Some other people have noticed this: ie, John Roberts is an Evil Genius.

No THIS is why John Roberts is an evil genius.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

That is not how the law was written, though.  SCOTUS has effectively re-written the law, changing the fundamentals that (most probably) wouldn't have passed political muster even two years ago in order to effect the desired (political and legal) outcome.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

I agree, it is a bit of a political loophole.  If they can count on the Supreme Court always applying the "quacks like a duck" test, they could just write things up as "penalties", claim it's not a tax for the benefit of the pols, and then if it ever gets challenged claim its a tax.

It's pretty sickening how they call it not a tax in order to rule on it now (otherwise anti-injunction would kick in), but uphold it as a tax and hence under congress's authority.  It's either one or the other:  if it's a tax, then I don't see how they get past anti-injunction, and it's not a tax, then congress had no authority to levy it.  It seems to me that what is actually written in the text of the laws congress passes should matter, and if they call it a penalty and claim the authority under commerce, then if it is found that commerce does not apply, the penalty is overturned.

But, that just gives credence to the belief that no part of the USFG will significantly curtail the power of other parts of the USFG.  The only partial exception in this case would be the Medicare part getting thrown out, but politically, that's going to fall on the states rather than the feds, so call it a pre-chewed bone.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Though I'd personally prefer it if taxes were used purely to raise revenue, rather than direct behavior, it's clear they Congress does have the authority to enact taxes/credits that direct behavior, as long as they raise some revenue.

It's a real weak point, and it really bothers me about the guy, bad enough to make me not want to vote for him.

I think this decision was a huge, huge hit for Romney.  If the Court had overturned the mandate he could have made a much more convincing federalist case - basically, "see, it was fine for Mass. because it's legal for the states to do this, but it's just not legal at the federal level, now moving on..."  He can't pull that anymore - now Obama (and Obama's PACs) can hammer him with this over and over and over again.  Obama was hurt a little too - the Republican talking point is going to be that this is the largest tax increase EVAR or something like that - but I think Mittens was hurt a lot worse.  And yeah I know it's a dick move to keep calling him Mittens, but my parents have a cat named Mittens and he kind of looks like Romney, so I just feel the need to roll with it.

Allons-y!

He can't pull that anymore - now Obama (and Obama's PACs) can hammer him with this over and over and over again.  Obama was hurt a little too - the Republican talking point is going to be that this is the largest tax increase EVAR or something like that - but I think Mittens was hurt a lot worse.

Here's the thing about a "you said it was legal" vs. "you said it wasn't a tax" slapfight: not every voter has a law degree, but they do all have wallets.

Here's the thing about the "tax" - almost no one will pay it.  As Republicans have been going on and on, most people do have healthcare, and as Democrats have been going on and on, most that don't have it, want it and would buy it if they could.  The very few who don't have it and don't want it were probably going to vote against Obama anyway.

Allons-y!

The other "tax" I will pay is when my high deductible insurance is made illegal, and I am forced to pay for coverage I do not want, do not need, and will not use.  This extra money will be used to pay for other people's healthcare.

You're presuming that the default healthcare insurance will remain provided by companies after 2014 with this law in place. What happens if (e.g.) Wal-Mart decides to forego all employee health benefits as a cost-saving measure, which quickly becomes the industry standard? And remember that the tax is phased in over three years -- in our example, Wal-Mart could "make up the difference" with a minimal wage increase that would cover the tax in 2014, but cover only a fraction of it in later years.

Swing voters who are liberal minded but for the most part independent are among the few in that income range that will pay it. This outlays exactly why it's the worst of both worlds for Obama and as someone who was probably on the fence before but is almost definitely not voting for him after today, I'm strongly inclined to agree.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

I think I recall from Plastic days you arguing against just such an attitude in that stating a third party candidate can't win is a self-fulfilling prophecy and that the "wasted vote" argument is thus flawed.

