Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 28, 2012, 10:29:01 AM
-
-
-
He sure did.
-
He sure did.
Obamabots and cult followers of the messiah could care less.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/the-health-care-mandate-is-clearly-a-tax-0151-and-therefore-constitutional/256706/#
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/the-health-care-mandate-is-clearly-a-tax-0151-and-therefore-constitutional/256706/#
How is it a tax?
This is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time.
-
Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax
Pete Souza/Official White House Photo, Sept. 2009
President Obama signaled in our interview that he was prepared to address some of the concerns raised by key Senator Jay Rockefeller, who called the Baucus bill a “big middle class tax increase” this week.
That means he’ll support more subsidies for middle class families.
But in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.
Here it is:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Watch it HERE.
- George Stephanopoulos
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/?fb_ref=.T-xrgC38PbY.like&fb_source=profile_oneline
-
How is it a tax?
This is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time.
I suggest reading the yale law school professor who specializes in constitutional law who wrote that article for his answer...
-
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Just flat out dishonesty.
-
I suggest reading the yale law school professor who specializes in constitutional law who wrote that article for his answer...
If it was a tax to finance a program that i benefit from that is one thing, but we are talking about forcing people into a private commercial transaction w no cost control whatsoever.
-
Just flat out dishonesty.
now you know why people like 240, straw, option FAIL, blackass, benny, and Andre love obama. They cheer on his lies and fraud as to these jerks any means necessary to achieve obama's end goals of national socialism are ok w them.
-
Sheer lawlessness by these thugs and criminals.
-
Bait And Switch on Obamacare
Townhall.com ^ | June 29, 2012 | Cal Thomas
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 7:08:26 PM by Kaslin
When is a tax not a tax? When President Obama says it isn't, or when the Supreme Court says it is?
Obamacare was sold on several fraudulent lines. The president knows the country doesn't want to pay higher taxes, given the deplorable way their government spends the money. And so the administration packaged it as something different.
That's called bait and switch, which is defined as "an illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product." And Obamacare, if it is not repealed, is guaranteed to be more expensive, not to mention more bureaucratic, delivering lower-quality care and eventually rationing to save money.
Does it matter what this president promises since so many have turned up empty?
This ruling will impose a massive tax increase during a lingering recession. Twenty-one new taxes are associated with Obamacare, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. That doesn't include the scheduled year-end expiration of the Bush tax cuts. President Obama has said taxes shouldn't be raised during a recession.
Simply put, if government is going to take more money from the people who earn it -- mostly small businesses -- it will result in those businesses hiring fewer people, or laying off more employees, or both, thus increasing already high unemployment. People who have never run a business, or made a payroll, like most in this administration, have no sense of that.
The list of lies and deceptions by this administration is long and growing. When campaigning for president in 2008, candidate Obama made "a firm pledge" not to raise taxes: "Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." In 2009, he vigorously denied to George Stephanopoulos of ABC that the individual mandate is a tax. Now Chief Justice John Roberts says it is. If money leaves your pocket and goes to government, it's a tax, no matter the label.
Some congressional Democrats, especially those running for re-election in traditionally Republican districts, might not have voted for this law had it been presented as a tax increase. They will now have to either defend the tax hike or vow to repeal the law. One way, they appear not to have known what they were doing. The other way, they will be portrayed as having lied.
In the short term, the president may have won the argument, but the Supreme Court has given Mitt Romney and the Republicans three issues: higher taxes, a loss of individual freedom and the wrong solution to reforming health insurance.
The Founders sought to "secure the blessings of liberty." This president wants to secure the power of government. And so government, which has done a poor job of running Medicare and Medicaid, will now be responsible for an even bigger program. This is like renewing the license of a serial drunk driver.
Roberts joins a long line of justices nominated by Republican presidents, beginning with Earl Warren, who agreed with the liberal wing of the court on cases favored by the Left. Rarely, if ever, does a liberal justice vote with the conservatives.
Roberts suggested he wouldn't do the work of the people. If they don't like Obamacare, they can change the leadership. The Republican Governors Association is planning to do nothing on Obamacare until after the election, an indication they believe a Romney presidency and a Republican Congress will repeal the law.
In a statement following the court's decision, President Obama promised to implement the law with all deliberate speed. He apparently hopes that with more of it in place (except the taxes that come in 2014), people will become dependent on it and won't want to do away with it.
In just four months, voters will have the opportunity to live up to the responsibility that Roberts says is theirs. Otherwise, voters will become co-conspirators in the weakening of health care and the further destruction of our liberties.
-
Press Secretary Says Contention that Obamacare Is Tax “Idiotic”
Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 29 June 2012 | John Semmens
Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:11:29 AM by John Semmens
Press Secretary Jay Carney sought to get out ahead of the GOP's campaign rhetoric alleging that Obamacare is a huge tax imposed on the middle class.
“There's no way this is a tax,” Carney insisted. “The President doesn't call it a tax. The legislation doesn't say it's a tax. Calling it a tax is idiotic. The President has made it quite clear that the $2,000 a person has to pay for refusing to buy health insurance is a punishment for disobedience, not a tax.”
The fact that the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare was founded on Chief Justice John Roberts' finding that the so-called penalty is a tax is irrelevant, according to Carney. “Roberts' convoluted logic isn't binding on anything,” Carney said. “All that matters is that the Court voted to sustain the law. Whatever reasons he or any other Justice might give are irrelevant.”
To further bolster his case against Obamacare being a tax, Carney cited the waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Secretary Sebelius has no authority to waive taxes,” Carney pointed out. “She does, however, have the authority to excuse persons from complying with the mandate. Those who think the mandate is oppressive ought to be trying to get on her good side. I don't think that castigating the Affordable Care Act for political advantage is a course likely to achieve that.”
Thus far, Sebelius has issued over 1,000 waivers—most of them to organizations and businesses supporting the Administration's political agenda.
In related news, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) suggested that, based on the Court's decision, the government might mandate the consumption of tofu or the purchase of a Chevy Volt under threat of being assessed a penalty for noncompliance. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) dismissed such fears as “misplaced. It is the government's job to promote the general welfare. If eating healthier food and driving non-polluting vehicles is deemed the appropriate way of promoting that welfare who is Mr. Jindal to say that the government shouldn't penalize those who won't cooperate?”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/114163-2012-06-29-semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-july-1-2012.htm
________________________ ________
What a complete fraud that was committed on this nation between GWB, roberts, obama, etc.
Disgusting.
-
“It is the government's job to promote the general welfare. If eating healthier food and driving non-polluting vehicles is deemed the appropriate way of promoting that welfare who is Mr. Jindal to say that the government shouldn't penalize those who won't cooperate?”
Err, is that an actual quote from Pelosi, or is that the "satire" part of "semi-news/semi-satire"? If so, wow... words fail me.
