Dem legs.

Speaking of constitutionality, this is a bill that raises taxes, and unless I’m missing something, it originated in the Senate. Doesn’t that make it unconstitutional under Article I Section 7?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

ITguy on January 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

That won’t fly. This is an amendment to H.R. 8 from the 112th Congress. Any house of Congress can amend any bills. That bill number would put that bill as having been introduced on the first days of the 112th Congress and in the House of Representatives (hence the H.R. indicator). The 112th Congress began their session in January 2011.

Screen shot’s best pair of legs on Hot Air since Tina Korbe’s during Santorum interview.

Deep Timber on January 2, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Careful though. :) Tina’s legs are attached to Tina. I fear the wider shot.

But it’s true. Ho hum, ho hum, usual ho hum — O, Hi there! How’s your day going?

When the Democrats regain control of the House (and they will because so much of hte Republican base has COMPLETELY HAD IT with the spineless Republicans in the House), the Dems will completely forget the word “permanently” (or any derivative thereof) and proceed to raise taxes on whomever they wish to raise taxes on.

And the Republican members of the House will jump up and down and scream about how the tax rates were supposed to be PERMANENT but none of it will matter so long as the Democrats have sufficient votes to change the tax law.

Any Congress can change any law a previous Congress enacted! Simple as that. But the complete idiots in The Stupid Party are all patting each other on the back saying “job well done”, “we showed them!”, etc. etc., while the Democrats are laughing at them behind closed doors for being complete fools who are so easily duped.

You do know why he left the bill behind, right? If he doesn’t auto-pen it before 11:59 am tomorrow, the provision that (supposedly) limits Congressional pay is unconstitutional. The last I checked, there was no severability clause.

Plus, the constitutionality of the auto-pen has never been tested. What better time than now (for him and Reid at least) to test it and have Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black declare it insufficient.

Steve Eggleston on January 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Speaking of constitutionality, this is a bill that raises taxes, and unless I’m missing something, it originated in the Senate. Doesn’t that make it unconstitutional under Article I Section 7?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

He’s done.

Matthew Boyle ‏@mboyle1

It’s not a rumor. Outgoing Rep. Jeff Landry just confirmed they have 17. Enough to unseat Boehner.

cdog0613 on January 2, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Final score:

REALITY: 1

tommy71: 0

Here endeth the lesson. ;)

That would make you Chuck Woolery, wouldn’t it…? ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Hot Gas Love Connection

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 5:09 PM

That’s what usually happens here when someone brings up authors they haven’t actually read. I know I shouldn’t be like that, but its hard for me to believe that someone calling themselves a “libertarian”, that agrees with “Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick” would turn around and dog Rothbard…doesn’t really fit…not that these men agreed on everything, but you gotta explain yourself at least.

Yeah, I work in the wrong building.

Other than that, I have nothing good to say about the current state of GOP House political acumen, so I won’t say anything at all. For once.

Just ask her out and get it over with already.

you’ve obviously got quite the crush.

lol

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 5:13 PM

That would make you Chuck Woolery, wouldn’t it…? ;)

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/02/obama-in-hawaii-fiscal-cliff-standoff-behind-him/

So wait…. we’re already 2 days over the cliff and 0bama left town without signing the bill??

LOL… he’s about as funny as Chevy Chase.

cane_loader on January 2, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Oh, just fly the bill out to him. It will probably take less than a million, thereby saving real money!

If she returns, it should be interesting.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Just ask her out and get it over with already.

you’ve obviously got quite the crush.

lol

…

“Both Hayek and Rothbard were more than intellectuals; they were advocates. And while what they ultimately advocated was different, in the context of today’s ever-growing government, the rest of the world isn’t too wrong in lumping them together for practical purposes. In many ways, though Rothbard certainly didn’t think so when contemplating the unpublished Constitution of Liberty, their approaches were complementary rather than competitive. In a world of different minds, different sorts of arguments are going to appeal to different people for different reasons. It’s the kind of intellectual division of labor that economists such as Rothbard and Hayek should both be able to appreciate.

If Hayek and Rothbard were (unbeknownst to Hayek) at war, it’s a war that both won and neither won. That the two tendencies survive is all for the best both for libertarian ideas and the general shape of human intellectual and political history.”

I’m making no assumption there at all; I am stating it directly: a society not predictated on force, coercion, and compulsion is immoral and absolutely worse than one based on liberty, property rights, and voluntary relationships.

Please strike the word “not”.

Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick, etc.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

How interesting, given Rothbard’s relationship with von Mises, his devotion to Mises’ work and Austrian economics, and given the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s class on Anarcho-Capitalism as well as there promotion of Rothbard and his works.

Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick, etc.
Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Let me rephrase: In what ways are the folks you mentioned above better messengers of libertarian ideals then Rothbard?

I said that we returned to my original statement that government is a “necessary evil.” You admitted that government is necessary, but then said that it is oppressive. That is the very definition of a “necessary evil.”

No, I do not admit that government is necessary, because I don’t believe government is necessary. You are the one claiming government is necessary.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe, it was because you claim to be a libertarian and you wrote:

No, I’m an anarcho-capitalist, not a libertarian. I think we’ve struck upon the source of your error in ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold, or admissions that I have not made.

First of all, you assume that one is necessarily worse than the other.

I’m making no assumption there at all; I am stating it directly: a society not predictated on force, coercion, and compulsion is immoral and absolutely worse than one based on liberty, property rights, and voluntary relationships.

Secondly, you also assume — and this is what used to infuriate me about Rothbard — that an ararcho-capitalist society could actually come to fruition on a global scale and, realistically, you would need it on a global scale in order to prevent “state-sponsored aggression.” Anarcho-capitalism, like communism, may work in theory, but both fail in practise.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I’ve never made any statement or assumption that anarcho-capitalist society could come to fruition on a global scale. In fact, I’ve never made any statement or assumption that one could come to fruition period. Statists aside, there will be people such as you who claim to desire liberty, yet who will side with force, slavery, and coercion – evil, as you put it.

Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick, etc.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Super! So how do you think that the above-referenced folks differed in general from Rothbard’s thoughts on the role, or lack thereof, of the government in an economy?

I heard from the Speakership, but it would be hard to imagine him remaining in the House afterwards.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Resign from the party, Weepy; go for the hat trick. ;)