Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on June 28, 2012, 07:24:50 AM
-
:(
-
:(
Legacy of George W Bush is cemented.
motherfucking piece of shit.
-
Legacy of George W Bush is cemented.
motherfucking piece of shit.
Ah, you mean the justices he picked ended up being the ones that now made this bill permanent?
My guess is that the justices threw out the law - and instead decided our society/economy will soon collapse - so just sign up everyone for the same healthcare.
This benefits romney - now he has a rallying cry. doesnt benefit americans tho.
-
:(
3333 JUST JUMPED
-
Obama gonna win.
Haters gonna hate.
-
Haha, America's financial collapse confirmed. Bankruptcy inevitable.
-
3333 JUST JUMPED
victory for obama = oppression for everyone else.
-
victory for obama = oppression for everyone else.
Except hella rich people...
-
Except hella rich people...
::) ::)
whatever - anyone cheering this one exposes themselves for what they are.
-
They are saying it is constitutional because one is not forced to comply with the mandate. You can refuse to comply and pay a tax instead. And taxes are not unconstitutional when imposed by Congress. So they are saying it is ok to be forced to pay a tax so long as you are not being forced to comply with a mandate. Crazy
-
::) ::)
whatever - anyone cheering this one exposes themselves for what they are.
A believer in our Constitution?
US Const: 'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Yes, I support the American constitution. You don't, because you hate America.
-
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Here is the decision.
-
They are saying it is constitutional because one is not forced to comply with the mandate. You can refuse to comply and pay a tax instead. And taxes are not unconstitutional when imposed by Congress. So they are saying it is ok to be forced to pay a tax so long as you are not being forced to comply with a mandate. Crazy
Doesnt our taxes pay for bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan etc?
And now people are freaking out its being used for HEALTHCARE.
Am i missing something here?
-
What's the point of the Constitution?
Mind as well wipe our collective rear ends with it and flush it down the toilet. That is what happened today.
Hello, never ending deficit, third world medical treatment, long lines at the hospital, and european style socialism. YEAHHHHHHHH!!!
-
What's the point of the Constitution?
Mind as well wipe our collective rear ends with it and flush it down the toilet. That is what happened today.
Hello, never ending deficit, third world medical treatment, long lines at the hospital, and european style socialism. YEAHHHHHHHH!!!
constitution says 'congress has the right to regulate commerce'.
i guess that now means that they can force commerce upon people who are not yet engaged in it.
Romney said it was okay on the state level, and now SCOTUS (Roberts, bush apointee) says it is okay on the nat'l level. Repubs fingerprints all over this baby.
-
A believer in our Constitution?
US Const: 'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Yes, I support the American constitution. You don't, because you hate America.
Did the white house even make a clear case if it was a tax or a penalty? They weren't even sure of it, but somehow this Supreme Court is able to make the distinction.
If it's a tax, then guess what? Anyone under $250k a year, who doesn't buy insurance, will get "taxed". I think Obama just broke another one of his promises.
-
What's the point of the Constitution?
Mind as well wipe our collective rear ends with it and flush it down the toilet. That is what happened today.
Hello, never ending deficit, third world medical treatment, long lines at the hospital, and european style socialism. YEAHHHHHHHH!!!
Yes Europe has crap health care ::)
-
Doesnt our taxes pay for bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan etc?
And now people are freaking out its being used for HEALTHCARE.
Am i missing something here?
Remember Obama said the penalty for not purchasing Health Insurance was not a Tax, but it was a penalty, well the SCOUTS said it is a Tax.
-
Boehner is somewhere crying his eyes over this.
-
constitution says 'congress has the right to regulate commerce'.
i guess that now means that they can force commerce upon people who are not yet engaged in it.
Romney said it was okay on the state level, and now SCOTUS (Roberts, bush apointee) says it is okay on the nat'l level. Repubs fingerprints all over this baby.
They don't have a right to make you buy a certain product. Including health insurance.
This convoluted decision by the justices upholding obamacare doesn't make any sense. This is scary.
I give up.
Forget the Constitution. It's pure bs. They are not upholding it, they are constantly amending it to the point that it's original intentions have been lost.
From now on it will be the government and judges over the people's will.
-
Yes Europe has crap health care ::)
When the British have to issue a directive telling their nurses to give their patients water due to dozens of people dying from dehydration then you have a problem with your healthcare.
Not that it matters as soon enough there won't be any money to pay for Obamacare anyway.
-
Ron Paul is going to give his opinion in a few minutes:
http://www.iheart.com/live/2285/?autoplay=true
-
Yes Europe has crap health care ::)
Oh yea. Their health care is so much better than ours. And their economy has always been better.
Get the hell out of here you idiot. If you don't like personal freedom that is a big personal problem that you have to live with. Why don't you move to Europe?
-
As much as I dislike Mitt Romney. He is our only chance of getting rid of this Obama-nation now. He claims that if elected he will exempt everybody from the requirements by granting a universal waiver.
-
As much as I dislike Mitt Romney. He is our only chance of getting rid of this Obama-nation now. He claims that if elected he will exempt everybody from the requirements by granting a universal waiver.
If it's a tax and congress has the power to tax then can't they just repeal the tax and kill it?
-
Also of note, Intrade had odds of repeal at 70% so 180 can shut up about it accurately predicting anything.
-
If it's a tax and congress has the power to tax then can't they just repeal the tax and kill it?
Cantor announces the House will begin repeal of Obamacare on July 9. GOP Scheduling a repeal now that it is confirmed by the highest court as a TAX. Romney about to deliver a live response. Roberts implied he didn’t necessarily deem ACA as fair or wise, he just punted it back to the leg. branch
-
Oh yea. Their health care is so much better than ours. And their economy has always been better.
Get the hell out of here you idiot. If you don't like personal freedom that is a big personal problem that you have to live with. Why don't you move to Europe?
What personel freedom? The freedom that make Healthcare companies the richest coorporations in the world while simultaniously denying coverage to kids? I would prefer freedom with the fat cats being a little less chubby and our kids alive and healthy.
-
When the British have to issue a directive telling their nurses to give their patients water due to dozens of people dying from dehydration then you have a problem with your healthcare.
Not that it matters as soon enough there won't be any money to pay for Obamacare anyway.
Atleast they issued the directive it would be worse if they didnt no? :)
Do you have a source?
-
What personel freedom? The freedom that make Healthcare companies the richest coorporations in the world while simultaniously denying coverage to kids? I would prefer freedom with the fat cats being a little less chubby and our kids alive and healthy.
HEY ASSHOLE - OBAMACARE FORCES YOU INTO PRIVATE CONTRACTS AND COMMERCE WITH THESE SAME COMPANIES YOU CLAME TO HATE W NO COST CONTROL!
-
HEY ASSHOLE - OBAMACARE FORCES YOU INTO PRIVATE CONTRACTS AND COMMERCE WITH THESE SAME COMPANIES YOU CLAME TO HATE W NO COST CONTROL!
What do you mean by no cost control?
-
What do you mean by no cost control?
There is no limit to the premiums they can charge and when the govt forces them to cover more and more shit no one wants, the carriers will jack the rates even higher!
-
There is no limit to the premiums they can charge and when the govt forces them to cover more and more shit no one wants, the carriers will jack the rates even higher!
There was no limit to the premiums before neither so...?
-
Also of note, Intrade had odds of repeal at 70% so 180 can shut up about it accurately predicting anything.
what is repeal defined as? A "bill" that removed PART of it? Some cannot be repealed - only the parts requiring funding can be ended by congress.
I think many people forget obamacare was
1) Ratified by a republican house
2) Ratified by the senate and president
3) Confirmed as constitutional by Supreme Court
4) modeled after Romneycare
5) 'okay for states by not for nation', right? now SCOTUS disagrees.
THe bill sucks, the repubs have no alternative, and this is now the law of the land.
-
HEY ASSHOLE - OBAMACARE FORCES YOU INTO PRIVATE CONTRACTS AND COMMERCE WITH THESE SAME COMPANIES YOU CLAME TO HATE W NO COST CONTROL!
Meltdown.
Hahaha.
Release the all caps fury name calling.
-
HEY ASSHOLE - OBAMACARE FORCES YOU INTO PRIVATE CONTRACTS AND COMMERCE WITH THESE SAME COMPANIES YOU CLAME TO HATE W NO COST CONTROL!
HAHAHAHAH!!
whork is such a blind idiot, he actually believes that this reform is better.
Hey, whorkmoron. The personal freedom is not to be forced, NOR PENALIZED, by the government for not buying a certain product. It was supposed to be unconstitutional.
Five stooges today went against that American ideal and it is beyond pathetic that you would accept it.
Another thing, if it's a "tax", then anyone under $250k can be taxed. ANOTHER BROKEN PROMISE by the clowninchief. I love how you ignore that fact.
-
There was no limit to the premiums before neither so...?
::) ::)
Whatever - you are fucking clueless and blind to reality of all this.
-
Atleast they issued the directive it would be worse if they didnt no? :)
Do you have a source?
So you are ok with rationing and government directives? You are ok with the government when and how much medical attention you are entitled to.
HEHEHEHE!!
-
Yes Europe has crap health care ::)
LOL...isn't Europe's economy collapsing at the moment, and trying to take the whole world down with it too?
-
There was no limit to the premiums before neither so...?
How you figure? When, before this decision, you can pick any number of health carriers if you don't like the premium you were paying.
Now with this monstrosity, premiums will spiral more out of control than ever before and many people who like their carrier won't be able to keep them. Add on top of that the numerous employers who might opt out instead of paying the exorbitant premiums.
You think this is great. Think about this, sparky. GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER BEEN ABLE TO EFFICIENTLY RUN A SOCIAL PROGRAM. Not Medicare, not medicaid, not social security. Nothing. The post office is doing great. RIGHT?? Everyone of them is either going broke or eventually will bankrupt. And now the government has a stangle hold on our health care. HEHEHEHEHEH!
This is a disaster.
-
LOL...isn't Europe's economy collapsing at the moment, and trying to take the whole world down with it too?
It is. But if you ask that nitwit, he will tell you that Bush did it.
Don't confuse him with facts. He might be from Greece.
-
LOL...isn't Europe's economy collapsing at the moment, and trying to take the whole world down with it too?
Are their economic woes a result of their healthcare system?..
If so, please provide research.
-
P
-
P
240. Is Ron Paul correct?
-
:(
-
lol 3333333
-
P
wonder twins power activate......
Form of Constitutional scholar cut and paster
-
lol 3333333
Its true - you know i fucking hate W. W is the main reason we got Obama in the first place.
-
lmfao 33
-
240. Is Ron Paul correct?
of course. what did he say?
the tricky thing is that he probably would have been against civil rights act and a shitload of others. risky terrirory there for appeasing voters.
-
Are their economic woes a result of their healthcare system?..
If so, please provide research.
Bro, please. They have got to link the economic crash to SOMETHING that they can then link through 6 Degrees of Delusions to Obama.
You already know this.
-
P
Indeed.
Maybe they could give some classes to the SCOTUS.
For a small fee, of course.
Interesting to see how the self-proclaimed "Christians" are going to bash the sick getting medical care.
-
Indeed.
Maybe they could give some classes to the SCOTUS.
For a small fee, of course.
Interesting to see how the self-proclaimed "Christians" are going to bash the sick getting medical care.
By claiming that they shouldn't because it is just God testing them.
:'(
-
Such a great day for America.
It's going to be hard to get to sleep.
Had some great sex right after I read the ruling.
All around great day. Gonna remember this one for a while.
-
Such a great day for America.
It's going to be hard to get to sleep.
Had some great sex right after I read the ruling.
All around great day. Gonna remember this one for a while.
yeah, i wrote 33 on my chick with lipstick and dropped a big load on her.
she didn't understand it, but it was worth it.
-
Such a great day for America.
It's going to be hard to get to sleep.
Had some great sex right after I read the ruling.
All around great day. Gonna remember this one for a while.
-
I don't like the reform when compared to what could have been done. But i agree this is step towards a better system. It's not perfect and the way insurance companies were able to weasel their way in was absolutely wrong. However, 30 million people will now have access to health care, and millions more will be able to get basic services.
The removal of the "richest country, poorest healthcare" label is coming to an end.
8)
-
I don't like the reform when compared to what could have been done. But i agree this is step towards a better system. It's not perfect and the way insurance companies were able to weasel their way in was absolutely wrong. However, 30 million people will now have access to health care, and millions more will be able to get basic services.
The removal of the "richest country, poorest healthcare" label is coming to an end.
8)
30 Million people are getting a mandate to buy insurance, nothing else.
-
of course. what did he say?
He said it was terrible. So I guess he is just another stupid constitutional scholar who needs classed from SCOTUS? Right.
Supreme court justices are infallible.
-
He said it was terrible. So I guess he is just another stupid constitutional scholar who needs classed from SCOTUS? Right.