In this particular case, with Gary Johnson flirting with double digits in the polls, I think you-- if I'm correct in remembering that was your argument-- are even more right.  For example, I live in a blue state.  Barring an economic collapse, Obama is going to win this state.  Any attempts by me to convert people to Obama or Romney would be meaningless, but I could work to support Johnson and help him get to that magical 15% figure or at least increase his vote total enough to get notice from the major parties.  He wouldn't have to win-- which is good because he won't-- to help effect change in the system.

You are absolutely right, I have argued that in the past, nor am I saying now that a vote for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote.  If you vote your conscience, no vote is wasted, no matter what the outcome.  What I am saying is that my primary objective at this point is to repeal the current abortion of a law and, given past trends, Romney is the best scant hope for that despite the fact he is almost as bad (in different ways) as the sitting POTUS.  Gary Johnson would be preferrable to either of these two, hands down, but the simple matter of fact is that too many people want a nanny state for a Libertarian (large L) to have a hope of winning.  Too many demographics are being paid off, too many votes are being bought in one way or another, for someone who can credibly promise smaller government to win.

It's simply demographics:  47% of households pay no income tax and, of the remaining, a very small percentage pay anywhere near per capita share of the federal budget.  These people are getting a great deal, paying so little to get such a large return and all they have to do is vote for more to increase their returns.  That's what the code phrase "voting economic self-interest" ultimately means when used by the left, more free or subsidized stuff from the government.  The ACA is an absolutely perfect example of that but, poltically, the mandate is unpopular so that the only scant hope to get the tax provisions repealed is a reversal of the law.

We know Obama isn't going to do that, being the worst advocate of the welfare state since LBJ.  In my estimation, Johnson can not garner sufficient support to have a realistic chance of winning.  Therefore, Romney is the highest probability choice.  I suspect he won't win:  this election could end up being a replay of 1936.  I hope not, but it's a distinct possibility.  Basically, Romney is at best a holding action against the encroachment of the federals, and a far from ideal one at that, but such is the state of the nation.

I do hope Johnson hits the 15% mark, and I wish him all the luck in the world.  You certainly won't see me blaming Johnson if Romney is defeated this November, like the dems did with Nader in 2000.  No politician, no matter what party is owed your vote.  I'm ultimately saying that Romney has the combination of most probable to win while getting rid of the ACA.  At this point, that's a diminishing hope, and certainly a small specific one at that, but such is the era of dimished expectations.  It's mourning in America.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

So he claims.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

He'll keep just about every aspect of Obamacare but for the individual mandate, which leads to an interesting paradox -- how will he keep all that without the mechanism to pay for it?

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

There's always the business of crime scene clean-up.

The last thing I would want to do is increase the penalty for not detailing my purchases to the IRS by earning more money.  So, no new businesses for me.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Heh.  Of course, while you're trying to do that, you're pumping even more money into the corrupt system, propping it up to your own detriment.  And that's even assuming one will reach the laudable goal of appearing on an enemies list.  The vast majority won't, so they'll be effectively feeding a system they'll never attain the power to change.  I just don't see that as a working solution.

Of course, one could contemplate joining the growing number renouncing citizenship, but again, that's only effectively viable if you're very wealthy.  The graph is very interesting, though, showing a steady growth through Shrub's administration until 2006, then a bit of bouncing for a few years, and then what can only be called "skyrocketing" in 2009 from the previous 3 years baseline.  I'm not sure what caused that, but apparently it's an ongoing event as the rate of increase has been fairly steady the last 3 years

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

I'm inclined to agree it's not a workable solution.  

I don't know that there are a lot of good options though.  

My family has been successful and as a result we pay a lot of taxes.  I'd like to pay less, but I really don't see that happening.  I don't want to change to the lifestyle of those who pay very little taxes, and I don't want to risk going to jail for tax evasion.  One of my brothers works as a waiter.  He pays almost no taxes, but I don't want his standard of living, so intentionally reducing my output to pay less taxes in unappealing.  