-
Err, is that an actual quote from Pelosi, or is that the "satire" part of "semi-news/semi-satire"? If so, wow... words fail me.
Roberts opened the door to literally anything via the taxing power w his cowardly decision.
I listed a few items now totally legal since Congress can compel any action, inaction, purchase, etc or face a tax for non-compliance.
-
Roberts opened the door to literally anything via the taxing power w his cowardly decision.
I listed a few items now totally legal since Congress can compel any action, inaction, purchase, etc or face a tax for non-compliance.
Eh, I don't quite buy that. But even if I did, the solution is simple: Constitutional Amendment limiting the government's tax powers. After all, the Court can't deem unconstitutional what's in the Constitution ;)
-
Roberts opened the door to literally anything via the taxing power w his cowardly decision.
I listed a few items now totally legal since Congress can compel any action, inaction, purchase, etc or face a tax for non-compliance.
-
Obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000
by Robert Allen
29 Jun 2012
While we were all debating the cost to our liberty due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), we were ignoring the cost to our pockets. If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty - yes, twenty - hidden new taxes of this law. Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income. Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.
The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016. Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.
Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.
The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.
Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.
The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.
Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens. This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”
The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.
There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households. While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners. Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees.
The impact of this provision on low and middle income earners, and really all working Americans, is that employers will be confronted with three choices. The first is provide some level of health insurance, as many do today, and there would be no impact on employees. The second choice is to pay the penalty, which would most likely be less expensive than providing health insurance, and force employees to seek their own health insurance or purchase it through federal government controlled state exchanges. Studies have estimated that 20 million Americans will lose their employee funded health insurance as a result of this provision and employers electing this option. The third choice is for employers to lay off employees, or not hire additional employees, because Obamacare forces them to either provide health insurance or pay the new tax.
Another new tax, the Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers that begins in 2013, places a 2.3% excise tax on all items retailing for more than $100. This provision will not only drive up the cost of various medical devices ranging from mobility assistance devices to personal testing supplies, but will also impact an industry that employs 360,000 people in 6,000 plants across our country. This tax, while not a direct tax, would have significant negative impact on the middle class.
The Surtax on Investment Income for households earning $250,000 and more, beginning in 2013, will raise the Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 23.8% on investment income for these households and will raise Taxes on Dividends from 15% to 43.4% for the same households. Aside from the impact on retired citizens dependent on dividends, this provision will pull income from the private economy. In addition, the tax rate on Other Investment Income earned by Subchapter S Corporation (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%. This part of the provision would place additional pressure on small businesses resulting in more layoffs and less hiring, impacting all American workers.
All but one of the remaining new taxes in Obamacare are directed at health industry businesses and while they will not impact middle income families directly, the additional costs will most likely be passed on to the public. The last new tax is really interesting, it is a tax on certain biofuels!
These are the facts. It does not matter if you support Mr. Obama and his new law or if you oppose it, the new taxes on the middle class or real and all Americans should understand their impact on their families and the economy. Citizens, regardless of political beliefs, should recognize that Obamacare was passed with almost no sunlight shined on these middle class tax increases and need to understand that the new law was sold with the promise that there would be no new middle class taxes. This is not partisan, it is simply the reality of politics.
For more information, read ATR's analysis of the Affordable Care Act's taxes here.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes
-
Press Secretary Says Contention that Obamacare Is Tax “Idiotic”
Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 29 June 2012 | John Semmens
Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:11:29 AM by John Semmens
Press Secretary Jay Carney sought to get out ahead of the GOP's campaign rhetoric alleging that Obamacare is a huge tax imposed on the middle class.
“There's no way this is a tax,” Carney insisted. “The President doesn't call it a tax. The legislation doesn't say it's a tax. Calling it a tax is idiotic. The President has made it quite clear that the $2,000 a person has to pay for refusing to buy health insurance is a punishment for disobedience, not a tax.”
The fact that the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare was founded on Chief Justice John Roberts' finding that the so-called penalty is a tax is irrelevant, according to Carney. “Roberts' convoluted logic isn't binding on anything,” Carney said. “All that matters is that the Court voted to sustain the law. Whatever reasons he or any other Justice might give are irrelevant.”
To further bolster his case against Obamacare being a tax, Carney cited the waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Secretary Sebelius has no authority to waive taxes,” Carney pointed out. “She does, however, have the authority to excuse persons from complying with the mandate. Those who think the mandate is oppressive ought to be trying to get on her good side. I don't think that castigating the Affordable Care Act for political advantage is a course likely to achieve that.”
Thus far, Sebelius has issued over 1,000 waivers—most of them to organizations and businesses supporting the Administration's political agenda.
In related news, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) suggested that, based on the Court's decision, the government might mandate the consumption of tofu or the purchase of a Chevy Volt under threat of being assessed a penalty for noncompliance. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) dismissed such fears as “misplaced. It is the government's job to promote the general welfare. If eating healthier food and driving non-polluting vehicles is deemed the appropriate way of promoting that welfare who is Mr. Jindal to say that the government shouldn't penalize those who won't cooperate?”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/114163-2012-06-29-semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-july-1-2012.htm
________________________ ________
What a complete fraud that was committed on this nation between GWB, roberts, obama, etc.
Disgusting.
:-\ Glad Pelosi is in the minority.
-
Eh, I don't quite buy that. But even if I did, the solution is simple: Constitutional Amendment limiting the government's tax powers. After all, the Court can't deem unconstitutional what's in the Constitution ;)
Amending the Constitution is not "easy."
-
Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills.
-
Amending the Constitution is not "easy."
I never said it was easy - learn to read.
-
I never said it was easy - learn to read.
what is your assessment of the Roberts decision.
-
what is your assessment of the Roberts decision.
I haven't finished reading the dissent. I am disappointed - I had hoped for a decision that invalidated the mandate I'm not necessarily opposed to some healthcare reforms that would involve incentives for people to get health insurance) because I don't like "mandates."
I think the decision can certainly be construed as dangerously expanding the tax power of Congress and I think all the Courts - including the Supremes must now be careful to hold the line.
I think a positive side-effect of the decision is that we finally have a decision that sets some constraints on what Congress can do under the Commerce and N&P clauses.
-
I haven't finished reading the dissent. I am disappointed - I had hoped for a decision that invalidated the mandate (I'm not necessarily opposed to some healthcare reforms that would involve incentives for people to get health insurance).
I think the decision can certainly be construed as
dangerously expanding the tax power of Congress and I think all the Courts - including the Supremes must now be careful to hold the line.
I think a positive side-effect of the decision is that we finally have a decision that sets some constraints on what Congress can do under the Commerce and N&P clauses.
Yes, but what congress could not do under the commerce clause previously, Roberts has now opened the door as to what they can do via the taxing power.