Supreme court justices are infallible.
no person is infallible, except chuck norris.
but in our imperfect world of flawed people, the SCOTUS does get to make the rules. If they had voted 6-3 to assrape the mandate out of existence, people would be saying "It's the law now, accept it, these are the top judge in our nation and what they say goes!"
-
Are their economic woes a result of their healthcare system?..
If so, please provide research.
Wake up!! Wake the hell up!! We were talking about socialism as a whole. Did he say it was caused by healthcare?
Bunch of nitwits on this board.
-
Wake up!! Wake the hell up!! We were talking about socialism as a whole. Did he say it was caused by healthcare?
Bunch of nitwits on this board.
Option FAIL is like the rest of leftists and 95ers - fucking brain dead
-
no person is infallible, except chuck norris.
but in our imperfect world of flawed people, the SCOTUS does get to make the rules. If they had voted 6-3 to assrape the mandate out of existence, people would be saying "It's the law now, accept it, these are the top judge in our nation and what they say goes!"
The law stands and it will be accepted.
But, does SCOTUS makes the rules? Are you sure that is what they are supposed to be doing?
Isn't that judicial activism?
-
The law stands and it will be accepted.
But, does SCOTUS makes the rules? Are you sure that is what they are supposed to be doing?
Isn't that judicial activism?
congress (dem and repubs alike) ratified the bill. Repub house supported it, due to the public option being outed.
its only when everyone got all lawsuity that SCOTUS got involved. and yeah, the consistution did okay it.
-
congress (dem and repubs alike) ratified the bill. Repub house supported it, due to the public option being outed.
its only when everyone got all lawsuity that SCOTUS got involved. and yeah, the consistution did okay it.
What repubs voted for obamacare you fucking dope?
-
Indeed.
Maybe they could give some classes to the SCOTUS.
For a small fee, of course.
Interesting to see how the self-proclaimed "Christians" are going to bash the sick getting medical care.
Why even bring this up on this board? I'm sure there are Christians who support ObamaCare, while there are atheists and Muslims who do not. So what's your point?
And what percentage of your gross income do you donate to charity? Most Christians donate at least 10%, which goes toward providing health care, food, shelter, clothes, etc. to those who can't afford it.
-
The Supreme Court's Conservative Wing Fears A Federal Power Grab
Abby Rogers|24 minutes ago|126|
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito are not happy about the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the heart of Obamacare.
And they're letting everyone know it in a blistering dissent.
As to be expected, they opposed the insurance mandate, contending it wrongly regulates some Americans' failure to maintain coverage.
But failure is not commerce, meaning Congress has no power over it, they said.
"One does not regulate commerce that does not exist by compelling its existence," the dissent stated.
The three conservative justices and the one swing-voter bash Congress for trying to overstep its power, saying the government can't "regulate all private conduct."
While the high court has long given Congress leeway when it comes to taxing and spending, the government has taken things too far, according to the dissent.
The four unhappy justices pointed out that the federal government has gotten so big that it has created departments for areas it was never meant to regulate, like education and housing.
But for some justices, one dissent just wasn't enough. Check out Thomas' individual dissent as well as Kennedy's individual dissent >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-dissent-2012-6#ixzz1z6qOQ5As
-
Wake up!! Wake the hell up!! We were talking about socialism as a whole. Did he say it was caused by healthcare?
Bunch of nitwits on this board.
Eggsactly!
-
Option FAIL is like the rest of leftists and 95ers - fucking brain dead
OHHH im so insulted by the likes of you...
-
-
Isn't that judicial activism?
I disagree with the decision, but I wouldn't call it an example of judicial activism.
-
QUICK !!!!
someone call 9 1 1.
333386 has had a stroke and gone into a coma.
thank god he has health care.
-
I disagree with the decision, but I wouldn't call it an example of judicial activism.
its only judicial activism when its a liberal judge striking down something the fundies, baggers, and radical righties want.
-
QUICK !!!!
someone call 9 1 1.
333386 has had a stroke and gone into a coma.
thank god he has health care.
not about me, its about the end of the rights of the individual, which most liberals dont give a damn about unless its killing their children or marrying a member of the same sex.
-
The Supreme Court's Conservative Wing Fears A Federal Power Grab
Abby Rogers|24 minutes ago|126|
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito are not happy about the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the heart of Obamacare.
And they're letting everyone know it in a blistering dissent.
As to be expected, they opposed the insurance mandate, contending it wrongly regulates some Americans' failure to maintain coverage.
But failure is not commerce, meaning Congress has no power over it, they said.
"One does not regulate commerce that does not exist by compelling its existence," the dissent stated.
The three conservative justices and the one swing-voter bash Congress for trying to overstep its power, saying the government can't "regulate all private conduct."
While the high court has long given Congress leeway when it comes to taxing and spending, the government has taken things too far, according to the dissent.
The four unhappy justices pointed out that the federal government has gotten so big that it has created departments for areas it was never meant to regulate, like education and housing.
But for some justices, one dissent just wasn't enough. Check out Thomas' individual dissent as well as Kennedy's individual dissent >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-dissent-2012-6#ixzz1z6qOQ5As
I bet Scalia's dissent will include the word 'fuck' for the very first time.
-
not about me, its about the end of the rights of the individual, which most liberals dont give a damn about unless its killing their children or marrying a member of the same sex.
-
not about me, its about the end of the rights of the individual, which most liberals dont give a damn about unless its killing their children or marrying a member of the same sex.
feel free to leave the country for someplace "better"
-
Why even bring this up on this board? I'm sure there are Christians who support ObamaCare, while there are atheists and Muslims who do not. So what's your point?
And what percentage of your gross income do you donate to charity? Most Christians donate at least 10%, which goes toward providing health care, food, shelter, clothes, etc. to those who can't afford it.
Of course, there's the little matter of why, if this were such a noble enterprise, Obama and the Dems had to lie, cut backroom deals, and basically force people to be on it.
It's a tax, thus Obama was full of BULL, claiming that nobody in the middle class would have their taxes go up.
Keeping your own plan was BS.
This also puts potential jail time (which Pelosi floated, during this discussion) for not having health insurance back on the table.
And, that doesn't even out the death pan....ahem...."rationing boards".
Gee....I wonder why Christians would be opposed to it. ::)
-
Of course, there's the little matter of why, if this were such a noble enterprise, Obama and the Dems had to lie, cut backroom deals, and basically force people to be on it.
It's a tax, thus Obama was full of BULL, claiming that nobody in the middle class would have their taxes go up.
Keeping your own plan was BS.
This also puts potential jail time (which Pelosi floated, during this discussion) for not having health insurance back on the table.
And, that doesn't even out the death pan....ahem...."rationing boards".
Gee....I wonder why Christians would be opposed to it. ::)
how ?
-
.
-
I love how you obama drones and cult members are cheering on the idea that the govt should have the power to tax inactivity.
Fucking brilliant.
::) ::)
-
QUICK !!!!
someone call 9 1 1.
333386 has had a stroke and gone into a coma.
thank god he has health care.
-
Man... 193 pages? I have my work cut out for me. Yikes.
-
I'm glad you are so happy today.
For most of the nation who hates ObamaCare - not so much.
-
-
-
.
-
.
Says it all right there for sure. T Y P I C A L
-
333 -now that Obama has made you his slave with the blessing of the Supreme Court will you consider leaving the country
surely there is some other country where you would be happier
-
333 -now that Obama has made you his slave with the blessing of the Supreme Court will you consider leaving the country
surely there is some other country where you would be happier
You leftists cheering on this corporate slavery are a fucking joke. Had bush did this you idiots would have been in the streets.
-
You leftists cheering on this corporate slavery are a fucking joke. Had bush did this you idiots would have been in the streets.
Maybe you should start an underground railroad so you and your fellow slaves can all leave the country
-
how ?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/11/pelosi_on_jail_time_for_no_health_care_the_legislation_is_very_fair_in_this_respect.html
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/11/pelosi_on_jail_time_for_no_health_care_the_legislation_is_very_fair_in_this_respect.html
a video from 2009
how about you just tell me why you believe it's possible
-
-
333 - you should really leave the country before your Master Obama makes you buy broccoli
I've heard he's drafting the executive order as I type this
-
PWNED like an autistic child.
-
333 - you should really leave the country before your Master Obama makes you buy broccoli
I've heard he's drafting the executive order as I type this
Comments like those just expose yourself for being an authoritarian statist progressive who does not give a damn about individual rights whatsoever.
-
a video from 2009
how about you just tell me why you believe it's possible
You can NOT be this clueless!!!
ObamaCare is a TAX!! Guess what happens when you don't pay taxes (Hint: Wesley Snipes).
-
You can NOT be this clueless!!!
ObamaCare is a TAX!! Guess what happens when you don't pay taxes (Hint: Wesley Snipes).
what I see is that you're really paranoid
If this is something that worries you then I guess that's a good thing
I hope it keep you up at night
btw - do all people who don't pay taxes go to jail, especially when the tax amount is very small?
-
PWNED like an autistic child.
LOL
damn - how did you manage to get a picture of 333 ?
-
what is repeal defined as? A "bill" that removed PART of it? Some cannot be repealed - only the parts requiring funding can be ended by congress.
I think many people forget obamacare was
1) Ratified by a republican house
2) Ratified by the senate and president
3) Confirmed as constitutional by Supreme Court
4) modeled after Romneycare
5) 'okay for states by not for nation', right? now SCOTUS disagrees.
THe bill sucks, the repubs have no alternative, and this is now the law of the land.
Maybe people forget because you just made stuff up again.
1. It was passed by a Democrat controlled House, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.
2. It was passed by a by a party-line vote in the Senate, 60-39.
3. Not upheld under the Commerce Clause, but as a tax, contrary to what the president and every Democrat contended when it was passed (that it wasn't a tax).
I need to find and post Skip's Rules again. ::)
-
aah yes. youre right, i forgot what year it was.
so to be clear, the american people chose dem for prez, house, and senate majorities. they delivered obamacare. maybe repubs should have offered better candidates that didn't suck on the lying bush tit.
then again, bush gave us roberts, who gave us obamacare, after being written by romney and sold by obama. they're all on the same team ;)
-
Maybe people forget because you just made stuff up again.
1. It was passed by a Democrat controlled House, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.
2. It was passed by a by a party-line vote in the Senate, 60-39.
3. Not upheld under the Commerce Clause, but as a tax, contrary to what the president and every Democrat contended when it was passed (that it wasn't a tax).
I need to find and post Skip's Rules again. ::)
180 is a liar and con man - it leaves to question as to why he worships obama like he does. Fellow travelers engaged in deception and lies.
-
180 is a liar and con man - it leaves to question as to why he worships obama like he does. Fellow travelers engaged in deception and lies.
If I actually read all of his posts, I could probably highlight lies and embellishments every day. ::)
-
what I see is that you're really paranoid
If this is something that worries you then I guess that's a good thing
I hope it keep you up at night
btw - do all people who don't pay taxes go to jail, especially when the tax amount is very small?
The then-Speaker of the House STATED that it's was fair to throw people in jail, if they don't buy healthcare. That's not paranoia; that's FACT, which I just posted and you just dismissed simply because she said it three years ago.
As for the tax being small, SO WHAT!! Cancer starts off small as well.
In four years, people will get fined 2.5% of their income or nearly $2,100 per family. And, when taxes aren't paid, they gather this thing called INTEREST!!
Yes. Today's decision means that the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty -- remains in place. If you don't purchase health care by 2014, the penalty will be as follows: $285 per family or 1% of income; By 2016, $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/28/what-supreme-court-health-care-law-decision-means-you
-
I actually think Roberts gave Republicans a gift. By upholding this as a tax, it galvanizes the Tea Party and Republicans, highlights the Administration's dishonesty about whether this was a tax, and gives Romney a key talking point for the rest of the campaign.
I think it gets repealed in the House and Reid probably keeps it from getting to a vote in the Senate.
-
As much as I dislike Mitt Romney. He is our only chance of getting rid of this Obama-nation now. He claims that if elected he will exempt everybody from the requirements by granting a universal waiver.
that will happen... lol... no way he keeps that promise.
-
I actually think Roberts gave Republicans a gift. By upholding this as a tax, it galvanizes the Tea Party and Republicans, highlights the Administration's dishonesty about whether this was a tax, and gives Romney a key talking point for the rest of the campaign.
I think it gets repealed in the House and Reid probably keeps it from getting to a vote in the Senate.
That, in turn, puts the Dems on the hot seat in their races.
It reminds me of this article that I just read.
My Supreme Court-Health Care Prediction
by Michael Tomasky
This is easy. I take the darkest and most cynical possible view of the conservative majority; I believe, as I've written, that they are politicians in robes (with the partial exception of Kennedy); as such, I believe that they will behave here like politicians, and they will render the decision that will inflict the maximum possible political damage on Obama and the Democrats.