Mostly I just grumble about how high my taxes are and write off petty things like ipads and kid's school supplies as part of my business.  I figure my coping mechanism will remain roughly the same under the new laws.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

While it's not a solution, I have discovered a way to strike back.  I won't tip for services anymore, certainly not as a general 20-25% as I usually do at restaurants, hair salons, delivery, etc.  The reasoning is thus:  I've been operating under the apparently false assumption that I had privacy with respect to purchases as far as the USFG is concerned.  Ok, the SCOTUS today said I don't, and that's fine.  Now, what other assumptions that aren't law that I'm operating under?  Well, it struck me while I was at an establishment that one assumption is that one tips the performer of various services a percentage of the bill.  That's not codified in law, just a societal norm (i.e. assumption).  There's no legal compulsion to do so at this point in time, and since a good (for me) assumption about privacy w.r.t. purchases was declared invalid with penalty, I figure the uncodified assumption about tipping no longer needs adherence.

It's good in a lot of ways:  it's one of the few small ways I can resist governmental encroachment, by reducing the gross of (statistically) it's most ardent supporters and hence tax revenues, and I save money which will partially offset the loss in income I will experience as a result of this law.  I saved $30 this evening by instituting this new policy, and I figure on average I'd probably save about 40-50 per week.  That's 2 grand a year, which I realize is a drop in the bucket, but it is some proactive action I can take.  It was a bit difficult because of my upbringing and sympathy for people who do those sorts of jobs when I stiffed them tonight, but I'm sure I'll adopt to this brave new world.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Well, okay, but I gotta be honest with you. There is a strong likelihood that the waitstaff will treat you as a Rod Farva at Dimpus Burger and spit in your burger in the future. Especially if you are a repeat customer. Just saying.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Consequences for bad tippers are as old as the practice of tipping.

It's cute that he thinks he's the first one to crack open the mystery of tipping, though.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

I didn't crack open any mystery.  Prior to today, I'd always been a good tipper out of sympathy for a shitty job and wanting to reward good service.  However, the social contract was changed today:  apparently, my purchases are subject to federal reporting.  Ok, that's the new law of the land, so be it, but then so be not paying for anything that I am not legally required, and so far, tipping is what I've come up with.  Small potatoes, of course, but we do what we can.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

I always advocate that folks take class warfare personally and fight accordingly, and it's honestly a little reassuring to see someone on your side of the war taking that advice to heart and describing your personal efforts.  I'll disseminate it to the best of my ability, in the interest of saving you some valuable time.  

Like you wisely said, we do what we can.  

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Yes, there is that risk, of course.  But, I have enough dining options that it takes a while before I go back to the same place again.  Consequently, due to scheduling and turn over, it's relatively rare for me to get repeat waitstaff.  Hence, it's a low probability event.  If it does happen, there's always the possibility of a lawsuit.  With a little luck, it could be a lucrative sideline.  Furthermore, in such a scenario, it would have the economic impact as taking money out of a high-velocity business such as restaurants, into the pit of the judicial system, never to be seen again.  With a little luck, it could even put the restaurant out of business entirely, all because someone made the assumption that they were owed something when, in point of fact, they weren't.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

It doesn't take anybody doing anything illegal though.  If you're remembered (granted, you don't think that will happen), you're just going to sit forever before your order is taken and then sit forever before you get your food and then sit forever waiting to get the bill so that you can leave.  You're going to get five minutes worth of attention when you get your haircut.  Delivery people (and I generally tip them very well and have observed that doing so does make a difference) are going to make you the last person on their route meaning that the Chinese takeout that took 90 minutes to get to your home is going to be cold.

Not to mention that you're punishing people who had about as much say in the creation of the law as you. On another article, you were fine with giving Ron Paul your tax money via Social Security because he was stuck paying into the same (in your opinion) objectionable system as you.  Now you want to punish people who are subject to the same objectionable system as you.

There's really nothing contradictory about that, from his point of view.  