That is how I read it.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/06/29/supreme-court-obama-care-decision-tough-to-swallow
Good article from a CPA point of view.
fuck Obama.
-
I never said it was easy - learn to read.
Learn to write clearly. You clearly don't know how difficult it is to amend the Constitution.
-
Learn to write clearly. You clearly don't know how difficult it is to amend the Constitution.
Obama and his gang of communists to me are enemies forever. I will never find common ground w these commies
-
Learn to write clearly.
I think it was pretty clear. If you think I implied that it was easy, then by all means, provide the exact quote of me saying that it is easy. Please note that to say that a solution is simple is not the same thing as to say that a solution is easy to implement - refer to your dictionary for more information.
You clearly don't know how difficult it is to amend the Constitution.
Well, first you have to get a Form C-1, fill it out in blank ink (and press hard, cause it's in triplicate), make some posts on twitter, go on TV wearing a powerful (but understated) tie, talk a bit, and wait for the ding from the microwave. No?
But in all seriousness, do educate me on how difficult this is. Clearly you are an expert on the subject.
-
I think it was pretty clear. If you think I implied that it was easy, then by all means, provide the exact quote of me saying that it is easy. Please note that to say that a solution is simple is not the same thing as to say that a solution is easy to implement - refer to your dictionary for more information.
Well, first you have to get a Form C-1, fill it out in blank ink (and press hard, cause it's in triplicate), make some posts on twitter, go on TV wearing a powerful (but understated) tie, talk a bit, and wait for the ding from the microwave. No?
But in all seriousness, do educate me on how difficult this is. Clearly you are an expert on the subject.
Here is your quote:
Eh, I don't quite buy that. But even if I did, the solution is simple: Constitutional Amendment limiting the government's tax powers. After all, the Court can't deem unconstitutional what's in the Constitution ;)
The solution cannot be "simple" if the solution is amending the Constitution.
If you want to learn how that process is done, please use this tool: www.google.com. I'm sure a Wiki link will be one of the first things that pops up.
-
Obama and his gang of communists to me are enemies forever. I will never find common ground w these commies
I don't consider them enemies. Just dishonest politicians who need to be voted out of office.
-
The solution cannot be "simple" if the solution is amending the Constitution.
You seem confused, so I don't think anything I say will help. Nevertheless, I'll try one more time: a solution can be simple, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily easy to implement. I'll even give you an example: if you suffer from heart failure, the solution is simple: replace your heart; please pay special attention that this simple solution that doesn't mean that a heart transplant operation is easy.
If you want to learn how that process is done, please use this tool: www.google.com. I'm sure a Wiki link will be one of the first things that pops up.
But I wanted you to explain it to me. Not Google. I don't trust Google. You're the expert!
-
I don't consider them enemies. Just dishonest politicians who need to be voted out of office.
I do. I have already told off a few former friends. Fuck em
-
You seem confused, so I don't think anything I say will help. Nevertheless, I'll try one more time: a solution can be simple, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily easy to implement. I'll even give you an example: if you suffer from heart failure, the solution is simple: replace your heart; please pay special attention that this simple solution that doesn't mean that a heart transplant operation is easy.
But I wanted you to explain it to me. Not Google. I don't trust Google. You're the expert!
Ah, no. If your "solution" is nearly impossible then it can't be "simple." And replacing a heart is never a simple solution. Terrible example.
As I tell my kids, I will not do your thinking for you. So no, I won't plug in the search terms in Google and do your homework for you. You're on your own. :)
-
I do. I have already told off a few former friends. Fuck em
Not me. I have a number of Obamabot friends. They're still my friends and will remain so. They're just confused. :)
-
Ah, no. If your "solution" is nearly impossible then it can't be "simple." And replacing a heart is never a simple solution. Terrible example.
Replacing a failing organ is the quintessentially simple solution. But you confuse "simple" with"easy" when the two terms are not equivalent; that is why so you see no difference between the notion that a solution may be simple but still difficult to implement.
As you said in another post, we're going in circles, so it's pointless to continue. You'll keep assert that simple means easy and easy means simple, and I'll keep telling you that you're wrong.
As I tell my kids, I will not do your thinking for you. So no, I won't plug in the search terms in Google and do your homework for you. You're on your own. :)
Probably for the best, because I wouldn't want you to have you do my thinking for me, as I'm pretty sure it would have a severe negative impact on my academic and professional careers.
-
Replacing a failing organ is the quintessentially simple solution. But you confuse "simple" with"easy" when the two terms are not equivalent; that is why so you see no difference between the notion that a solution may be simple but still difficult to implement.
As you said in another post, we're going in circles, so it's pointless to continue. You'll keep assert that simple means easy and easy means simple, and I'll keep telling you that you're wrong.
Probably for the best, because I wouldn't want you to have you do my thinking for me, as I'm pretty sure it would have a severe negative impact on my academic and professional careers.
There you go again with an example that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A decision to do heart transplant surgery is hardly an "easy" solution, or a "simple" solution, and if you talked to a heart surgeon he'd likely tell you the same thing. But the issue is amending the Constitution. And yes, it is pointless to continue, particularly when you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
And yes, you should learn to do your own thinking. It will make you a smarter person. You keep plugging away. :)
-
There you go again with an example that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A decision to do heart transplant surgery is hardly an "easy" solution, or a "simple" solution, and if you talked to a heart surgeon he'd likely tell you the same thing. But the issue is amending the Constitution. And yes, it is pointless to continue, particularly when you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
You can pretend to be smart if it helps you feel better, but we both know you're only lying to yourself. Especially if you can't see the distinction between a "simple" and an "easy" solution. As for what I know (and don't know) I hardly think you're qualified to judge that, and besides, I don't think there's anything to be gained from having an e-penis size competition with you.
And yes, you should learn to do your own thinking. It will make you a smarter person. You keep plugging away. :)
You have quite an inflated ego. And I'll bet you it's all oil.
-
You can pretend to be smart if it helps you feel better, but we both know you're only lying to yourself. Especially if you can't see the distinction between a "simple" and an "easy" solution. As for what I know (and don't know) I hardly think you're qualified to judge that, and besides, I don't think there's anything to be gained from having an e-penis size competition with you.
You have quite an inflated ego. And I'll bet you it's all oil.
lol. While you're researching how the Constitution is amended, look up the word "projection."
No big ego here. I'm just an average Joe. And I don't use synthol. :)
-
::)
-
lol. The retard logic be strong in here.
I have simple solution to solve the entire middle east problem. Just kill everyone over there. See simple. ::)
Well let's hear it avxo...name one "complicated" solution under your retardness.
Here's a hint...anything you come up with...I can claim is "simple" as long I don't count the details. ::)
-
so?
tax; penalty. big deal. tomato...tomaaato.
-
so?
tax; penalty. big deal. tomato...tomaaato.