That means overturning the mandate 5-4. But it means doing so narrowly, carefully, almost regretfully. In other words, they want more than anything else not to rile up liberals. Tossing the whole thing would do that. Tossing the Medicaid expansion would kinda do that. Tossing guaranteed issue would kinda do it too, and would even have reach into independents and Republicans, since guaranteed issue is so popular.
They'll want to minimize backlash, in other words--both backlash against them as an institution and electoral backlash that might help Obama and the D's. So they'll limit their overturning to the mandate. And as I say, the majority opinion will say things like gee, we are deeply sympathetic to the problems inherent in the health-care system, but regretfully, we simply can't endorse this method under our reading of the Constitution.
That way, Obama is screwed (yes--the D's and even maybe the media will try to paint that as a partial win for the White House, but it won't be in my view). And yet the majority also seems reasonable. That's the needle I predict they're going to thread. What about the law, you say? Fiddle dee dee. This is politics, pure and simple.
If there's an off chance for a more positive ruling, it's this, which struck me after I read the Arizona opinion. With regard to the "show your papers" aspect of that law that the Court upheld, it did so by saying in essence, look, we're not endorsing this exactly, and we're not NOT endorsing it; we're just saying that it has to be put into practice, and we'll see how it's actually being implemented before we can determine its validity.
That made me think, maybe they can contrive to do something similar on the mandate. We're skeptical of it. We presume against it. But until it's implemented and put into practice, we can't really say whether it's coercion or not. We have to see how it works for a couple of years before we can decide that.
I have no idea about the law behind that, but obviously these guys can say whatever they want and find the case law to back it up. That's part of the beauty of being the Supreme Court.
That's my dim hope. But my expectation is as I wrote. It's a political court and it will render a political decision, but one disguised as Solomonic and equal to the gravity of the moment. Yours?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/27/my-supreme-court-health-care-prediction.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
-
The then-Speaker of the House STATED that it's was fair to throw people in jail, if they don't buy healthcare. That's not paranoia; that's FACT, which I just posted and you just dismissed simply because she said it three years ago.
As for the tax being small, SO WHAT!! Cancer starts off small as well.
In four years, people will get fined 2.5% of their income or nearly $700. And, when taxes aren't paid, they gather this thing called INTEREST!!
and is there any provision if the law for that and what are the terms
this was gone over and fact checked and proven wrong repeatedly at the time the bill was passed
-
If I actually read all of his posts, I could probably highlight lies and embellishments every day. ::)
It's more lack of knowledge than lies.
-
and is there any provision if the law for that and what are the terms
this was gone over and fact checked and proven wrong repeatedly at the time the bill was passed
I just posted that in my edit of my previous post:
Yes. Today's decision means that the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty -- remains in place. If you don't purchase health care by 2014, the penalty will be as follows: $285 per family or 1% of income; By 2016, $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/28/what-supreme-court-health-care-law-decision-means-you
Nearly $2100 per family in 2016, which is a hike of nearly NINEFOLD, from the penalty in 2014.
Obama said premiums wouldn't go up....THAT was BS!!
He said you could keep your plan, if you like it.....THAT was BS!!!
The middle class wouldn't see their taxes go up "one dime"....THAT was BS!!!
And, please explain why all those Dems (including Pelosi) were asking for waivers from this GARBAGE, if this plan was so great.
Obama lied his backside off; so did the Dems, to pass this garbage.
He just passed the LARGEST tax hike ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, in history, something about which conservatives WARNED for over two years.
-
I just posted that in my edit of my previous post:
Yes. Today's decision means that the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty -- remains in place. If you don't purchase health care by 2014, the penalty will be as follows: $285 per family or 1% of income; By 2016, $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/28/what-supreme-court-health-care-law-decision-means-you
Nearly $2100 per family in 2016, which is a hike of nearly NINEFOLD, from the penalty in 2014.
Obama said premiums wouldn't go up....THAT was BS!!
He said you could keep your plan, if you like it.....THAT was BS!!!
The middle class wouldn't see their taxes go up "one dime"....THAT was BS!!!
And, please explain why all those Dems (including Pelosi) were asking for waivers from this GARBAGE, if this plan was so great.
Obama lied his backside off; so did the Dems, to pass this garbage.
Obamabots don't care if obama lies so long as his radical agenda of national socialism is advanced.
-
It's more lack of knowledge than lies.
Perhaps. Although based on what I've heard for the past three years, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
-
Students Could Pay a Steep Price Under Obamacare
Ryan T. Anderson
June 27, 2012 at 7:45 pm
When it comes to religion and Obamacare, many people rightly focus on the Health and Human Services (HHS) “contraception” mandate that forces religious institutions to violate their consciences. Pro-lifers have also worried about the unprecedented moves Obamacare makes in federally subsidizing abortion. But there’s another concern that deserves attentionfor the good of religion and the health of our religious institutions.
Obamacare creates economic pressures for religious groups (and other groups) to cease providing health insurance. And this should worry anyone who cares about the health of our religious communities and civil society.
Two Catholic colleges—Ave Maria and Franciscan University—have already announced that they’ll be dropping student health insurance for the upcoming academic year. Much media attention has focused on the HHS mandate as the cause of their decision. But while the mandate would force these colleges to act contrary to their mission as Catholic educational institutions, the mandate wasn’t the immediate catalyst for their dropping their plans—after all, the government offered a one-year “safe harbor” waiting period to religious institutions not covered by the historically unprecedented, narrow exemption to figure out how they could then go about violating their consciences.
Something else about Obamacare forced the hand of these colleges: a provision requiring that this September, student health plans must provide benefits covering at least $500,000 of expenses, and that by 2014 they have no annual benefit limit. This is only one of the many Obamacare provisions that will drive up costs beyond what many institutions—especially religious ones—can afford.
Writing at Public Discourse, a biology professor at Franciscan, Daniel Kuebler, explains:
Because roughly 25 percent of student health-care plans have annual limits lower than half a million dollars, this means steep premium increases for these students over the next few years. Franciscan and Ave Maria have indicated that their premiums would go up at least 66 percent this year, and more than double next year. By 2014, when these plans must have no annual limit, the premiums will rise even higher.
Eliminating benefit caps results in increased premiums that will force many colleges to cease offering student plans—and force students to either forgo health insurance altogether or go into the government-subsidized exchanges. Kuebler notes that:
While Obamacare requires that all citizens have health insurance coverage by 2014 [the Individual Mandate], it is hardly a stretch to assume that some college students may decide that risking the small penalty is better than paying the new higher premiums. Indeed, taking that risk would be a financially sound move for the many students who will not experience serious health-care problems during college. And students who do get hospitalized without insurance will still receive care. Their costs will simply be passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher premiums. All they would have to do is pay the fine.
For students who want to maintain their insurance coverage but cannot afford it, government-subsidized plans—which will be paid for by taxpayers—will make up the difference. Thus the side effects of this regulation—one could hardly call them unintended—are that thousands of students will find themselves either without any health-care insurance at all, or dependent upon the government dole for it.
It’s hard to resist the conclusion that the end game here is to move America toward government-run health care. And this should be understood as a threat to religion and civil society just as much as the HHS mandate. It is good for religious organizations themselves and for America as a whole if many different groups within civil society—religious groups included—are able to provide health care and insurance. This not only contributes to a vibrant and competitive market, but also contributes distinctive types of health care—a healthy pluralism of care.
But Kuebler sees Obamacare as working to eliminate not only the competitive market, but the pluralism as well:
At the end of the day, the more people the Obamacare architects can corral into government-approved and -subsidized health care by regulating private plans into submission, the more control they will have over the health-care system. They can then further incentivize the dispensing of contraception, abortion, sterilization, and euthanasia—all of which can be at least short-term cost-savers—and at the same time use their own cold utilitarian calculus to determine who gets access to the health-care system. In a bloated unresponsive government-run system, these are the only ways to drive down costs. This is where we are heading once Obamacare fully flexes its muscle.
While the health-care system in America needs to be reformed, Franciscan and Ave Maria’s decision to drop student health-care plans offers just one example of how Obamacare is not the answer. Rather than reforming the system, it is deforming it. Step by step, regulation by regulation, the authors of Obamacare are bent upon creating a monolithic government-controlled system that will eventually take on a life of its own.
It’s just another reminder of why Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/27/students-could-pay-a-steep-price-under-obamacare/?roi=echo3-12405332513-9005875-e7688e79e21b04fc922babf5b80bf033&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning+Bell
-
:(
-
I actually think Roberts gave Republicans a gift.
lmfao.
way to see the silver lining.
-
I like some parts of Roberts' decision. This one kind of stands out for me (emphasis mine):
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.
Of course, he then turns out and allows Congress to, essentially, make those very decisions anyways just as long as they're presented as taxes. :-\
-
lmfao.
way to see the silver lining.
Roberts just cemented his and W's legacy - 2 turds no different than obama
-
I like some parts of Roberts' decision. This one kind of stands out for me (emphasis mine):
Of course, he then turns out and allows Congress to, essentially, make those very decisions anyways just as long as they're presented as taxes. :-\
I think its even more offensive considering he knows that his action today did essentially that!
-
Get ready to turn over your Bank Account information.
http://libertyandpride.com/obamacare-gives-the-government-access-to-your-bank-account/
-
Get ready to turn over your Bank Account information.
http://libertyandpride.com/obamacare-gives-the-government-access-to-your-bank-account/
Pandering lying kneepadders like 180 could care less so long as the communist cult messiah gets his way.
He, like the others, are slaves to obama, willing ones at that.
-
Get ready:
Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers
-
Get ready:
Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government
eal-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.[/b]
James - idiots like blackass, straw, 180, benny, andre - they love this stuff!
-
Did Roberts Give in to Obama's Bullying?
by Joel B. Pollak28 Jun 2012, 12:05
www.breitbart.com
As legal scholars study the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case, more and more are concluding that Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissenting opinion, striking down the law in its entirety, was once the majority opinion--and that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at a late stage. If so, it would appear that the Chief Justice may have succumbed to the bullying meted out by President Barack Obama, who attacked the Court in the aftermath of oral arguments in March, when Obamacare seemed headed for certain defeat.
As National Review's Ed Whelan, the Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein, and others are pointing out, the dissent refers to another opinion as "the dissent" and uses the pronoun "we," as if speaking for the Court, as majority opinions typically do. In addition, the dissent focuses on the government's arguments, rather than tackling the majority head-on. That suggests that a switch--most likely by the Chief Justice himself--may have come very late in the game, too late to offer more than the most cursory revisions of the opinions in the case.
The fact that the Chief Justice's reasoning is so flimsy is yet another piece of evidence that he may have made a late switch--and under pressure. Congress did not intend the individual mandate to be a tax--neither in the text of the legislation, nor in its public deliberations inside and outside the Capitol. (If it had chosen to go that route, the left might have put forward a far stronger argument for universal government-run health care.) It is correct that Chief Justice Roberts has tended to defer to Congress, as conservatives do--but while this opinion has the form of deference, in substance it is the opposite of deferential, rewriting Obamacare by judicial fiat.
One final point is worth noting: that President Obama was enthusiastically joined in his attacks on the Court by the mainstream media, not just after oral arguments but right up to the eve of the decision. Roger Simon of Politico penned one of the most notorious attacks, but he was not alone--and if Anthony Weiner had not removed himself from the scene, we would have seen Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a "corporate dominated arm of the Republican party." The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily--not by corporate interests, but by Obama's imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media.
If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite--not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals--still smarting over Bush v. Gore--and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that "bipartisanship" is the legacy of the Chief Justice's apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Did-Roberts-Give-in-to-Obama-Bullying
-
SCOTUS Tortures Constitution: PPACA
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=207908
Now I've seen it all.
The USSC upheld Obamacare by, basically, twisting the Constitution into a pretzel, crapping on it, whizzing on that and then eating it.
Finding first that the Commerce Clause bars the government from compelling one to enter into commerce, the analysis then turned to whether there was any way to save the constitutionality of the act.
The justices found one.
They re-interpreted the penalty clause as a tax.
And of course, Congress can levy taxes.
That's the path taken by this tortured process -- a path that could only be dreamed up if someone had already determined the outcome they sought instead of being an independent jurist.
The real surprise, however, is that Chief Justice Roberts, believed to be a strict constructionist on the court, managed to not only agree with this piece of tortured logic he found and constructed it as the opinion is his!
So much for judicial restraint and strict construction!
You really ought to read the dissent that starts on page 127 of the opinion. Justice Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito eviscertate the majority, saying in part:
Here, however, Congress has impressed into servicethird parties, healthy individuals who could be but are not customers of the relevant industry, to offset the undesirable consequences of the regulation. Congress’ desire to force these individuals to purchase insurance is motivatedby the fact that they are further removed from the marketthan unhealthy individuals with pre-existing conditions, because they are less likely to need extensive care in the near future. If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, "the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane." The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
What little was left of The Constitution died today, June 28th, 2012.
