is to drag it across the headlines for the next year in order to deliver Virginia as a newly minted blue-state in 2014 and eventually 2016. .

To: puborectalis who wrote (765080)	1/21/2014 8:59:09 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573041

Tom DeLay redux?

To: puborectalis who wrote (765080)	1/21/2014 9:00:00 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573041

Has black racist Eric Holder EVER prosecuted a Democrat for ANYTHING??? Nope, or a racist black panther, or a commie conspiracy to arm the insurgency, only conservative whites.

To: puborectalis who wrote (765080)	1/22/2014 7:53:46 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1573041

Wendy Davis vs. the Truth Jon Gabriel, Ed. · 17 hours ago National Democrats have belatedly discovered that Wendy Davis wasn't quite ready for prime time. Over the weekend, the decidedly non-conservative Dallas Morning News found several errors in the gubernatorial candidate’s heroic campaign biography. Davis was not an unwed teen mom who single-handedly willed herself from the trailer park to Harvard Law. Instead, she married a much older lawyer, had him cash in his 401(k) and take out loans to pay for her schooling, then dropped him the day after the last loan was paid off. She even left the kids behind, giving him full custody so she could focus on politics. Wendy Davis needs a man like a fish needs a rich bicycle that will pay its way through fish law school and take full custody of its spawn. Few politicians should be treated as moral lodestars, but the difference between Davis’ glowing media coverage and the grubby reality is stunning. A skeptical press would have rooted out her fabrications before the filing deadline passed. Instead, Dems are stuck with MSNBC’s pet Texan and her growing pile of baggage. ........... ricochet.com

To: puborectalis who wrote (765080)	1/22/2014 7:58:15 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573041

William Levin: Obamacare death throes William Levin, a graduate of Yale Law School and former clerk on the D.C. Circuit, manages an investment banking firm. He writes to comment on the case involving the legality of Obamacare subsidies on the 36 federally facilitated exchanges provided to states that have not established their own. Last week D.C. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled that the subsidies provided on these exchanges were legal despite statutory language to the contrary. Judge Friedman’s opinion is posted online here. Mr. Levin comments: There are several plans for ending Obamacare, from defunding to selective repeal, but only one already underway that will be effective. No later than June, 2015, the Supreme Court will hold that subsidies cannot be paid to individuals enrolled in the federal health exchange covering 36 of 50 states. Absent subsidies, 16 million people in the 36 affected states will face increased annual premium costs totaling $85 billion, based on Congressional estimates. The federal health exchange will have no option but to disclose the full, unsubsidized cost of policies, contributing to the so-called death spiral caused by too few young enrollees. Employer penalties can be assessed only after workers enroll in a subsidized exchange. No subsidy, no lawful penalty. This is an issue of national importance. Obamacare authorizes subsidies for exchanges “established by a State.” Without a federal exchange subsidy, the legislation fails in practice because so few states elected to set up an exchange. Does this mean the act cannot be read as plainly written? Last week federal Judge Paul Friedman in Halbig v. Sebelius upheld the IRS regulations authorizing the federal exchange subsidy. Judge Friedman admits that “looking only at the language of the statute” the plaintiffs’ argument prohibiting subsidies to the federal exchange “may seem the more intuitive one.” He goes still further: “On its face, the plain language of [the statute], viewed in isolation, appears to support plaintiffs’ interpretation. The federal government, after all, is not a ‘State.’” So how does he reach the contrary conclusion and will it be persuasive to five Justices on the Supreme Court? According to Judge Friedman, the Obama administration makes “a credible argument” that the federal government can create an exchange “on behalf of that State,” therefore the federal exchange must be viewed as equivalent to a state exchange and therefore the federal exchange is eligible for a subsidy. Or, in the words of the Obama Justice Department, “Congress envisioned the federally-facilitated Exchange to be the same entity as the state-operated Exchange.” The reversible error is clear in logic and the law. The federal government acting on behalf of a state does not become a state. Nor in truth does the federal government act on the state’s behalf. The “federally-facilitated exchange” is a phrase of pure invention by the IRS. Under the statute, the federal exchange comes into existence when the state elects not to act, and does so without benefit of a subsidy. To reach the contrary conclusion, the Obama administration will need to persuade the Supreme Court that in the fictional world of Obamaland the federal exchange is “the same entity” as a state exchange. Even the implementing IRS regulations grudgingly acknowledge that “[c]ommentators disagreed on whether the language in [the relevant provision of the ACA] limits the availability of the premium tax credit only to taxpayers who enroll in qualified health plans on State Exchanges.” The best the IRS can muster in response is that ACA provisions, taken in combination, “support the interpretation” that all exchange payments are allowed. So here is the crux of the matter, on which Obamacare in practice may survive or fail. Everyone, including Judge Friedman, agrees that “the ACA takes a state-established Exchange as a given.” Judge Friedman’s tack is to conclude that this assumption is unworkable and therefore must be read as inconsistent with the purposes of the ACA, which after all is affordable health care. The hard truth is that Congress erected a statutory scheme premised on the assumption that the states would elect to establish exchanges. Had the states complied, the legal challenge to federal subsidy payments would not exist. Whether the state-exchange-only assumption was implemented due to hasty drafting, hubris, legislative log-rolling or well-thought out purpose is pure speculation and beyond judicial review. It is the choice that Congress made. It is a choice to be corrected only in new legislation. Judge Friedman acknowledges that Obamacare is no model of legislation, that it was “synthesized through a reconciliation process.” This could be the greatest cover in judicial history. When the case reaches the Supreme Court, neither Chief Justice Roberts nor Justice Kennedy, or three other votes for that matter, will rewrite the ACA statute to expand taxpayer funding. In reaffirming that the statute limits subsidies to state exchanges, the Court properly leaves the resolution to the legislative process. The end of Obamacare is not the end of politics. “Don’t get cocky, kid” is eternally good advice, but that still leaves reason to hope (pray?) that repeal really can happen, as Obamacare falls under the weight of its own poorly conceived, monstrous impracticality. powerlineblog.com