Whatever, when the next president you gay schmucks hate forces you to undergo "Straight Awareness" classes or pay a tax, you will understand. Fucking slaves.
-
Learn to write clearly. You clearly don't know how difficult it is to amend the Constitution.
You're annoying and childish.
-
I have simple solution to solve the entire middle east problem. Just kill everyone over there. See simple. ::)
That is simple. I don't know if I'd call that a solution, though.
Well let's hear it avxo...name one "complicated" solution under your retardness.
My, you're pretty angry... I best do what you say or you may beat me up! ::)
Let's say one day your computer stops working. Completely. Your solution is to start troubleshooting, checking obvious things like the power supply, loose power cables, and so on. With no luck checking the obvious things, you buy more specialized and expensive tools and start poking around, checking components and traces on the motherboard looking for the fault. Eventually, after a lot of expenses and a lot time and effort you trace the problem to a tiny capacitor, which you can buy for a few cents and which you can then solder on to your board. Tada, your computer works. It's a solution, but a rather complicated one.
Or you could, after running some cursory checks for obvious things, go out and buy a new computer for under a $1,000 that will most likely outperform the one you had before, trivially transfer all your files by simply connecting two cables, and be on your way. It's another solution, and it's much simpler.
Here's a hint...anything you come up with...I can claim is "simple" as long I don't count the details. ::)
Like Beach Bum you have a problem distinguishing between "simple" and "easy" - simple in principle and easy in implementation are not the same thing.
-
Obama Team: Obamacare Still Not A Tax
by Ben Shapiro
1 Jul 2012
The only legal peg on which Chief Justice Roberts was able to hang his hat in ruling Obamacare constitutional was a broad reading of the Taxing Clause. In order to do so, he had to deliberately misread the Obamacare law; had he not done so, the law would have been struck down as a violation of the Commerce Clause.
Nonetheless, the Obama administration insists that Obamacare isn’t a tax.
The latest Obama spokesperson to deny Roberts’ logic and essentially admit that Obamacare is unconstitutional is Jack Lew, the White House Chief of Staff. This morning, he appeared on CNN to explain:
First of all, the law is clear, it’s called a penalty. Second of all, what the Supreme Court ruled is that the law is constitutional. Actually, they didn’t call it a tax. They said it was using the power under the constitution that permits it. It was not labeled.
This is, simply put, a lie. Lew’s first two sentences are in direct conflict with one another. The law is clear – it’s called a penalty. But if the administration is going to stand by its original construction of the statute, they can’t then claim that the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional on their basis. The notion that the Supreme Court ruled the statute constitutional without any specific basis is simply false. Lew continued:
This is a penalty. It’s something that only 1 percent of people who can afford insurance and choose not to get it will pay. Everyone who has insurance, everyone who chooses to buy insurance will not pay it. What they’re going to get is security — they’re going to get lower premiums and better health care. That’s a good thing for the American people.
It’s also a lie that a tiny percentage of the population will pay the penalty. The fact is that under the new Obamacare regime, millions will opt for the penalty, simply because there’s no purpose to paying $1,500 per year for health insurance when you can pay a $750 penalty, wait to get sick, then jump on a federally-mandated health plan. And it’s also a lie that we’re all going to get lower premiums and better health care. Who’s going to pay for that? And how are we going to achieve that if the insurance companies are forced to bear the brunt of restrictions that force them to take those with pre-existing conditions, charge men and women equally, do away with coverage limits?
The key here is that the Obama administration is now caught between a rock and a hard place. They can either admit that this is an unconstitutional seizure of individual liberty (i.e. it’s a mandate) or they can admit that the statute is the single largest tax increase in world history. Neither position will be attractive to voters.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/01/Obama-team-Obamacare-still-not-a-tax
-
My, you're pretty angry... I best do what you say or you may beat me up! ::)
If you think I threatened you in any way...your reading comprehension really needs to improve. But I think we all know that, lol.
Let's say one day your computer stops working. Completely. Your solution is to start troubleshooting, checking obvious things like the power supply, loose power cables, and so on. With no luck checking the obvious things, you buy more specialized and expensive tools and start poking around, checking components and traces on the motherboard looking for the fault. Eventually, after a lot of expenses and a lot time and effort you trace the problem to a tiny capacitor, which you can buy for a few cents and which you can then solder on to your board. Tada, your computer works. It's a solution, but a rather complicated one.
Nope, not complicated. You just decided that this time you'd include the details. ::)
The simple solution is fix the computer.
Like Beach Bum you have a problem distinguishing between "simple" and "easy" - simple in principle and easy in implementation are not the same thing.
Sorry tard, but you don't have ownership over the words.
The normal, typical, mature, intelligent, adult considers the details of the solution when deciding if it's "complicated solution" or a "simple solution".
Example:
Mature Intelligent Adult#1 - "Well, perhaps a simple solution is x"
Mature Intelligent Adult#2 - "It's not that simple because you have to consider x AND y AND z
Now...let's contrast that with your juvenile, retard, interpretation:
Retard - "Simple solution to world hunger, feed everyone"
Mature Intelligent Adult - "Well, it's not that simple because you have to consider..."
Retard - "No. No. No...I can say it easy so it's simple. See it's 2 words! That makes it simple" ::)
On a side note...I'm pretty sure your a gimmick of TheLuke?
Just come clean now.
Class dismissed.
-
Oh...still waiting on a "complicated solution". Anyone give him a hand?
-
*shakes head* you both - collectively - have the iq of a turnip if you can't distinguish the difference between simple and easy.
-
One post at 01:24:42 PM, the next at 01:26:02 PM.. Someone is anxious to "make a point", pressing f5 furiously..
-
White House Doubles Down: ObamaTax Not a Tax (Title should be: White House Spins)
Townhall.com ^ | July 1, 2012 | Katie Pavlich
Posted on July 1, 2012 5:22:12 PM EDT by Kaslin
It's a penalty. It's a penalty. It's a penalty. This is what White House officials are arguing despite Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare classifying the healthcare legislation as....a tax. Friday White House Press Secretary argued ObamaCare isn't a tax, but a penalty. Today, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew argued the same thing. Remember, ObamaCare was "sold" or shoved down the throats of the American people as a penalty to avoid the Obama administration looking like President Obama was raising taxes on everyone.
The White House insisted Sunday the consequence for Americans not having health insurance is a penalty fee, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is a tax and said the debate on the Affordable Care Act should finally end.
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on Fox News Sunday that “when the Supreme Court rules” the country “has a final decision” and that the presidential campaigns should focus on the economy and jobs.
“What we need to do is go forward with the implementation” of the law, Lew said.
WH Chief Of Staff Spends 5 Minutes Struggling To Explain How ObamaCare Isn't A Tax
It's a tax. To see the long list of new taxes that come with ObamaTax, click here.