And incidentally, the math on federal health spending coupled with this decision means that by the time a 55 year old man reaches 85 (his life expectancy, roughly) the Federal government will be attempting to spend roughly $15 trillion a year on health care.
(No it won't, no we won't get that far, and the detonation of our government on the fiscal side is now assured -- or your health care will be sacrificed. This is mathematics, not politics.)
-
SCOTUS' Decision Hands Feds Unlimited Power to Force You to Buy What They Want You to Buy
Natural News.com ^ | June 28, 2012 | Mike Adams
Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America. Why? Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.
"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."
Thus, the government can force Americans to buy anything it wants by simply characterizing the forced payment as a "tax."
Economic freedom crushed by Supreme Court This article is not an argument so much about Obamacare itself, by the way; it's a red alert about a fundamental loss of economic freedom -- a shifting of private purchasing decisions to Washington D.C. Now, buoyed by the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. government can (and will) create new mandates that, for example, would force Americans to buy all the following:
A new car each year from Detroit, in order to "boost the U.S. auto industry."
• War bonds to "support the war effort."
• A year's supply of vaccines.
• Life insurance from the government's "approved" sources.
• Lawn fertilizer (the "lawn health care mandate").
• Intellectual property such as patented human genes already in your body.
There is no limit to the reach of the Supreme Court's wild misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems. So now, all Americans can expect to get ready for the federal government to start laying out a long list of products and services we will all be taxed into buying from the crony capitalist buddies of those in power.
Government hands economic monopoly to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry Perhaps the worst side effect is that Obamacare isn't really about health care at all. It's about protecting a Big Pharma monopoly over medicine; forcing consumers to buy into a system that offers zero coverage for alternative medicine, nutritional therapies, natural remedies or the healing arts.
If Obamacare actually offered consumers a free market choice of where to get services, it would be a lot more balanced and effective. Instead, it forces consumers to buy into a system of monopoly medicine of drugs and surgery that would flat-out collapse if not for the monopolistic protections granted to the industry by the government itself.
If given a free choice, most consumers prefer complementary medicine than straight-up "drugs and surgery" medicine, but complementary medicine isn't covered under Obamacare. The law is really just another corrupt, criminal-minded handout to the drug industry. And now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can't even opt out!
Abuse of power by the federal government knows no bounds
That's the real kicker in all this: No more opting out of the private purchasing demands of the federal government! Americans are being pick-pocketed at an alarming rate, and it's only going to get worse now that this power has been unwisely handed to the federal government by a short-sighted Supreme Court.
Because long after Obama is gone, other Presidents -- from any political party -- will abuse this precedent to force Americans into buying any number of products, services, or even intellectual property that we don't want. There is now no limit to what the federal government can force you to buy by calling it a "tax."
Note, carefully, there is NO LIMIT to this "taxing" power. If you bring home a monthly paycheck of, for example, $3,000, the U.S. government can now mandate that you spend $2,999 of that on various products and services that it deems you must have "for your own protection." You no longer control your own take-home pay! The government can force you to spend it on things you don't want or even need!
America, it seems, is starting to sound a whole lot like England under King George. Soon, we'll be living under our own modern Stamp Act from 1765, which eventually led to the American Revolution. Learn your history! As Wikipedia explains: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765)
The Stamp Act 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money. The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years' War. The British government felt that the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of this military presence, and should pay at least a portion of the expense.
The Stamp Act met great resistance in the colonies. The colonies sent no representatives to Parliament, and therefore had no influence over what taxes were raised, how they were levied, or how they would be spent. Many colonists considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent -- consent that only the colonial legislatures could grant. Colonial assemblies sent petitions and protests. The Stamp Act Congress held in New York City, reflecting the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure, also petitioned Parliament and the King. Local protest groups, led by colonial merchants and landowners, established connections through correspondence that created a loose coalition that extended from New England to Georgia. Protests and demonstrations initiated by the Sons of Liberty often turned violent and destructive as the masses became involved. Very soon all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into resigning their commissions, and the tax was never effectively collected.
Opposition to the Stamp Act was not limited to the colonies. British merchants and manufacturers, whose exports to the colonies were threatened by colonial economic problems exacerbated by the tax, also pressured Parliament. The Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 as a matter of expedience, but Parliament affirmed its power to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever" by also passing the Declaratory Act. There followed a series of new taxes and regulations, likewise opposed by the colonists.
The episode played a major role in defining the grievances and enabling the organized colonial resistance that led to the American Revolution in 1775.
-
another example of activist judges legislating from the bench.
oops.
-
haha dont hate on me, 33. this bill is a piece of shit, and roberts' playing ball is just more proof that the leaders are all on the same side.
i just like to argue.
-
I just posted that in my edit of my previous post:
Yes. Today's decision means that the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty -- remains in place. If you don't purchase health care by 2014, the penalty will be as follows: $285 per family or 1% of income; By 2016, $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/28/what-supreme-court-health-care-law-decision-means-you
Nearly $2100 per family in 2016, which is a hike of nearly NINEFOLD, from the penalty in 2014.
Obama said premiums wouldn't go up....THAT was BS!!
He said you could keep your plan, if you like it.....THAT was BS!!!
The middle class wouldn't see their taxes go up "one dime"....THAT was BS!!!
And, please explain why all those Dems (including Pelosi) were asking for waivers from this GARBAGE, if this plan was so great.
Obama lied his backside off; so did the Dems, to pass this garbage.
He just passed the LARGEST tax hike ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, in history, something about which conservatives WARNED for over two years.
if you have insurance then you won't pay a penalty so no tax hike for most people
those who can't get insurance now will be able to get it under this plan so the only ones who will pay the penalty will be those who can afford insurance and choose not to get it and for some reason I suspect those folks, by and large, were'n't planning on voting for Obama in the first place
-
Get ready:
Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers
What the heck? >:(
-
James - idiots like blackass, straw, 180, benny, andre - they love this stuff!
definitely enjoying your meltdown
-
I'm not even that torn up on this. With what money are we going to pay for all this shit? Anyone? That's what I thought. ::)
Perhaps someone with an inkling of economics sense (read: not Straw Man who thinks money can be printed to infinity) care to enlighten me? We're already well on our way to $20 trillion in debt.
-
I'm not even that torn up on this. With what money are we going to pay for all this shit? Anyone? That's what I thought. ::)
Perhaps someone with an inkling of economics sense (read: not Straw Man who thinks money can be printed to infinity) care to enlighten me? We're already well on our way to $20 trillion in debt.
don't speak for me and certainly don't make shit up that I didn't say
-
don't speak for me and certainly don't make shit up that I didn't say
You didn't argue for trillions more in stimulus money? You pretty much argued that deficits and debt are no problem and that Obama can do it because everyone else has.
Like I said, anyone who isn't a fucking retard have any ideas as to how a country soon-to-be $20+ trillion in debt is going to pay for healthcare? Fact of the matter is that we were already bankrupt and headed for disaster before this. This ruling only solidifies it.
-
All I want to know is if Rush Limbaugh is going to move to Costa Rica like he said he would.
-
Well this fucking sucks. More freedom down the drain.
Props to those who called the decision...but I doubt you had in mind Robert's being an activist and selling the country up the fucking river. :P
-
You didn't argue for trillions more in stimulus money? You pretty much argued that deficits and debt are no problem and that Obama can do it because everyone else has.
Like I said, anyone who isn't a fucking retard have any ideas as to how a country soon-to-be $20+ trillion in debt is going to pay for healthcare? Fact of the matter is that we were already bankrupt and headed for disaster before this. This ruling only solidifies it.
again - if you're going to claim I said something then have a quote ready or don't say it
don't rely on your memory and claim I said something
-
You didn't argue for trillions more in stimulus money? You pretty much argued that deficits and debt are no problem and that Obama can do it because everyone else has.
Like I said, anyone who isn't a fucking retard have any ideas as to how a country soon-to-be $20+ trillion in debt is going to pay for healthcare? Fact of the matter is that we were already bankrupt and headed for disaster before this. This ruling only solidifies it.
Beg the Chinese?
lol...I got nothing.
At least they can't threaten the states like they were trying to.
-
Well this fucking sucks. More freedom down the drain.
Props to those who called the decision...but I doubt you had in mind Robert's being an activist and selling the country up the fucking river. :P
I wouldn't be too torn up over it. This country has no chance of escaping its debt dungeon and this will only hasten the process. Only a matter of time until people like Pelosi are being tarred and feathered in the streets.
again - if you're going to claim I said something then have a quote ready or don't say it
don't rely on your memory and claim I said something
I'm more than confident in my memory. Secondly, I don't give a fuck about what you think. I'm playing the world's smallest violin as I type this post.
Beg the Chinese?
lol...I got nothing.
At least they can't threaten the states like they were trying to.
No. Probably be government jackboots looting everything of value that you own.
-
I wouldn't be too torn up over it. This country has no chance of escaping its debt dungeon and this will only hasten the process. Only a matter of time until people like Pelosi are being tarred and feathered in the streets.
I'm more than confident in my memory. Secondly, I don't give a fuck about what you think. I'm playing the world's smallest violin as I type this post.
No. Probably be government jackboots looting everything of value that you own.
your memory sucks and you're a liar
-
His memory is right on. You did argue for a bigger stimulus.
-
your memory sucks and you're a liar
You trying to challenge Simple Jack aka BlackenWhorkMonsVenusCoh ibaEtcEtc for the biggest dipshit on this board?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JslS4E7UL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
-
You trying to challenge Simple Jack aka BlackenWhorkMonsVenusCoh ibaEtcEtc for the biggest dipshit on this board?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JslS4E7UL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
nope
I'm just calling YOU a LIAR
if you want to post a quote of something I've said that's fine but don't attribute YOUR WORDS to ME
-
.
-
if you have insurance then you won't pay a penalty so no tax hike for most people
those who can't get insurance now will be able to get it under this plan so the only ones who will pay the penalty will be those who can afford insurance and choose not to get it and for some reason I suspect those folks, by and large, were'n't planning on voting for Obama in the first place
Merely having insurance isn't enough. Obama also LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH about people being able to keep what they have and lowering premiums. Both were BS, not to mention his LYING about not raising taxes on people.
And if you think this isn't going to cost him people who voted for him in 2008, you are smoking more weed than Snoop Dogg. It was those swing voters who helped start the shellacking the Dems took two years ago.
People's premiums are not only going UP, they're going up because they're gradually being forced to pay for mess they don't need nor want.
Even if there are people who can afford but choose not to do so, this is absolute GARBAGE for the government to say that it can force you to buy something or tax you to death until you do. Just wait until Uncle Sam forces you to purchase something you don't want or fine you. Then, we'll see how much you sing the praises of this mess.
What you're doing is simply making excuses, by dismissing the fines as "small" and claiming that possibly being jailed for not paying them wasn't a reality.
-
.
Reminds of me of all the libs, who said they were leaving after Bush got re-elected.
-
Supreme Court Rewrites ObamaCare; Rules Individual Mandate Is Permissible Tax
The New American ^ | June 28 2012 | Joe Wolverton, II
Posted on June 28, 2012 8:34:54 PM EDT by ScottfromNJ
“Simply put, Congress may tax and spend.” With those historic words, the Supreme Court forced upon the United States a bleak dawn of a brave new world in which the federal government cannot be checked in its march toward totalitarianism.
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court upheld the joint venture of the President and Congress to force every American, regardless of ability or desire, to purchase a qualifying health care insurance plan by 2014 or face a tax penalty for failure to comply.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held while the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” it is valid as an exercise of the taxing power granted the federal government by the Constitution.
One practical effect of today’s ruling is that by removing the ObamaCare scheme from its safe and secure Commerce Clause mooring, the Supreme Court has rewritten the law and converted the individual mandate into a tax, thus placing it within the authority of Congress to define.
This is judicial activism at its finest. The Supreme Court was so determined to endow the federal government with unlimited power and to toss the notion of enumerated powers onto the scrap heap of history that it was willing to effect a fundamental change to the law as enacted by Congress and the President.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court not only re-wrote ObamaCare, but it simultaneously united the power of making and interpreting law into their own unelected hands.
As the states have become servants, they may yet regain their proper role as masters. In this there is hope, in fact.
The states, through the exercise of the Tenth Amendment and their natural right to rule as sovereign entities, may stop ObamaCare at the state borders by enacting state statutes nullifying the healthcare law and criminalizing state participation in administering or executing the unconstitutional provisions thereof.
Digesting.
Fuck you George w.
Fuck you roberts
Fuck you Obama.
-
I understand the supreme court isn't deciding if this is good legislation, just on its legality, but unfortunately the legislation was upheld, which leaves us with a couple good provisions and a massive amount of rules, regulations, mandates, excessive reporting and bureaucracy that the vast majority of people and politicians have no clue about. Besides the few provisions that have been publicized, there are so many bad things in this monstrous bill. This will drive many independent physicians out of practice and increase costs to many businesses.
-
http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364
Great clip.