It's almost as if the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

They benefit from the law, by and large:  20-somethings on their parent's insurance, which is ridiculous for a nominal adult, subsidies for insurance, and all the other absolutely inane provisions of this pork.  If they benefit from the largesse of the government at my expense, there being not one provision of the law that benefits me in the slightest and very many that are detrimental to me, then I have no qualms about returning the favor in a realm that doesn't break any existing law and serving the role of reparations from people who by-and-large benefit.  It's partial compensation for the amount this law will cost me.

One thing that does surprise me, and concerns me a bit, is the fact that people I have explained this position to have started to adopt it as well.  Maybe not 100% in all cases (normal 20%-25% tippers going to 10%-15%, but a few much more open to stiffing), but in my personal life, friends and family have started to implement it as well.  I very much doubt it'll catch on to any extent, which is a good thing for me, but I am happy that I've been able to help people I care about save some money while maintaining a clear conscience.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Good lord, it's simply appalling that so many Americans have yet to advance to a post-kindergarten maturity. You share in the benefits of society yet feel no connection to it, no responsibility to it.

I swear to the baby Jeebus, conservatives have become short of a club for un-closeted sociopaths.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Not when "society" is used as a nickname for "have the government give out free stuff to others while sticking me with the bill for their largesse".  So, if they want to change the rules regarding privacy and health insurance, I'll change (for myself) the "rules" for tipping.  Very simple, very easy, and eminently fair.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Hasn't your argument always been that they can get free healthcare anyway? Who pays for that, and does this not directly benefit you?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

We're not discussing health care, we're discussing the commercial product known as health insurance.  What anybody does about either is neither my concern nor my business, and consequently, not my problem.  Until now, apparently.  So, I've found a semi-related way to offset these newly imposed cost by the people whining "I want, I need, I deserve".  :)

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Exactly my point. You see the state of health of society you live in and benefit from as "not my problem". You may not wish it to be, but it truly is.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it is more my problem than most other people?  Since I'll be paying just to maintain my own status quo, while most will be getting subsidies (i.e. getting paid), that would indicate whatever problems you think may exist are either my fault in some sense, or I am for whatever reason more responsible for their resolution to your satisfaction.  I just wonder, besides the perception of ability to do so, what reasoning makes it more my responsibility moreso than so many others.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

I have seen this before. Some are simply incapable of understanding this point, especially if you are one who didn't recognize that Henry F. Potter was indeed the villain in the film. Alas, a sense of empathy cannot be imparted and in a better world the advantages of a cooperative, healthy society should be readily apparent to all.

My experience has been that Libertarians generally operate under the deluded premise that every person's station in life is largely earned. Either that or they are truly, clinically, sociopaths. Certainly hard work is part of the equation, yet much of our lives are completely out of our control. Who you are born to, where you are born, genetics, etc., more often these are the major determinants of your socioeconomic future. And due to our medical system's design these same tricks of fate are the major determinants of quality of medical care. An accident of womb.

Adopting an objective of the greatest economic good of the greatest number seems to rile the Henry Potters out there. It's merely selfishness and a self-serving bias. For the rest of us sharing a little for the common good is the four inch high curb that we step up on in elementary school. The advantages should be obvious.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

What I am wondering is how does someone maintain a social relationship with people holding that kind of attitude about everything?

A little for the commons, if shared equally, is good.  Sticking a minority with the bill while crying "more" isn't sharing the commons, it's just the tyranny of the majority.  Of course, to make this philosophically tenable, the minority who balk at this imposed obligation far in excess of proportional to either numbers or resources, is seen as "selfish" or even "sociopathic".  This is the modern liberal version of "evil", used by the christians in other realms to demonize their opponents and hence attempt to make their positions the only tenable one.  The similarity between the two factions never ceases to amuse me, particularly considering they so thoroughly demonize their opponents virtually identically.