-
*shakes head* you both - collectively - have the iq of a turnip if you can't distinguish the difference between simple and easy.
Right. Right.
When passing a Constitutional Amendment it's a simple solution because the details of doing it don't count.
But fixing a computer is a "complicated" solution because then, magically, the details do count.
Yep, you're right up there at the top of the intellect tree. ::)
-
When passing a Constitutional Amendment it's a simple solution because the details of doing it don't count.
Of course, I never asserted that the details don't count, but for some reason you seem compelled to argue against this position. Which you can do, but don't expect me to continue debating the position that the voices in your head hold.
Again, a simple solution can be easy or it can be difficult. I'll give you another example. It's called the "Graph Coloring Problem" and it's computer science related, but I hope you can try to follow: given a graph G, our task is to return the k-coloring for the graph, such that no two adjacent vertices have the same color and there does not exist a k-coloring for a smaller value of k.
The "simple" solution is to start with k=1 and attempt to find a 1-coloring for the graph. If no such coloring is possible, go to k=2, then k=3 and so on. For every k greater than 1, you simply have to generate all the possible colorings for the graph using pretty basic combinatorics, and see if they satisfy the "adjacent vertices must have different colors" restriction; the first one you hit is the solution. Despite being simple in principle, this solution is actually not easy. Indeed, this problem most likely doesn't have an easy solution at all (it's what computer scientists call an NP-complete problem) and if an easy solution were ever found, it would represent a revolution in the fields of computer science, computability and mathematics, and a whole class of problems that are now essentially intractable would be trivial to solve by simply transforming them into a graph coloring problem through a reduction.
Back to the issue at hand:
The problem we have is how to (a) prevent Congress from passing more mandates and (b) prevent the Court from using the same reasoning to find those mandates constitutional.
The simple solution is to pass an Amendment to the Constitution (indeed, it's the ONLY solution, but that's another topic of discussion) because such an Amendment would prevent Congress from exercising the tax power to pass laws that contain mandates and prevent the Court from finding some laws to be constitutional by legal finesse. But that does not mean that writing and/or passing the Amendment would be easy.
But fixing a computer is a "complicated" solution because then, magically, the details do count.
You asked for a solution that's complicated. I gave you one, and you complain about it?
Yep, you're right up there at the top of the intellect tree. ::)
Whether I am or not is irrelevant.
-
Obama lied no doubt.
-
Whatever, when the next president you gay schmucks hate forces you to undergo "Straight Awareness" classes or pay a tax, you will understand. Fucking slaves.
i'd be the first in line for a str8 awareness class. i love sex with str8 guys! they love the blow jobs; no hassle, no charmin' chit-chat..no drinks, dinner, movies....just get off and move on. plus, you str8 guys appreciate it more than the gay guys. you're not so hung up on body fat, abs, etc.
-
'We Will Take it Anyway We Can Get it' - Valerie Jarrett Admits ObamaCare Is A Tax
http://www.breitbart.com ^ | July 1 2012 | breitbart
Video at link
Friday in a Roland Martin interview Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett on Obama Care tax 'We will take it anyway we can get it.'
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
WH chief of staff: ObamaCare not a tax even if our own lawyers said it was (video)
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/02/wh-chief-of-staff-obamacare-not-a-tax-even-if-our-own-lawyers-said-it-was-or-something
Via Gateway Pundit, here’s a moment that will live in the Cross-Examination Hall of Fame. Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace interviewed the current White House chief of staff, Jacob Lew, who served as OMB chief briefly before taking over for William Daley in the West Wing, about the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare can only stand constitutional muster as a tax. Wallace strings Lew along beautifully for almost three minutes, allowing Lew to argue multiple times that ObamaCare isn’t a tax, wasn’t passed as a tax, and was never intended to be a tax, before playing a recording of the Obama administration’s Solicitor General arguing to the Supreme Court that, by golly, ObamaCare can and should be considered a tax:
The money moment comes at the very end of the clip, but don’t skip ahead to it, or you’ll miss the masterful way Wallace brings Lew to the point of no return. For his part, Lew does as well as he could under the circumstances in responding to Donald Verrilli’s argument, but the eventual response hardly helpful. Lew basically tells Wallace that, hey, lawyers make lots of arguments in court, but that doesn’t make them true!
-
POLL: 60 Percent Of Americans Think The Individual Mandate Is A Tax
Brett LoGiurato|11 minutes ago|1|
Charles Dharapak/AP
Although support for the Affordable Care Act has jumped in the days following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law, another new poll from CNN displays the tough challenge President Barack Obama will have selling the law to what is still a skeptical public.
The CNN/ORC International survey released Monday found that 60 percent of Americans view the key provision, the individual mandate to purchase health care, as a tax. That compares with 39 percent who don't view it that way. With Chief Justice John Roberts as the deciding vote, the Supreme Court upheld the law under Congress' authority to levy taxes.
Overall, the poll found that 48 percent of those surveyed favored the provision. But it suggests that Republicans could have an opening to attack Obama and Democrats this election season, because tax increases, of course, never poll well.
Republicans have already feasted on the Supreme Court ruling, disappointed at the decision overall but quick to point out that it amounts to a tax increase. In his meltdown on Thursday, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh blasted Obamacare as "the largest tax increase in the history of the world."
Overall, 43 percent of Americans in the CNN/ORC poll expressed support for most of the provisions in the law, higher than the 34 percent that oppose most of the provisions. Polls continue to show that most of the provisions of Obamacare, minus the individual mandate, are popular with the majority of Americans. Still, 51 percent of Americans want full repeal of the law.
Check out the chart that shows how much Obamacare penalties would cost you >
Recommended For You
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/individual-mandate-obamacare-tax-supreme-court-barack-obama-health-care-2012-7#ixzz1zUQz8OBH
-
MONDAY JULY 2, 2012
Top Romney Adviser: Individual Mandate A Penalty, Not A Tax
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser for Mitt Romney, said Monday that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax.” Pointing to the opinion of the four dissenting justices who “very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax,” Fehrnstrom told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that when the mandate was imposed in Massachusetts under the law signed by Romney, it was a penalty and not a tax.
TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you’re saying?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that it is not a tax.
TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. He has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax. He needs to reconcile those two very different statements.
Reported by Tom Kludt
-
MONDAY JULY 2, 2012
Top Romney Adviser: Individual Mandate A Penalty, Not A Tax
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser for Mitt Romney, said Monday that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax.” Pointing to the opinion of the four dissenting justices who “very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax,” Fehrnstrom told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that when the mandate was imposed in Massachusetts under the law signed by Romney, it was a penalty and not a tax.
TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you’re saying?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that it is not a tax.
TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. He has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax. He needs to reconcile those two very different statements.
Reported by Tom Kludt
do I give a shit about myth or fernstrom? No.
Obama lied - health care died.