Fuck you Roberts and W.
-
The most disturbing part of this is that the bill was promoted to reduce medical cost, but absolutely does not. The American people were mislead on this one. Its mostly a way the government can be involved in regulating medicine and forces a massive increase in medicaid.
-
...get Bret Weir I said.....I absolutely loved the Jerky Boyz.
-
Supreme Court Rewrites ObamaCare; Rules Individual Mandate Is Permissible Tax
The New American ^ | June 28 2012 | Joe Wolverton, II
Posted on June 28, 2012 8:34:54 PM EDT by ScottfromNJ
“Simply put, Congress may tax and spend.” With those historic words, the Supreme Court forced upon the United States a bleak dawn of a brave new world in which the federal government cannot be checked in its march toward totalitarianism.
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court upheld the joint venture of the President and Congress to force every American, regardless of ability or desire, to purchase a qualifying health care insurance plan by 2014 or face a tax penalty for failure to comply.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held while the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” it is valid as an exercise of the taxing power granted the federal government by the Constitution.
One practical effect of today’s ruling is that by removing the ObamaCare scheme from its safe and secure Commerce Clause mooring, the Supreme Court has rewritten the law and converted the individual mandate into a tax, thus placing it within the authority of Congress to define.
This is judicial activism at its finest. The Supreme Court was so determined to endow the federal government with unlimited power and to toss the notion of enumerated powers onto the scrap heap of history that it was willing to effect a fundamental change to the law as enacted by Congress and the President.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court not only re-wrote ObamaCare, but it simultaneously united the power of making and interpreting law into their own unelected hands.
As the states have become servants, they may yet regain their proper role as masters. In this there is hope, in fact.
The states, through the exercise of the Tenth Amendment and their natural right to rule as sovereign entities, may stop ObamaCare at the state borders by enacting state statutes nullifying the healthcare law and criminalizing state participation in administering or executing the unconstitutional provisions thereof.
Digesting.
Fuck you George w.
Fuck you roberts
Fuck you Obama.
That's a lot of fucking.
-
...get Bret Weir I said.....I absolutely loved the Jerky Boyz.
I had those tapes two years before they hit the market. They were NYC icons on dubbed cassettes for years before they went public.
-
Merely having insurance isn't enough. Obama also LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH about people being able to keep what they have and lowering premiums. Both were BS, not to mention his LYING about not raising taxes on people.
And if you think this isn't going to cost him people who voted for him in 2008, you are smoking more weed than Snoop Dogg. It was those swing voters who helped start the shellacking the Dems took two years ago.
People's premiums are not only going UP, they're going up because they're gradually being forced to pay for mess they don't need nor want.
Even if there are people who can afford but choose not to do so, this is absolute GARBAGE for the government to say that it can force you to buy something or tax you to death until you do. Just wait until Uncle Sam forces you to purchase something you don't want or fine you. Then, we'll see how much you sing the praises of this mess.
What you're doing is simply making excuses, by dismissing the fines as "small" and claiming that possibly being jailed for not paying them wasn't a reality.
clarify please and no one is going to be jailed so why do you continue to make that false claim
If someone told you this recently or today then they lied to you
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004140065
JCT: "Non-compliance with" the insurance mandate "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties." The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its analysis of the revenue provisions of the Senate health care reform bill and the health care reconciliation bill that "individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential [health insurance] coverage in 2016 are subject" to a fee, but that "[n]on-compliance" with that provision "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties."
Earlier versions of reform legislation provided for "criminal penalties" only for those who refused to pay the fee. Both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform required individuals to be covered by a minimum level of health insurance or pay a monetary penalty. A November 2009 letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation on the House health care bill stated that individuals who did not have such coverage and refused to pay the fine would be subject to "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance." The committee's letter explains that the tax code provides penalties to prevent tax evasion of any sort: "The Code provides for both civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent attempts to defeat or evade tax." [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]
-
clarify please and no one is going to be jailed so why do you continue to make that false claim
If someone told you this recently or today then they lied to you
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004140065
The people who lied to me (and the rest of the country) are Obama and the Democrats.
Pelosi is the one who floated this idea. What part of that don't you understand?
And, you're REALLY GOING to sit there and claim that, if you don't pay a fine by the government (with thousands of IRS agents at the ready) there will be no criminal nor civil penalties?
That falls right in line with:
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
- If you make under $250,000, your taxes will not increase 'one single dime'"
- ObamaCare is not a tax
- It won't affect Medicare
- It will lower premiums.
- The cost will be under a trillion dollars.
And that's just the short list of BS about ObamaCare. We've just seen Obama say, 'To hell with the law" when it comes to immigration. Yet, you're silly enough to believe that people will be left unscathed, if they don't pony up to Uncle Sam.
-
The Supreme Court's Ruling Is As Damaging As It Is Historic
IBD Editorials ^ | June 28, 2012 | TOM STEMBERG
Posted on June 28, 2012 9:58:47 PM EDT by Kaslin
This week the Supreme Court delivered one of the most consequential and highly anticipated rulings in history — it upheld President Obama's health care law. In doing so, the court — and this administration — dealt a critical blow to free enterprise and ensured that taxes will go up for middle class working families and small businesses everywhere.
This dims prospects for economic growth, while leaving in place the barriers to hiring imposed by the law, like costly, burdensome regulations and pervasive uncertainty.
I've always believed that President Obama's health care law was and is bad politics and bad policy — mainly because the law fails to deliver what we so desperately need: true reform that will actually lower the cost of health insurance and fix a broken system.
Pursuing a drastic overhaul of our nation's health care system — one-sixth of our economy — was bad politics. With over 5 million long-term unemployed, the top priority for this administration should have been getting the American people back to work. Instead, the policies coming out of Washington have been nothing more than a regulatory onslaught on small businesses, the engine of the American economy, making it more difficult and costly for them to survive.
Conventional wisdom holds that it will be extremely difficult for Obama to win re-election with unemployment rates persisting above 8%. To lower that number by Election Day would require creating 200,000 jobs per month between now and then, making the president's lack of focus on a pro-growth jobs policy all the more confusing.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
lots of meltdowns going on today
-
The people who lied to me (and the rest of the country) are Obama and the Democrats.
Pelosi is the one who floated this idea. What part of that don't you understand?
And, you're REALLY GOING to sit there and claim that, if you don't pay a fine by the government (with thousands of IRS agents at the ready) there will be no criminal nor civil penalties?
That falls right in line with:
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
- If you make under $250,000, your taxes will not increase 'one single dime'"
- ObamaCare is not a tax
- It won't affect Medicare
- It will lower premiums.
- The cost will be under a trillion dollars.
And that's just the short list of BS about ObamaCare. We've just seen Obama say, 'To hell with the law" when it comes to immigration. Yet, you're silly enough to believe that people will be left unscathed, if they don't pony up to Uncle Sam.
It's not in the final legislation
what part of that don't you understand
Seriously dude - I gave you the quotes from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the links
now how about you explain how you think it is that I will still be subject to a fine if I have insurance
-
It's not in the final legislation
what part of that don't you understand
Seriously dude - I gave you the quotes from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the links
now how about you explain how you think it is that I will still be subject to a fine if I have insurance
In case you missed it, Obama has a habit of thumbing his nose at legislation (or parts of it) he doesn't like. Immigration and the Defense Of Marriage Act are two such examples.
I don't need to explain your silly scenario, since I never claimed that people with insurance would be fined. People who don't have or want insurance will be fine. And what happens when you don't pay that fine, especially with the IRS in the mix?
The same thing that happens when you don't pay other taxes for sustained periods of time: You face jail time.
ObamaCare is a TAX. Those who don't pay taxes are subject to criminal and civil penalties.
-
In case you missed it, Obama has a habit of thumbing his nose at legislation (or parts of it) he doesn't like. Immigration and the Defense Of Marriage Act are two such examples.
I don't need to explain your silly scenario, since I never claimed that people with insurance would be fined. People who don't have or want insurance will be fine. And what happens when you don't pay that fine, especially with the IRS in the mix?
The same thing that happens when you don't pay other taxes for sustained periods of time: You face jail time.
ObamaCare is a TAX. Those who don't pay taxes are subject to criminal and civil penalties.
Admit it. You're just angry that kids with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance now.
-
Admit it. You're just angry that kids with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance now.
Damn right. Hope all die. ::).
-
Admit it. You're just angry that kids with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance now.
Woefully off the mark again, Garebear. ObamaCare was not necessary to have that happen.
Explain again why Obama and the Dems had to lie their backsides off, to get this passed again and why they got BEAT UP in 2010, after they passed it, if this law is so splendid.
It's been two years, yet this law is more LOATHED with each passing day. Why haven't the Dems been able to sell ObamaCare after all this time?
-
In case you missed it, Obama has a habit of thumbing his nose at legislation (or parts of it) he doesn't like. Immigration and the Defense Of Marriage Act are two such examples.
I don't need to explain your silly scenario, since I never claimed that people with insurance would be fined. People who don't have or want insurance will be fine. And what happens when you don't pay that fine, especially with the IRS in the mix?
The same thing that happens when you don't pay other taxes for sustained periods of time: You face jail time.
ObamaCare is a TAX. Those who don't pay taxes are subject to criminal and civil penalties.
Holy Schnikey I'm beginning to understand how you can believe that the Loch Ness Monster is somehow proof of Creationism. Is this what you have to do to be a fundie - just believe something to be true even when it's contrary to evidence?
Let's review what we've learned so far:
1. Non-compliance with" the insurance mandate "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties." The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its analysis of the revenue provisions of the Senate health care reform bill and the health care reconciliation bill that "individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential [health insurance] coverage in 2016 are subject" to a fee, but that "[n]on-compliance" with that provision "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties."
this means there is no possible way that you or anyone else could ever be put in jail for non-compliance
2. You've simply decided that #1 doesn't exist and you're going to continue to harp about a 2009 video by Nancy Pelosi and insist that it is currently true. You simply choose to believe something that is provably false
The sad part is that you'll probably repeat this lie to your fundie friends (who were probably home schooled and aren't that bright to begin with ) and they will probably believe it's true and so on and so on
-
Holy Schnikey I'm beginning to understand how you can believe that the Loch Ness Monster is somehow proof of Creationism. Is this what you have to do to be a fundie - just believe something to be true even when it's contrary to evidence?
Let's review what we've learned so far:
1. Non-compliance with" the insurance mandate "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties." The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its analysis of the revenue provisions of the Senate health care reform bill and the health care reconciliation bill that "individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential [health insurance] coverage in 2016 are subject" to a fee, but that "[n]on-compliance" with that provision "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties."
this means there is no possible way that you or anyone else could ever be put in jail for non-compliance
Once again, your brain can't quite digest that this administration LIED ITS TAIL OFF, to pass this bill, its costs, its impact, and the very nature of the bill itself.
There's been plenty said about this bill, that turned out to be UTTER BS!! Yet, you're actually, for lack of a better term, STUPID enough to actually buy this tripe about there being no civil or criminal penalties.
2. You've simply decided that #1 doesn't exist and you're going to continue to harp about a 2009 video by Nancy Pelosi and insist that it is currently true. You simply choose to believe something that is provably false
The sad part is that you'll probably repeat this lie to your fundie friends (who were probably home schooled and aren't that bright to begin with ) and they will probably believe it's true and so on and so on
The Court just ruled that ObamaCare is a tax. And when you don't pay taxes, after a certain point in time, YOU ARE SUBJECT to criminal and civil penalties, including jail.
Yet, your only brain-dead argument is that "Well, the Joint Committee On Taxation said.....".
How many things were said about ObamaCare, that turned out to be downright FALSE again?
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
- If you make under $250,000, your taxes will not increase 'one single dime' "
- ObamaCare is not a tax
- It won't affect Medicare
- It will lower premiums.
- The cost will be under a trillion dollars.
As of 2016, someone who doesn't buy insurance face a fine of nearly $700. What happens if he doesn't pay that fine nor buy insurance, again?
And as far as your clucking on the Joint Committee of Taxation goes, chew on THIS:
The President’s health law will be partially paid for by tax increases and the creation of new taxes. When Obamacare first passed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that its tax hikes would total $502 billion over the next 10 years. But most of the new, higher taxes don’t kick in until later in the decade, which means that once all of the law is fully implemented, the taxpayers’ tab will be much bigger than originally estimated.
A new study by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) revealed today that Obamacare will impose higher taxes totaling $4 trillion between now and 2035, with substantial hits on working Americans. That works out to more than $1.7 trillion over a decade—more than triple the original 10-year score.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/18/top-10-most-expensive-obamacare-taxes-and-fees/
-
Obama lied, health care died.
-
Once again, your brain can't quite digest that this administration LIED ITS TAIL OFF, to pass this bill, its costs, its impact, and the very nature of the bill itself.