However, unlike the christians, liberals only attribute fault or responsibility to those who manage to make their own way.  Personal responsibility only kicks in at some arbitrary AGI.  Under this level, the needy are providing a valuable service, giving opportunity to those above it the means to exercise their compassion and prove their adherence to the dogma espoused even when contrary to their own well-being.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

"Selfish" and "sociopathic" are not used as code-words. These are direct observations and clinical definitions.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

They're not when used against political opponents.  Furthermore, why is it when people take from me (via the auspices of the government they put in place) for their own selfish benefit (in the form of free/subsidized stuff), these words don't apply, but if I offset these new imposed costs in a manner roughly equivalent in terms of effect, they do?  Though, of course, I am not taking anything, I am no longer giving voluntarily, so my actions should be less ethically objectionable.  r As an example, which is more wrong:  someone who steals from charity, or someone who stops giving to charity?  Or do you need a W-2 form to make that call?

It's funny how quickly liberals adopt the old soviet tactic of labeling political opponents mentally ill.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

I'm sorry that these words bother you so much. They accurately define a behavior and are appropriate for this application, political opponent or not. Perhaps what you are really experiencing is a need for introspection.

So, you assume anyone in economic straits is a shiftless loser. If you will remember my statement, this excuses you from the Sociopath Camp and enrolls you in the Delusion Camp. In your world Commander Cuckoo Bananas was the intellectual cream that naturally floated to the top and a med student, deep in debt, then struck with Huntington's disease deserves the added economic consequences. Or at the very least, you are willing to watch and do nothing, which puts you in a completely different Camp

Every man for himself. Why libertarians don't grab a machete and parachute into the jungle is a compete mystery to me. It's truly the only way you will be allowed to thrive.

I should also point out that you continue to skirt the issue raised in comment #84. I'm attempting to gauge if or when morality or humanity kicks in and starts to affect your personal need for the latest bauble. Or do we simply encourage these people to die quickly?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Your cavalier misuse of those words don't bother me in the least.  Quite the contrary, I find the similarity to the fundamentalist christians and the soviets very amusing.  I'm also happy to report $68 so far, as well as witnessing another $20 by someone else.  They still left a tip, just a smaller one than normal.  It is surprisingly easy to convince people to spend less than they have to spend when the money is about to leave their hands.  If you increase taxes the money has to come from somewhere.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

So your Master Plan here is to simply dodge answering the icky moral questions. I can understand why. Why go there when you can leave the blinders on and play word games?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

What moral questions?  That people feel entitled to free/subsidized stuff on my dime?  I answer no.  Problem solved.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

They still left a tip, just a smaller one than normal.

That'll teach Obama's campaign donors!

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

I doubt it; those people never learn.  Probably hopped up on too much hope, but they'll be no more (spare) change.  $94.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Are you married or have a partner? Just curious.

Of course you are.  If I answer no, then we'll be treated to a round of sarcastic "there's a surprise" type comments.  If I answer yes, then the fun begins with derisive attribution of their qualities.  Finally, if I don't answer, there can be fun speculation about what I'm trying to hide and elaborate back stories inferred from thin air that, coincidentally, re-enforces whatever thesis and spin being advanced.  Other than those scenarios, and their potential entertainment value for some,  I just don't see the relevance of the question in this context.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

So you don't I gotcha.

That's one interpretation

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Can you please link to the clinical definition of "selfish"?

Thanks.

This is the modern liberal version of "evil", used by the christians in other realms to demonize their opponents and hence attempt to make their positions the only tenable one.

What other realms? You have any examples?

While it's not a solution, I have discovered a way to strike back.  I won't tip for services anymore, certainly not as a general 20-25% as I usually do at restaurants, hair salons, delivery, etc.

The reasoning is thus:  I've been operating under the apparently false assumption that I had privacy with respect to purchases as far as the USFG is concerned.

It's why I hardly ever eat out any more, the privacy implications are appalling.

Good thing you figured out on your own how to really stick it to the man.  Welcome to the revolution!

This is the best thing I read on the internet all day.