-
your man says it's not, you two have to get on the same page :D :D
-
your man says it's not, you two have to get on the same page :D :D
your man says its not a tax either douchebag.
Personally I don't give a damn - ThugCare has to go.
Tell you support this crazy shit
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365223062942574.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
-
Of course, I never asserted that the details don't count, but for some reason you seem compelled to argue against this position.
Ah bullshit you back-peddling little bitch. You tried to claim that replacing a heart was a simple solution because the details involved don't matter as to whether or not it's simple.
Then you tried to claim fixing a computer is complicated because then the details magically did matter. ::)
I pointed out you can oversimplify anything to that point and you've yet to be able to refute it.
You've yet to show anything that can't be boiled down to "simply fix x" or simply solve for "y", or whatever.
Refer to my 2nd post calling out your childish argument.
The simple solution is to pass an Amendment to the Constitution (indeed, it's the ONLY solution, but that's another topic of discussion) because such an Amendment would prevent Congress from exercising the tax power to pass laws that contain mandates and prevent the Court from finding some laws to be constitutional by legal finesse. But that does not mean that writing and/or passing the Amendment would be easy.
No, that's not the "only" solution. Since you're clearly not bright enough to know...I'll give you one. The Supreme Court can and does reverse itself.
We won't worry about the details...cause according to you, they don't count.
See, what a "simple" solution. Get the Supreme Court to reverse itself. ::)
You asked for a solution that's complicated. I gave you one, and you complain about it?
Whether I am or not is irrelevant.
You haven't given one.
According to you "replace the heart" is simple.
But, "fix the computer" is complicated.
Yep, you're a pillar of logic and reasoning. ::)
-
Ah bullshit you back-peddling little bitch. You tried to claim that replacing a heart was a simple solution because the details involved don't matter as to whether or not it's simple.
It is an infinitely simpler solution than performing delicate procecures on blood vessels that are a fraction of a millimeter wide.
Then you tried to claim fixing a computer is complicated because then the details magically did matter. ::)
So, you assert that it's equally "simple and easy" to replace an entire motherboard (which involves only screwing a few screws and plugging in a couple of cables) to troubleshoot the existing motherboard using specialized tools, desoldering a bad capacitor, and then soldering a new one back on?
I pointed out you can oversimplify anything to that point and you've yet to be able to refute it.
Why would I refute your position? It's not my position.
You've yet to show anything that can't be boiled down to "simply fix x" or simply solve for "y", or whatever.
Of course, because that's not what I argued for. Do you really expect me to argue for and defend what you imagine my positions to be?
No, that's not the "only" solution. Since you're clearly not bright enough to know...I'll give you one. The Supreme Court can and does reverse itself.
That's certainly true - but that blade cuts both ways. The Supreme Court could reverse its previous reversal and you're back at square one. A Constitutional Amendment prevents the Court from doing so, since what is explicitly in the Constitution (whether in the original text or in an Amendment) is, by definition, constitutional and not something that the Court can "rewrite."
We won't worry about the details...cause according to you, they don't count.
Repeating this won't make it true.
See, what a "simple" solution. Get the Supreme Court to reverse itself. ::)
If it were a solution, I'd agree that it's simple (but not easy). It's not a solution, so I don't even need to consider it.
You haven't given one.
Just because you don't accept what I've given doesn't mean I haven't given one.
According to you "replace the heart" is simple.
It's simpler than a lot of other alternatives.
But, "fix the computer" is complicated.
An elephant is big, and Pluto is small. You seem to assume that a word like "complicated" represents some fixed quantity of complexity, so that just because two activities are complicated, they're somehow equally difficult.
Yep, you're a pillar of logic and reasoning. ::)
I don't know about a pillar, but I'm doing better than you :)
-
It is an infinitely simpler solution than performing delicate procecures on blood vessels that are a fraction of a millimeter wide.
So, you assert that it's equally "simple and easy" to replace an entire motherboard (which involves only screwing a few screws and plugging in a couple of cables) to troubleshoot the existing motherboard using specialized tools, desoldering a bad capacitor, and then soldering a new one back on?
Why would I refute your position? It's not my position.
Of course, because that's not what I argued for. Do you really expect me to argue for and defend what you imagine my positions to be?
Uh no...that's EXACTLY what you argued, and EXACTLY what I took you task on.
Refer to my 1st post:
"Well let's hear it avxo...name one "complicated" solution under your retardness.
Here's a hint...anything you come up with...I can claim is "simple" as long I don't count the details."
And, since you're not bright enough to know...that's not and was not a threat in any way, shape, or form, lol.
Now that you've had your ass handed to you, you've backpeddled like a little bitch.
That's certainly true - but that blade cuts both ways. The Supreme Court could reverse its previous reversal and you're back at square one. A Constitutional Amendment prevents the Court from doing so, since what is explicitly in the Constitution (whether in the original text or in an Amendment) is, by definition, constitutional and not something that the Court can "rewrite."
Yeah and the Amendment can be repealed. ::)
It can go round and round and round. Is it slowly starting to seep in yet?
I don't know about a pillar, but I'm doing better than you :)
lol,
Dude, you're trying to argue that replacing a heart is simple, but fixing a computer is complicated.
Then you're tried to claim you had the "only" solution...until, of course, I pointed out another. Hell, you even made it big and bold, lol. Here's a hint...there's still others - maybe you can figure them out.
Yep, that's doing better, lolololol.
Well, it's been fun slapping you around...but now you bore me and this is just going in circles. Get your last word of brilliance in and we'll call it quits.
You are funny...I'll give you that.
-
MONDAY JULY 2, 2012
Top Romney Adviser: Individual Mandate A Penalty, Not A Tax
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser for Mitt Romney, said Monday that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax.” Pointing to the opinion of the four dissenting justices who “very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax,” Fehrnstrom told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that when the mandate was imposed in Massachusetts under the law signed by Romney, it was a penalty and not a tax.
TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you’re saying?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that it is not a tax.
TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. He has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax. He needs to reconcile those two very different statements.
Reported by Tom Kludt
You realize they tried to argue it both ways?
-
Uh no...that's EXACTLY what you argued, and EXACTLY what I took you task on.
Refer to my 1st post:
"Well let's hear it avxo...name one "complicated" solution under your retardness.
Here's a hint...anything you come up with...I can claim is "simple" as long I don't count the details."
Right - you're the one that introduced the concept of details. You seriously expect me to argue your own ridiculous point for you? Besides, I did mention the graph coloring problem, which you conveniently glossed over completely, which is a pity, since there is a quantifiable framework in place that allows to talk about complexity of such problems. It does require a bit of a background in either Mathematics or Computer Science though.
And, since you're not bright enough to know...that's not and was not a threat in any way, shape, or form, lol.
If I'm not bright enough, then what, exactly, does it make you, given you're trying to argue with someone stupid?