There's been plenty said about this bill, that turned out to be UTTER BS!! Yet, you're actually, for lack of a better term, STUPID enough to actually buy this tripe about there being no civil or criminal penalties.
The Court just ruled that ObamaCare is a tax. And when you don't pay taxes, after a certain point in time, YOU ARE SUBJECT to criminal and civil penalties, including jail.
Yet, your only brain-dead argument is that "Well, the Joint Committee On Taxation said.....".
How many things were said about ObamaCare, that turned out to be downright FALSE again?
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
- If you make under $250,000, your taxes will not increase 'one single dime' "
- ObamaCare is not a tax
- It won't affect Medicare
- It will lower premiums.
- The cost will be under a trillion dollars.
As of 2016, someone who doesn't buy insurance face a fine of nearly $700. What happens if he doesn't pay that fine nor buy insurance, again?
And as far as your clucking on the Joint Committee of Taxation goes, chew on THIS:
The President’s health law will be partially paid for by tax increases and the creation of new taxes. When Obamacare first passed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that its tax hikes would total $502 billion over the next 10 years. But most of the new, higher taxes don’t kick in until later in the decade, which means that once all of the law is fully implemented, the taxpayers’ tab will be much bigger than originally estimated.
A new study by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) revealed today that Obamacare will impose higher taxes totaling $4 trillion between now and 2035, with substantial hits on working Americans. That works out to more than $1.7 trillion over a decade—more than triple the original 10-year score.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/18/top-10-most-expensive-obamacare-taxes-and-fees/
it doesn't matter that the court just ruled the mandate "acts like" a tax
it doesn't change the text of the legislation
why is that so hard for you to understand
let me guess, you listened to Glen Beck today and told you to believe this nonsense?
-
it doesn't matter that the court just ruled the mandate "acts like" a tax
it doesn't change the text of the legislation
why is that so hard for you to understand
let me guess, you listened to Glen Beck today and told you to believe this nonsense?
The text of the legislation means ZILCH to Obama when it comes to enforcement, depending on his political fortunes. DOMA and immigrations laws prove that. The text of the laws are clearly spelled out. Yet, Obama has skewered that.
Coming from a kneepadder, who cited Media Matters to make a flimsy point, your talking about Beck is quite the joke.
ObamaCare IS A TAX, pure and simple. Obama's lawyers ARGUED, under oath to the Supreme Court, that it was a tax and that court CONCURRED.
What happens when you don't pay taxes, genius? What law says that ObamaCare is exempt from this, as opposed to other taxes.
The Joint Tax Committee said ObamaCare would only hike taxes $502 million over 10 years. How did that work out again?
Of course, this wasn't supposed to be a tax in the first place. Yet, you're delusional enough to think that the Obama Administration, despite LYING about numerous aspects of this law, is somehow telling the truth about this.
How daft can you possibly be? Oh, and what happens to someone who doesn't have insurance and doesn't pay the fine, again?
-
Straw won't recover.
The text of the legislation means ZILCH to Obama when it comes to enforcement, depending on his political fortunes. DOMA and immigrations laws prove that. The text of the laws are clearly spelled that. Yet, Obama has skewered that.
Coming from a kneepadder, who cited Media Matters to make a flimsy point, your talking about Beck is quite the joke.
ObamaCare IS A TAX, pure and simple. Obama's lawyers ARGUED, under oath to the Supreme Court, that it was a tax and that court CONCURRED.
What happens when you don't pay taxes, genius? What law says that ObamaCare is exempt from this, as opposed to other taxes.
The Joint Tax Committee said ObamaCare would only hike taxes $502 million over 10 years. How did that work out again?
Of course, this wasn't supposed to be a tax in the first place. Yet, you're delusional enough to think that the Obama Administration, despite LYING about numerous aspects of this law, is somehow telling the truth about this.
How daft can you possibly be? Oh, and what happens to someone who doesn't have insurance and doesn't pay the fine, again?
-
The text of the legislation means ZILCH to Obama when it comes to enforcement, depending on his political fortunes. DOMA and immigrations laws prove that. The text of the laws are clearly spelled that. Yet, Obama has skewered that.
Coming from a kneepadder, who cited Media Matters to make a flimsy point, your talking about Beck is quite the joke.
ObamaCare IS A TAX, pure and simple. Obama's lawyers ARGUED, under oath to the Supreme Court, that it was a tax and that court CONCURRED.
What happens when you don't pay taxes, genius? What law says that ObamaCare is exempt from this, as opposed to other taxes.
The Joint Tax Committee said ObamaCare would only hike taxes $502 million over 10 years. How did that work out again?
Of course, this wasn't supposed to be a tax in the first place. Yet, you're delusional enough to think that the Obama Administration, despite LYING about numerous aspects of this law, is somehow telling the truth about this.
How daft can you possibly be? Oh, and what happens to someone who doesn't have insurance and doesn't pay the fine, again?
I cited Media Matters citing the actual legislation and the citation was about all the right winger liars who continue to lie a
If you actually choose to believe something that is not true then that's your problem
still waiting for you to explain how "merely having insurance isn't enough"
isn't that what frightens you even more ?
-
Straw won't recover.
The Dems lied about the nature, cost, parameters, and impact of ObamaCare. Yet, Straw is actually stupid enough to think they're telling the truth about not enacting civil or criminal penalties for not complying, especially with something that gives the government money.
-
I cited Media Matters citing the actual legislation and the citation was about all the right winger liars who continue to lie a
If you actually choose to believe something that is not true then that's your problem
still waiting for you to explain how "merely having insurance isn't enough"
isn't that what frightens you even more ?
It appears you don't read that well either. The premiums are HIGHER, not lower. And a number of people DO NOT get to keep the plans they want.
That is contrary to what Obama and his cronies said about this crock of a bill.
They LIED about the COST, the ability to keep your plan, the nature of the law itself, just to name a few things.
This IS a tax, and it would have never have passed had Mr. Transparency and his buddies told the truth about the bill.
And what happens to the guy who doesn't have insurance AND doesn't pay the fine, again?
Try answering that!!
-
If you are ever in NYC call me!
It appears you don't read that well either. The premiums are HIGHER, not lower. And a number of people DO NOT get to keep the plans they want.
That is contrary to what Obama and his cronies said about this crock of a bill.
They LIED about the COST, the ability to keep your plan, the nature of the law itself, just to name a few things.
This IS a tax, and it would have never have passed had Mr. Transparency and his buddies told the truth about the bill.
And what happens to the guy who doesn't have insurance AND doesn't pay the fine, again?
Try answering that!!
-
It appears you don't read that well either. The premiums are HIGHER, not lower. And a number of people DO NOT get to keep the plans they want.
That is contrary to what Obama and his cronies said about this crock of a bill.
They LIED about the COST, the ability to keep your plan, the nature of the law itself, just to name a few things.
This IS a tax, and it would have never have passed had Mr. Transparency and his buddies told the truth about the bill.
And what happens to the guy who doesn't have insurance AND doesn't pay the fine, again?
Try answering that!!
what happened to Obama throwing you in Jail
and still waiting to see how "merely having insurance isn't enough"
come on dude
you obviously believe this and it's freaking you out so how about some valid reasons why you believe this
-
Only a progressive Marxist could applaud this slavery.
what happened to Obama throwing you in Jail
and still waiting to see how "merely having insurance isn't enough"
come on dude
you obviously believe this and it's freaking you out so how about some valid reasons why you believe this
-
what happened to Obama throwing you in Jail
and still waiting to see how "merely having insurance isn't enough"
come on dude
you obviously believe this and it's freaking you out so how about some valid reasons why you believe this
Nice attempt at dodging!! But, I answered your question, at least TWICE.
One more time: What happens when you don't have insurance and you DON'T pay the fine?
-
Only a progressive Marxist could applaud this slavery.
you should stock up on Broccoli
-
Nice attempt at dodging!! But, I answered your question, at least TWICE.
One more time: What happens when you don't have insurance and you DON'T pay the fine?
I know
you believe it
but you have no proof or any objective valid reason
it's based on your fear and is contractually impossible
-
you should stock up on Broccoli
Stocking up on ammo, silver eagles, canadian maples, guns, etc.
-
Stocking up on ammo, silver eagles, canadian maples, guns, etc.
canned fish
I have lots of very good canned sardines, tuna, salmon
never hurts to have a few large bags of rice either
-
I know
you believe it
but you have no proof or any objective valid reason
it's based on your fear and is contractually impossible
Once again, O chicken-hearted one:
What happens when you don't have insurance and you DON'T pay the fine?
-
Once again, O chicken-hearted one:
What happens when you don't have insurance and you DON'T pay the fine?
nothing except they might deduct the fine from your tax refund
if you have one
other than that they really can't do anything
that's the point I've been trying to get you to understand
-
nothing except they might deduct the fine from your tax refund
if you have one
other than that they really can't do anything
that's the point I've been trying to get you to understand
Garnishing wages, what is that called again?
OH!!! That could be a civil penalty, genius!!
Wikipedia:
Civil Penalty: A term used to describe when a state entity, government agency, or private party seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual.
The Free Dictionary:
Civil penalties: n. fines or surcharges imposed by a governmental agency to enforce regulations such as late payment of taxes, failure to obtain a permit.
US Legal.Com:
Civil Penalty refers to a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation. It can be fines or surcharges imposed by governmental agencies for enforcing regulations. For example, late payment of taxes could lead to imposition of a civil penalty.
But, YOU just claimed, courtesy of that foolishness from Media Matters, that there would be NO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL penalties for not having insurance nor paying the fine.
And, in case you forgot, when the IRS comes calling, it usually charges INTEREST.
-
Garnishing wages, what is that called again?
OH!!! That could be a civil penalty, genius!!
Wikipedia:
Civil Penalty: A term used to describe when a state entity, government agency, or private party seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual.
The Free Dictionary:
Civil penalties: n. fines or surcharges imposed by a governmental agency to enforce regulations such as late payment of taxes, failure to obtain a permit.
US Legal.Com:
Civil Penalty refers to a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation. It can be fines or surcharges imposed by governmental agencies for enforcing regulations. For example, late payment of taxes could lead to imposition of a civil penalty.
But, YOU just claimed, courtesy of that foolishness from Media Matters that there would be NO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL penalties for not having insurance nor paying the fine.
And, in case you forgot, when the IRS comes calling, it usually charges INTEREST.
who said anything about garnishing wages ?
did you miss the part about "no civil or criminal penalties" or do you just not understand it's meaning?
-
who said anything about garnishing wages ?
did you miss the part about "no civil or criminal penalties" or do you just not understand it's meaning?
nothing except they might deduct the fine from your tax refund
Snatching money from someone's income tax refund is a civil penalty, "a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation"
And with the IRS, it tends to charge interest.
Did you miss the part about Obama, ignoring the texts of the legislation, when it suits his political fortunes (DOMA, immigration)?
A year ago, he said he didn't have the authority by law to enact a DREAM act unilaterally. HE JUST DID THAT about a week ago.
Try again, Straw.
-
nothing except they might deduct the fine from your tax refund
Snatching money from someone's income tax refund is a civil penalty, "a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation"
And with the IRS, it tends to charge interest.
Did you miss the part about Obama, ignoring the texts of the legislation, when it suits his political fortunes (DOMA, immigration)?
A year ago, he said he didn't have the authority by law to enact a DREAM act unilaterally. HE JUST DID THAT about a week ago.
Try again, Straw.
yep
thats the only way they might actually be able to collect the penalty
what happened to your freak out that Obama was going to throw you in jail?
are we done with that?
-
Admit it. You're just angry that kids with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance now.
Reminded me of this Editorial Cartoon I saw earlier...
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/283602_829638306431_279419823_n.jpg)
-
A year ago, he said he didn't have the authority by law to enact a DREAM act unilaterally. HE JUST DID THAT about a week ago.
I don't like Obama's approach on this issue but let's not lose our temper here, shall we? He didn't enact anything; he issued an Executive Order, instructing Executive Branch departments on how they should interpret the law and on how they should exercise their discretionary prosecutorial powers. I've yet to hear a cogent and convincing legal argument that this is equivalent to enacting legislation or that the President doesn't have the authority to instruct executive branch departments on how to interpret the law†. But perhaps you'll surprise me MCWAY.
† A court could, of course, subsequently rule that the President's interpretation is wrong and that changes the calculus going forward, but that hasn't happened yet.
-
yep
thats the only way they might actually be able to collect the penalty
what happened to your freak out that Obama was going to throw you in jail?
are we done with that?
More dodging again, Straw.
You claimed there'd be no civil nor criminal penalty. Then, you shot yourself in the foot by citing the IRS jacking someone's tax refund, which is a CIVIL PENALTY.
As for the jail time, PELOSI is the one who said such a penalty would be fair, for not having insurance nor paying the fine. ObamaCare is a tax. A penalty for not paying your taxes, particularly over a sustained period of time is being thrown in jail.