I can't decide if this is better or worse than the evangelical Christians who leave Bible verses written on the check as their 'tip' for Sunday brunch.

Another solution that I find unappealing.  

Perhaps if you could convince a large enough section of the population to follow suit, it may change the structure of paying for services.  There are certainly other countries where tipping is not the norm and it's possible to migrate towards a system like that here.  

I doubt, however, that it will change this law.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Ideally, folks in the service industry would earn a living wage and not have to bother with tips.  Or worry that a party of 12 "evangelical" Protestants will run them ragged for $1.45/hr and then leave scraps of paper with misinterpreted Bible quotes as tips.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Yeah, well, that's their battle to fight, not the customers.  Customers aren't responsible for the crappy deals service staff makes with their employers.  It's like the battles with the RIAA from years ago:  consumers aren't responsible for their bad business models.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Of course it's not going to change this law, it's simply a way to recoup costs imposed by this law by no longer spending money that one is not required to spend.  It (largely) takes money out of the pocket of people who do benefit (via subsidies) by this law, so there's a certain amount of symmetry in no longer giving them money not required.  While there might not be 100% correlation, I'm sure it's relatively high.  Just like the people who might end up paying five grand a year not to report their purchases to the federal government (say 200k a year at a 2.5% penalty starting in 2016, just as an example) are largely not the problem when it comes to paying for healthcare, it's obvious the USFG doesn't care if they get hit in the cross-fire.  So, then, why should an individual concern themselves with the converse situation?

I know I'm not going to convince anyone, or scant few, of this course of action.  The tipping culture is very ingrained, as is the notion of  noblesse oblige.  So, I do hope no one else adopts this strategy, as if it becomes popular, something might be done (eventually) to fix it.  Possibly through a mandatory gratuity law, or perhaps an "Affordable Tipping Act".  Instead, I'll just implement this cost-shifting in my own personal business to offset the cost-shifting the ACA has imposed upon me.  Everybody wins.

BTW, my running total of savings at this point is $42.  That's not bad for just a few days of implementation and, I'm happy to report, there are no discernable ill effects at this point.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

BTW, my running total of savings at this point is $42.

The ruling has been out for like three days.  Taxes are the least of your worries if you're blowing $3,000 per month eating at restaurants.

It also kind of calls into question your judgment when you start talking about "spending" and "responsibility."

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Weren't you recently mocking supply-side economic ideas?

Always have & always will, since demand drives business.

In this sub-discussion though, we aren't concerned with supply-side economic ideas; we're concerned with whether we should consider input on fiscal matters from one who spends three grand per month on dining out.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

It's only irresponsible if you can't pay your bills.  I pay my bills:  house paid off, car paid off, CCs are paid off each month in full.  I have zero debt of any kind, so there's no credible way I can be labeled "irresponsible" by any metric.  And, despite your math, I still manage to save at least 20% of my gross each year over and above 401k contributions.  So, if that's irresponsible, I would very much like to meet someone you consider responsible.

I think that I will use the money I'm saving each year in tips to buy gold and silver coins. At current rates, that's about an ounce or two of gold per year. I'll keep them in a jar labeled "Obama's tips".  That should make the goldbugs happy, as well as keeping money out of the hands rather directly of the (statistically) biggest beneficiaries of the ACA.  

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Oh geez... you're not a goldbug are you?

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

No, but right now, they are more-or-less political allies.  So, throwing them a bone via a symbolic act is a small gesture.  The way I figure it, there are three possibilities for the future:  gold goes up in price, stays the same, or goes down.  Monetarily, I win in the first case, break even in the second, and lose in the third.  But, it's "found money" which prior to the implementation of this reparations plan would have been lost anyway.  So, no matter what happens, I at worst break even with the added bonus of gaining some (potentially worthless) coins.  They get subsidized health insurance, I get (WCS) some specie.  Still the short end of the stick on my part, just not quite as short as it would be.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

You can try to make so much money that you DO influence national politics.