Now that you've had your ass handed to you, you've backpeddled like a little bitch.
That's backpedal, by the way. ;D
Yeah and the Amendment can be repealed. ::)
Right, but as you and Beach Bum observed, it is inherently much more involved to repeal an Amendment (since the process actually involves passing a new Amendment). And that's the reason why an Amendment is better than a Court decision: a Court decision only really needs 4 votes to get cert and 5 votes for a majority. So all you need, is five people who are not elected and are not accountable to the public. An Amendment, on the other hand, requires a process that would involve a lot more more people (all of Congress, and a large amount of State legislatures) all of whom are accountable to the public.
It can go round and round and round. Is it slowly starting to seep in yet?
The only thing that's starting to seep in is that you have problems with English comprehension. Don't feel bad, it's a big issue and it affects many people. Symptoms include graduating high school yet only being able to read at the 7th grade level.
Dude, you're trying to argue that replacing a heart is simple, but fixing a computer is complicated.
No, that's not what I'm trying to argue. With your logic, you may as well argue that since I said "An elephant is big, and Pluto is small" I argued that an elephant is bigger than Pluto. Words like "easy" and "hard" and "simple" and "complex" denote degrees of difficulty and can't always be compared to each other as they are are not absolute measures.
Then you're tried to claim you had the "only" solution...until, of course, I pointed out another. Hell, you even made it big and bold, lol. Here's a hint...there's still others - maybe you can figure them out.
I never tried to claim that I have the only solution on the issue, although I believe an Amendment explicitly limiting the tax power of Congress (and, for that matter circumscribing the authority granted to Congress under the Commerce and Necessary&Proper clauses) would be a wonderful idea.
Well, it's been fun slapping you around...but now you bore me and this is just going in circles. Get your last word of brilliance in and we'll call it quits.
That's so kind of you. I tried hard to come up with something brilliant, so as not to waste this opportunity, but all I could come up with is: I don't think "slapping around" means what you think it means. Sorry to disappoint!::)
-
Obama’s Systematic Assault on the Truth
Peter Wehner | @Peter_Wehner 07.02.2012 - 9:19 AM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/02/obama-systematic-assault-on-the-truth
The Democratic talking points have been issued and are being followed to the letter (see here and here). And they go like this: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is not a tax; it’s a penalty. Those who suggests it’s a tax are wrong, in error, disingenuous, and dissemblers.
Here’s the problem, though: characterizing the Affordable Care Act as a tax isn’t simply the interpretation of Chief Justice John Roberts and a majority of the Supreme Court; it’s the interpretation of the Obama administration.
As this story put it:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the Court had a duty to uphold an act of Congress if there was a constitutional basis for doing so. And the basis he seized on was the fallback argument [Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli included in the briefs—that the Constitution gives Congress a broad power to impose taxes to “provide for the general welfare.”
The government’s legal brief said the insurance mandate operates in practice as a tax law. No one would be prosecuted or punished for not having insurance. If they had taxable income, however, they would be forced to pay a small tax penalty.
The chief justice agreed with this argument, and so did the four liberal justices. Though Congress may not “order” people to buy insurance, Roberts held in the 5-4 decision, it may impose a small tax on those who refuse.
The Affordable Care Act, then, was upheld as constitutional based on the tax argument put forward by President Obama’s legal team. And yet the Obama administration is now insisting the Affordable Care Act never was a tax, is not now a tax, and shall never be a tax.
This is yet another example of how Barack Obama is a thoroughly post-modern president. Words and facts have no objective standing; they are relative, socially constructed, a way to advance personal reality. If referring to the Affordable Care Act as a tax helps advance the Obama agenda, then it’s a tax. If referring to the ACA as a penalty helps advance the Obama agenda, it becomes a penalty.
You like tomato and I like tomahto.
That philosophy may be fine for liberal arts professors and even tolerable among community organizers. But when the president of the United States systematically assaults truth—if words mean whatever you want them to mean—it becomes rather more problematic. Yet that is precisely where the United States finds itself in the summer of 2012.
-
Obama’s Systematic Assault on the Truth
Peter Wehner | @Peter_Wehner 07.02.2012 - 9:19 AM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/02/obama-systematic-assault-on-the-truth
The Democratic talking points have been issued and are being followed to the letter (see here and here). And they go like this: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is not a tax; it’s a penalty. Those who suggests it’s a tax are wrong, in error, disingenuous, and dissemblers.
Here’s the problem, though: characterizing the Affordable Care Act as a tax isn’t simply the interpretation of Chief Justice John Roberts and a majority of the Supreme Court; it’s the interpretation of the Obama administration.
As this story put it:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the Court had a duty to uphold an act of Congress if there was a constitutional basis for doing so. And the basis he seized on was the fallback argument [Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli included in the briefs—that the Constitution gives Congress a broad power to impose taxes to “provide for the general welfare.”
The government’s legal brief said the insurance mandate operates in practice as a tax law. No one would be prosecuted or punished for not having insurance. If they had taxable income, however, they would be forced to pay a small tax penalty.
The chief justice agreed with this argument, and so did the four liberal justices. Though Congress may not “order” people to buy insurance, Roberts held in the 5-4 decision, it may impose a small tax on those who refuse.
The Affordable Care Act, then, was upheld as constitutional based on the tax argument put forward by President Obama’s legal team. And yet the Obama administration is now insisting the Affordable Care Act never was a tax, is not now a tax, and shall never be a tax.
This is yet another example of how Barack Obama is a thoroughly post-modern president. Words and facts have no objective standing; they are relative, socially constructed, a way to advance personal reality. If referring to the Affordable Care Act as a tax helps advance the Obama agenda, then it’s a tax. If referring to the ACA as a penalty helps advance the Obama agenda, it becomes a penalty.
You like tomato and I like tomahto.
That philosophy may be fine for liberal arts professors and even tolerable among community organizers. But when the president of the United States systematically assaults truth—if words mean whatever you want them to mean—it becomes rather more problematic. Yet that is precisely where the United States finds itself in the summer of 2012.
your man says it's not a tax so i'm going with that ;D
-
your man says it's not a tax so i'm going with that ;D
-
And then the robber runs over to the children orphanage and gives them money for health care
-
didn't team romney step in shit by saying it was NOT a tax this weekend?
-
didn't team romney step in shit by saying it was NOT a tax this weekend?
NOPE!!
The Supreme Court ruled it a tax, which is the ONLY reason it still exists. Therefore, Obama defecated on his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
-
NOPE!!
The Supreme Court ruled it a tax, which is the ONLY reason it still exists. Therefore, Obama defecated on his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
yes, about 1% of the middle class.