But, for some silly reason, YOU seem to think that such would never occur, simply because the legislation says so, even though Obama has REPEATEDLY ignored laws on the book and done whatever suited his political fortunes.
-
Guys, quit fighting.
-
Reminded me of this Editorial Cartoon I saw earlier...
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/283602_829638306431_279419823_n.jpg)
Absurd.
-
I don't like Obama's approach on this issue but let's not lose our temper here, shall we? He didn't enact anything; he issued an Executive Order, instructing Executive Branch departments on how they should interpret the law and on how they should exercise their discretionary prosecutorial powers. I've yet to hear a cogent and convincing legal argument that this is equivalent to enacting legislation or that the President doesn't have the authority to instruct executive branch departments on how to interpret the law†. But perhaps you'll surprise me MCWAY.
† A court could, of course, subsequently rule that the President's interpretation is wrong and that changes the calculus going forward, but that hasn't happened yet.
False. He is creating a new class of immigrant.
-
False. He is creating a new class of immigrant.
Do you think the ACA ruling is Obama's biggest accomplishment?
I'm just wondering if you think the killing of Bin Laden might have been ever bigger.
-
Do you think the ACA ruling is Obama's biggest accomplishment?
I'm just wondering if you think the killing of Bin Laden might have been ever bigger.
Accomplishment? LMFAO.
-
Mark Levin nails it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/28/mark_levin_on_obamacare_decision_absolutely_lawless.html
-
-
THE ROBERTS DOCTRINE
boblonsberry.com ^ | 06/29/12 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 8:52:59 AM by shortstop
There’s a reason no one expected this decision.
It’s because it makes no sense.
It’s not a rational view, it’s not consistent with any of the pleadings, it violates about 200 years of Supreme Court procedure.
And it sets the Constitution on its ear.
In a decision penned by the chief justice of the United States, the court has not only legislated, it has levied a tax. In support of an imperial presidency, it has become sovereign itself.
Precedent is abandoned, rule of law is ignored, jurisprudence is bastardized.
Obama wins and liberty loses.
The government is more powerful, the people are less free, and the Constitution is usurped.
Because the Supreme Court very oddly took an unexpected left turn. And to justify it, the chief justice produced a theory of law which had been raised by neither side, which strains credibility, and which unleashes a previously unimagined federal power.
The power to command a purchase, and to impose a punitive tax on those who fail to obey. Such penalties have previously been seen as fines, not taxes, but the chief justice declared them taxes and, with his liberal friends, imposed the biggest one in the history of the world.
Which plays fast and loose with Article 1 Section 7, which says all revenue bills must arise in the House of Representatives.
The people can only be taxed by the initiative of the most democratic portion of government.
Unless John Roberts decides to suspend the rules. In which case he and his liberal friends can do whatever the hell they want to.
Including redefine the concept of judicial review as understood since the days of Marbury v. Madison. In that landmark case from 210 years ago, the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress was established.
But after yesterday, that’s passé.
Gone are the days of judicial review, come now are the days of judicial rewrite. Instead of declaring a piece of legislation defective, the Supreme Court now takes to itself the power to correct it.
Why leave that matter to the people’s elected representatives when you have an all-knowing court to attend to it?
The chief justice declared that the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause was not constitutional. But, a tax imposed upon the same lines would be acceptable under the It’s None Of Your Damn Business Clause. So the Supreme Court rewrote the Obamacare law to delete the individual mandate and replace it with a corresponding tax.
Judicial review stops when you declare the individual mandate defective. Judicial rewrite begins when you replace it with something you like better.
Forget all that stuff you learned in elementary school about how a bill becomes a law. Under the Roberts Doctrine, the law is whatever five judgetards say it is. Forget the filibuster and the presidential signature, the chief justice has got it covered.
It’s like a plate umpire in baseball, calling balls and strikes. Only one day the pitcher throws the ball, you swing at it and miss, and a strike is called, and something very unusual happens.
The umpire steps out from behind the plate, stands behind you, moves your feet, fixes your crouch, adjusts your grip, tells you how to swing, and then orders the last pitch to be played over while he, holding your hands, swings and hits.
And scores it a homerun.
That’s what the Roberts Five did yesterday.
They cheated. And they did it to enlarge the power of the central government, to increase the tax burden of the American people, and diminish the freedom of the average citizen. You will pay more, choose less and have lower-quality health care. It’s the trifecta of oppression.
Obamacare is a monstrosity, a direct attack on the fundamental American notion of limited government. But its twin evil is a Supreme Court gone rogue, pulling legal arguments out of thin air to justify its capricious acts.
Yesterday was dangerous not so much for what it did, but for what it allows. It allows generations of future despots to claim newer and more sinister powers. History may well show that the assailant of liberty in this entire transaction was not Barack Obama, but John Roberts.
The fate of Obamacare will be determined, as it should be, by the people, at the ballot box in November. This election will be a referendum on Obamacare and the proper role of government. Those who favor Obamacare and a domineering central government will vote for Obama and the Democrats. Those who favor personal freedom and oppose Obamacare will vote for Romney and the Republicans.
Ultimately, the constitutional accountability of the ballot will determine the future of Obamacare.
But John Roberts and his confederates know no such accountability. The precedent of yesterday – the concept of judicial rewrite – and the notion that tax can be used as a punishment for those who fail to buy a government-mandated product, those judicial misdeeds will cast long shadows.
It was a decision no one saw coming.
Because it is illogical, unprecedented and un-American.
But it is the law of the land.
Thanks to John Roberts.
The dweeb who would be king.
-
The True Impact of the Obamacare Decision
Townhall.com ^ | June 29, 2012 | Neil Boortz
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012
Do Americans – do you -- really understand the gravity of what happened in the Supreme Court yesterday? Do you have any idea at all how the power of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States has been exponentially increased?
Answer? No, you probably don’t. You really can’t be faulted for that, I guess. After all, our wonderful government school system was designed to educate you, but only to the point that you don’t become a threat to your political rulers. The American people are a product of those schools, and the American people are, by and large, acting in the manner proscribed by those who “educated” them.
I spent the better part of yesterday listening to various pundits and reading blogs and columns about the ObamaCare decision. I think a lot of people are missing something here; missing something very important. The Court’s ruling on ObamaCare grants the Congress of the United States the power to command virtually any action – any action that would not in and of itself constitute a crime – of any individual in this country, and to demand compliance with that command or be penalized. The federal government can now regulate virtually any human activity in which you wish to engage, and to regulate whether or not you will be allowed to refuse to participate in that activity, so long as a penalty is attached to your noncompliance.
Perhaps I’m not making my point here; so let me try some scenarios:
Let’s say that you are not a homeowner, but you are wealthy enough to purchase a home if you wished to. Arguably, under today’s ruling the government could force you to purchase that new home. This the government could do in order to promote job creation in the construction industry, and it would be perfectly constitutional so long as a penalty is assessed for your non-compliance. The government would merely say that you are being taxed for your decision not to buy a new home, and our Supreme Court would uphold the law as a bona fide exercise of the government’s taxing power.
The government wants you to change your profession … move to another state … buy more cotton clothing … purchase an American-made car … own no less than a dozen pair of American-made shoes … limit your stock purchases to only unionized companies … put solar panels on your roof … perhaps even start watching MSNBC for a minimum of one hour every night. All of this the government might well be able to do so long as a penalty is levied for your failure to comply with the government directive. The penalty would, of course, be nothing more than a tax, and the regulatory requirement would merely be the government exercising its taxing power. Well … the watching MSNBC requirement might violate the 8th Amendment. They’ll just have to work around that one.
Remember when some reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if the individual mandate was constitutional? Her reply? “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Now she can simply say “Taxing authority, bub. Taxing authority.”
This is a sad day indeed for our Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that Obama’s insurance mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. It’s perfectly fine, though, since there’s a fine for non-compliance. This column is short – because the message is simple. Sit back now and try to imagine anything the federal government cannot require of you – just so long as there is a penalty if you say “no."
-
Guys, I figured out how to make Republicans happy about universal healthcare.
Let's invade another country and take theirs, and then we'll tell that country that they are now free.
Agreed?
-
that will happen... lol... no way he keeps that promise.
I don't care for Romney either, but the fact is one of 2 things will happen, either Obama will win his second term, or Romney will win his first, that is it, and as sad as it is, no 3rd Party candidate is going to win this time around, so voting 3rd party or not voting at all isn't going to change the results, the facts are we either get a another 4 years with Obama, or we get the first 4 years of Romney, and I agree with Rand Paul and chose Romney.
-
More dodging again, Straw.
You claimed there'd be no civil nor criminal penalty. Then, you shot yourself in the foot by citing the IRS jacking someone's tax refund, which is a CIVIL PENALTY.
As for the jail time, PELOSI is the one who said such a penalty would be fair, for not having insurance nor paying the fine. ObamaCare is a tax. A penalty for not paying your taxes, particularly over a sustained period of time is being thrown in jail.
But, for some silly reason, YOU seem to think that such would never occur, simply because the legislation says so, even though Obama has REPEATEDLY ignored laws on the book and done whatever suited his political fortunes.
again, just willful stupidty on your part
there is a penalty within the legislation but if you don't pay it you are not subject to criminal or civil penalties
remember this entire freak out by you was about Obama sending you to jail
there is no way under the law that he can send you to jail
It's not possible
-
again, just willful stupidty on your part
there is a penalty within the legislation but if you don't pay it you are not subject to criminal or civil penalties
remember this entire freak out by you was about Obama sending you to jail
there is no way under the law that he can send you to jail
It's not possible
Straw - if President Romney passes an "anti-Crime" law and as part of it you have to purchase a new rifle every year and take self defense classes or face a tax - are you ok with that?
-
again, just willful stupidty on your part
there is a penalty within the legislation but if you don't pay it you are not subject to criminal or civil penalties
remember this entire freak out by you was about Obama sending you to jail
there is no way under the law that he can send you to jail
It's not possible
Your inability to read increases with each passing day. Claiming that if you DON'T pay a tax there is no civil or criminal penalty is utterly ludicrous. Even you just stated that the IRS can snatch from your tax return, which is a civil penalty.
"No way under the law"? How utterly STUPID can you get? Obama has done loads of crap that the law states he can't do (he even stated as much himself, regarding immigration).
Yet, you're trying to float this nonsense that, if you don't have insurance and don't pay the fine, the Obama administration is going to nothing about it (especially when this relates to giving the government money).
The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is a TAX. Why don't you go tell Wesley Snipes that the government can't put you in jail for not paying taxes.
-
Guys, I figured out how to make Republicans happy about universal healthcare.
Let's invade another country and take theirs, and then we'll tell that country that they are now free.
Agreed?
I figured out how the make Democrats realize how asinine this ruling is.
The next time the GOP runs the whole show (which could be next year), let them pass education reform by having all citizens invest in school vouchers to be used at any educational institution the parents choose (including religious private schools), or be fined if they don't.
-
Your inability to read increases with each passing day. Claiming that if you DON'T pay a tax there is no civil or criminal penalty is utterly ludicrous. Even you just stated that the IRS can snatch from your tax return, which is a civil penalty.
"No way under the law"? How utterly STUPID can you get? Obama has done loads of crap that the law states he can't do (he even stated as much himself, regarding immigration).
Yet, you're trying to float this nonsense that, if you don't have insurance and don't pay the fine, the Obama administration is going to nothing about it (especially when this relates to giving the government money).
The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is a TAX. Why don't you go tell Wesley Snipes that the government can't put you in jail for not paying taxes.
again - the legislation has no provision for criminal or civil penalty
if you want to pretend that language doesnt exist thats fine by me
You keep bringing up Wesley Snipes but he commited tax FRAUD on a massive scale for which there are both civil and crimilal penalties
that is the difference
you seem to not understand this or just choose to not understand this
I used to think it was you choosing to be stupid but now I'm convinced you truly are this stupid
-
again - the legislation has no provision for criminal or civil penalty
if you want to pretend that language doesnt exist thats fine by me
You keep bringing up Wesley Snipes but he commited tax FRAUD on a massive scale for which there are both civil and crimilal penalties
that is the difference
you seem to not understand this or just choose to not understand this
I used to think it was you choosing to be stupid but now I'm convinced you truly are this stupid
Yes it does - 2.5% of your AGI for non-compliance
-
Yes it does - 2.5% of your AGI for non-compliance
That's what the brain-dead Straw Man can't quite digest. Getting money taken from you for not complying with ObamaCare is a CIVIL PENALTY, the very thing this goof claimed the government can't do.
And, what happens if you don't pay the fine and still don't have insurance? Straw danced around this then cited getting money taken from your tax return?
-
Yes it does - 2.5% of your AGI for non-compliance
that would apply to very few people and you know it ....or should know it
there is also no way you can be put in jail for not paying it
Here are all the facts for anyone who cares to read and understand
McWay - I assume you will excluded yourself from that group so I'm going to post this one section just for you
if you still want to believe that Obama can throw you in jail then there is simply no hope for you
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/
Refusal to Pay
The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).
The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.
So it may turn out that the IRS will be suing those who fail to pay the tax for double the amount. But so far, the IRS has not spelled out exactly how it will enforce the new penalty with the limited power the law gives it.
-
That's what the brain-dead Straw Man can't quite digest. Getting money taken from you for not complying with ObamaCare is a CIVIL PENALTY, the very thing this goof claimed the government can't do.
And, what happens if you don't pay the fine and still don't have insurance? Straw danced around this then cited getting money taken from your tax return?
once again dumbass - there is no civil or criminal penalty for non-compliance
that doesnt' mean that there is not a penalty spelled out in the legislation
if you want to continue to wet your pants in fear that Obama is going to throw you in jail then so be it
-
once again dumbass - there is no civil or criminal penalty for non-compliance
that doesnt' mean that there is not a penalty spelled out in the legislation
if you want to continue to wet your pants in fear that Obama is going to throw you in jail then so be it
There is no DREAM Act either. Yet, guess what Obama just did, contrary towhat is clearly stated in FEDERAL LAW.
The fact that you believe that Obama's administration is going to let people go unpunished for not complying to ObamaCare, especially with it being a tax, shows how mind-numbingly void of sense you are, kneepads and all.
-
that would apply to very few people and you know it ....or should know it
there is also no way you can be put in jail for not paying it
Here are all the facts for anyone who cares to read and understand
McWay - I assume you will excluded yourself from that group so I'm going to post this one section just for you
if you still want to believe that Obama can throw you in jail then there is simply no hope for you
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/
LOOK WHO'S TALKING!!!
You just claimed that there was NO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL penalty for not having insurance nor paying the fine. Yet, your down to about three toes, by citing CIVIL PENALTIES, or "fines or surcharges imposed by a governmental agency to enforce regulations such as late payment of taxes, failure to obtain a permit."
Obama and the Dems lied about the nature of ObamaCare, the cost of it, and who would be taxed by it. Yet, you are actually dumb enough to believe that you won't get punished if you don't comply (either by having insurance or paying the fine).
-
LOOK WHO'S TALKING!!!
You just claimed that there was NO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL penalty for not having insurance nor paying the fine. Yet, your down to about three toes, by citing CIVIL PENALTIES, or "fines or surcharges imposed by a governmental agency to enforce regulations such as late payment of taxes, failure to obtain a permit."
Obama and the Dems lied about the nature of ObamaCare, the cost of it, and who would be taxed by it. Yet, you are actually dumb enough to believe that you won't get punished if you don't comply (either by having insurance or paying the fine).
I gave you all the FACTS
if you choose to ignore it or pretend it says something other than what it does then that is your choice
anyone can read the facts for themselves
-
Wow this is such a meltdown. I guess it was to be expected. Everyone and his dog talked how it was going down. It didn't. This flawed piece is here to stay. And possibly Obama with it.
-
Wow this is such a meltdown. I guess it was to be expected. Everyone and his dog talked how it was going down. It didn't. This flawed piece is here to stay. And possibly Obama with it.
I hope you at least understand the vast new powers Roberts gave to the govt to compel and control individual behavior w this.
-
I gave you all the FACTS
if you choose to ignore it or pretend it says something other than what it does then that is your choice
anyone can read the facts for themselves
What you gave was nonsense, not to mention you spent a good chunk of the thread DODGING the question of what happens when the fine isn't paid and you have no insurance.
Then you claim the IRS could take money from someone's tax returns, which is the VERY DEFINITION of what you claim can't be done.
ObamaCare is a tax what happens when you don't pay taxes again?
-
I hope you at least understand the vast new powers Roberts gave to the govt to compel and control individual behavior w this.
I hope you at least understand the powers the government already had. You as an individual can choose to move. I suggest you do. Maybe by seeing the world you will realize how small minded, petty and above all nasty you are as a person. And if not fingers crossed you get kidnapped. ;D
-
I hope you at least understand the powers the government already had. You as an individual can choose to move. I suggest you do. Maybe by seeing the world you will realize how small minded, petty and above all nasty you are as a person. And if not fingers crossed you get kidnapped. ;D
Are you ok with the below?
________________________ ______
For example - lets say Apple lobbies obama and the congress to force people to buy an ipad or face a tax penalty - legal
Ruger lobbies Romney to force Americans to buy firearms or face a tax - legal
Chevy wants to recoup its losses by forcing us to buy a volt or face a tax - legal
Solyndra lobbies obama to force americans to buy its solar panels or face a tax - legal
NYSC lobbies Romney to force people to buy gym memberships or face a tax - legal
Monsanto lobbies Obama to force american to buy tomatos, salads, etc or face a tax - legal
-
What you gave was nonsense, not to mention you spent a good chunk of the thread DODGING the question of what happens when the fine isn't paid and you have no insurance.
Then you claim the IRS could take money from someone's tax returns, which is the VERY DEFINITION of what you claim can't be done.
ObamaCare is a tax what happens when you don't pay taxes again?
for most people if their income is low enough their would be no consequence
for wealthier people who choose not to have insurance there will be a penalty as spelled out in the legislation
for those that don't pay the penalty the government cannot impose criminal or civil penalties (yes the same word - I know that confusese you but it refers to two different things)
The government cannot through you in jail, cannont file a tax lien and cannot garnish your wages
All of that is spelled out in the link I gave you which you clearly did not read
-
Are you ok with the below?
________________________ ______
For example - lets say Apple lobbies obama and the congress to force people to buy an ipad or face a tax penalty - legal
Ruger lobbies Romney to force Americans to buy firearms or face a tax - legal
Chevy wants to recoup its losses by forcing us to buy a volt or face a tax - legal
Solyndra lobbies obama to force americans to buy its solar panels or face a tax - legal
NYSC lobbies Romney to force people to buy gym memberships or face a tax - legal
Monsanto lobbies Obama to force american to buy tomatos, salads, etc or face a tax - legal
except the health care legislation was not just a demand by Obama
it was legislation passed by Congress so if Congress want to attempt to pass any of the nonsense you listed then they are free to try and I assume if passed would be subject to lawsuits just like the healthcare legislation
-
except the health care legislation was not just a demand by Obama
it was legislation passed by Congress so if Congress want to attempt to pass any of the nonsense you listed then they are free to try and I assume if passed would be subject to lawsuits just like the healthcare legislation
Whatever the case is - the precedent is now set.
-
for most people if their income is low enough their would be no consequence
for wealthier people who choose not to have insurance there will be a penalty as spelled out in the legislation
for those that don't pay the penalty the government cannot impose criminal or civil penalties (yes the same word - I know that confusese you but it refers to two different things)
The government cannot through you in jail, cannont file a tax lien and cannot garnish your wages
All of that is spelled out in the link I gave you which you clearly did not read
What you clearly did not read is that this administration has done a HOST of things that current-written laws say they can't do.
The government CAN impose penalties for not paying taxes. ObamaCare is a tax, which (per the Supreme Court) is the only reason it still exists.
Listen to how ridiculous you sound: You have to have insurance, or you get hit with a penalty. The penalty is small but if you don't pay it, don't worry; nothing is going to happen to you.
You are actually DAFT enough to think Obama and the Dems passed this law, only to have no enforcement whatsoever for non-compliance. How bereft of sense can you possibly be?
-
False. He is creating a new class of immigrant.
Even if that is the practical effect of Obama's Executive Order, I'd argue that it's irrelevant. The simple fact is that he does have the power to instruct Executive Branch departments on how to interpret the law and to dictate to Executive Branch departments on how discretionary prosecutorial powers should be exercised. Do we agree or disagree on that point?
-
What you clearly did not read is that this administration has done a HOST of things that current-written laws say they can't do.
The government CAN impose penalties for not paying taxes. ObamaCare is a tax, which (per the Supreme Court) is the only reason it still exists.
Listen to how ridiculous you sound: You have to have insurance, or you get hit with a penalty. The penalty is small but if you don't pay it, don't worry; nothing is going to happen to you.
You are actually DAFT enough to think Obama and the Dems passed this law, only to have no enforcement whatsoever for non-compliance. How bereft of sense can you possibly be?
there will be enforceme of some kind but it can never be enforcement that will put you in jail, put a lien against your property or garnish your wages
The IRS will be in charge of collecting the penalty and as I speculated last night, the first avenue will probalby be to net the penalty against overpayment of taxes (i.e. your tax refund)
Again - they have no means by which to put you in jail which was what you were pissing your pants about for the last two pages
Since the Federal law was modeled on the Romney plan they will probably collect the penalty in a similar way
-
Are you ok with the below?
________________________ ______
For example - lets say Apple lobbies obama and the congress to force people to buy an ipad or face a tax penalty - legal
Ruger lobbies Romney to force Americans to buy firearms or face a tax - legal
Chevy wants to recoup its losses by forcing us to buy a volt or face a tax - legal
Solyndra lobbies obama to force americans to buy its solar panels or face a tax - legal
NYSC lobbies Romney to force people to buy gym memberships or face a tax - legal
Monsanto lobbies Obama to force american to buy tomatos, salads, etc or face a tax - legal
You're making arguments for things that do not exist. ;)
-
You're making arguments for things that do not exist. ;)
In his head they do.
-
You're making arguments for things that do not exist. ;)
Until March 2010, a federal law mandating purchase of health insurance didn't exist.
-
there will be enforceme of some kind but it can never be enforcement that will put you in jail, put a lien against your property or garnish your wages
The IRS will be in charge of collecting the penalty and as I speculated last night, the first avenue will probalby be to net the penalty against overpayment of taxes (i.e. your tax refund)
Again - they have no means by which to put you in jail which was what you were pissing your pants about for the last two pages
Since the Federal law was modeled on the Romney plan they will probably collect the penalty in a similar way
That's a civil penalty. What part of that don't you understand?
You just said that the "first avenue". What's the second avenue? The third?
Yet again, you display your utter buffoonery by claiming the Obama administration can't do something, simply because the law says so. Obama just shot that premise down with immigration.
Everything the law said he can't do, regarding immigration (and what even HE said he couldn't do last year), he JUST DID a few days back, DESPITE the laws on the books.
-
i think over the next week or three.... after repubs have left Mitt enjoy pissed off donations, and the house has their little ceremonial vote...
repub pundits will begin to admit publically the bill is policy now, and can't be defeated by picking off piece-by-piece the things like "All children get insured" and "No denial for pre-existing conditions".
The indiv mandate is the backbreaker, and it's staying. Rational voices now admit there is no stopping obamacare. The emotional ones will need another 3 weeks for it to sink in. 33, do you agree?
-
That's a civil penalty. What part of that don't you understand?
You just said that the "first avenue". What's the second avenue? The third?
Yet again, you display your utter buffoonery by claiming the Obama administration can't do something, simply because the law says so. Obama just shot that premise down with immigration.
Everything the law said he can't do, regarding immigration (and what even HE said he couldn't do last year), he JUST DID a few days back, DESPITE the laws on the books.
I already explained that to you (I even wrote that you would choose not to understand the difference)
I assume you at least understand that you're not going to get thrown in jail which was the original thing you were bitching about
-
Until March 2010, a federal law mandating purchase of health insurance didn't exist.
And your point is what? Prior to Bush we didn't have a monster deficit, two wars and an international reputation in shambles.
But hey it is what it is. Now go back to hating on the gays, something you're fond of.
-
And your point is what? Prior to Bush we didn't have a monster deficit, two wars and an international reputation in shambles.
But hey it is what it is. Now go back to hating on the gays, something you're fond of.
more blame bush - jesus christ you obamabots are sick in the head.
-
more blame bush - jesus christ you obamabots are sick in the head.
I'm not blaming bush for this health care legislation at all. Just making a point to McBigot
-
And your point is what? Prior to Bush we didn't have a monster deficit, two wars and an international reputation in shambles.
But hey it is what it is. Now go back to hating on the gays, something you're fond of.
Stop blaming Bush!! All the deficits started when Obama took office!!
And the wars was started by Obama as well!!
Im a repub voter and my brain capacity only allows me to remember 2 days back
-
Stop blaming Bush!! All the deficits started when Obama took office!!
And the wars was started by Obama as well!!
Im a repub voter and my brain capacity only allows me to remember 2 days back
...warS started with Obama? then who was that on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming 'victory' in Iraq?
-
...warS started with Obama? then who was that on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming 'victory' in Iraq?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
-
:-\
Roberts switched views to uphold health care law
By Jan Crawford
(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.
But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.
After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame.
It required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Congress had never before in the history of the nation ordered Americans to buy a product from a private company as part of its broad powers to regulate commerce. Opponents argued that the law exceeded Congress' power under the Constitution, and an Atlanta-based federal appeals court agreed.
The Atlanta-based federal appeals court said Congress didn't have that kind of expansive power, and it struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.
On this point - Congress' commerce power - Roberts agreed. In the court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.
Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.
Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.
Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/