-
Obama Lies, Taxes Rise
http://noisyroom.net/ ^ | 6.30.12 | Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
The Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare came as a severe shock to me as I am sure it did to all of you. I was literally ill after I heard the decision. It has taken me a couple of days to settle down enough to write on this and I am sure that my take will differ from many of my colleagues who are willing to read into Justice Roberts’ betrayal some sort of Constitutional maneuvering. Even among conservatives at NoisyRoom there is disagreement on this. But that is what makes being free even sweeter. We can each have our own opinions, for now at least.
Let me state that I don’t give a crap whether Roberts was trying to finesse the Constitution or promote his own reputation on the backsides of hard working Americans – he betrayed those he serves. He put himself above Americans and instead of doing his job and acting as legal arbiter in a protective role, he dumped it back on Americans to either sink or swim in a poisonous sea of Obama-crafted regulation. He could have handled the Commerce Clause issue and Obamacare at the same time, but that is not what happened. Roberts did ensure two things though… The first is that he will be remembered as a Progressive coward – that he took the self-serving way out, no matter how many intellectuals try to spin it otherwise. The second is that he has energized the Tea Party and awakened a giant who will surely deliver a mandate in November sending Obama and the other Marxists packing.
Does anyone out there genuinely believe this is what the Founders had envisioned? Passing the largest tax increase in American history that if not stopped, will surely break the back of a once great nation. While putting into place an IRS Gestapo, 16,500 and more strong that will act as a jack booted thuggish arm of the Obama administration. Taxation will be thoroughly (even more than now) weaponized and will be used to punish enemies of the state. Remind you of anyone? Comply or else and everyone is a criminal. How very Atlas Shrugged.
From Rush Limbaugh:
“Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world and the people who were characterizing it as such were right and were telling the truth,” Limbaugh said.
“The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts said ‘it’s not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. Not our job.’ Well what about when we are deceived?” he asked.
“The court upheld a law that was not what we were told it would be. What has been upheld here is fraud and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama’s domestic army. That is what we face now.”
Somewhere between 18 and 22 new taxes will be levied because of this ruling. Some begin next year. I don’t know about you, but we are having trouble making it now and we are already worried about the heavy food inflation we are seeing here. I definitely wonder how we will make it with these new taxes if they come into play. I know the Republicans have sworn to repeal Obamacare, but until conservatives control the Senate and House and have taken back the White House, I don’t see it happening. Even then I have grave doubts because I keep hearing “repeal and replace.” What the hell? Just repeal the damn thing and forget replacing it. Let the free market do its job and keep the government out of it.
I see this whole tax situation akin to the Jizya tax placed on infidels as they do under Shariah law. That is what this feels like. Convert or pay the tax or die. Well, I will not submit. I will fight for this next election to see Romney elected. He wasn’t my first choice and he is Progressive light, but he’s not a communist and I believe he is a moral man. I will fight to help us regain the Senate and expand in the House. It’s life or death and as Paul Ryan said, this November is our last chance. We dare not fail or America as we know and love her is over.
Obamacare will add $1.15 trillion to the national debt. Americans need to confront that and understand what that means. There is no coming back from that. We are bankrupt and it will finish us off. Forget about a Depression, this will be a financial Armageddon. As a matter of fact, there is an argument to be made that that boat has already sailed because the US now carries a mind numbing $15 trillion in debt and another $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities related to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Obamacare is the final nail in the fiscal coffin of America and Obama knows it. If implemented, Cloward and Piven will succeed so massively not even they could have dreamed of attaining such complete success.
Consider the following:
Congressional Budget Office report says ”Affordable Care Act” could cause 20 million private sector employees to lose their health care coverage
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/216223-cbo-millions-of-americans-could-lose-their-employer-coverage
Full CBO report (PDF) http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-15-ACA_and_Insurance_2.pdf
Study finds “Affordable Care Act” will impose more than $500 billion in tax increases on U.S. private sector
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/obamacare-impact-on-taxpayers
Study finds “Affordable Care Act” will impose 18 separate tax increases
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-new-taxes-destroying-jobs-and-the-economy
Study finds “Affordable Care Act” will increase budget deficit by more than $1.15 trillion
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/yes-virginia-obamacare-does-worsen-deficit_640398.html
Full study (PDF) http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/The-Fiscal-Consequences-of-the-Affordable-Care-Act_1.pdf
85% of small businesses are not hiring new employees, and nearly half of those businesses say the potential cost of health care regulations is a major reason
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152654/Health-Costs-Gov-Regulations-Curb-Small-Business-Hiring.aspx
46% of American doctors say they may leave the profession if federal government takes over the U.S. health care system
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA606.html
Top doctor’s chilling claim: British National Health System kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html
“Up to 20,000 people have died needlessly early after being denied cancer drugs on the NHS”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1257944/NICE-rejects-cancer-drugs-extended-patients-lives.html
A useful analysis of the folly of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion from the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304058404577494400059173634.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
My opinion is not unique. It is shared by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. All of whom I admire and respect. The decision was lawless and unconstitutional. Allen West puts it best:
“The United States Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by extending the power of the United States Congress to tax Americans’ behavior. This is a sad day for Americans, as they will be taxed to pay for benefits they may not need or want as part of the insurance they are forced to buy. With this decision, Congress has been granted infinite taxation power, and there are no longer any limits on what the federal government can tax its citizens to do.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will hit the middle class especially hard, as hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as businesses try to avoid the penalties and costs created by the healthcare law. The healthcare law will cost trillions of dollars, raise costs for employers and create huge incentives for them to drop health insurance.
Benjamin Franklin did indeed state, ‘In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.’ However, Dr. Franklin never envisioned the federal government would use its power of taxation to punish people for not purchasing health care. Today, individual sovereignty in America has been defeated.” – Congressman Allen West
This horrific ruling (one in which a 1st grader could have made a more informed constitutional decision than Roberts) will empower the most arrogant man in the world even further. If he is not booted out of office in November, there will be no stopping his ‘change.’ Even then, the damage he will do as a lame duck will be thunderous.
The power to tax is the power to destroy and so Obamacare will. It will destroy jobs, what’s left of our economy, our sovereignty and our defenses. It will finish off the Constitution. What Obama denied as a tax, is THE tax of all time and those that feel it won’t affect them are dangerously delusional.
Time to fight – time to grow up and get out there and get everyone you know to vote. It’s mandate time. Roberts screwed the pooch on this one, now we have to roll up our sleeves and realize that no branch of our government supports us. We have to make sure this next election is a blow out. Stand up and scream, “I will not comply!” Vote the arrogant bastard out of office and let us begin to heal.
Obama lies, taxes rise…
-
NOPE!!
The Supreme Court ruled it a tax, which is the ONLY reason it still exists. Therefore, Obama defecated on his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
i agree its a tax. but one of the romney team was on meet the press saying it WAS NOT. Because then he'd have to admit romney raised taxes - did exact same thing - as governor. it's a tricky spot. morning joe was all over that clod this morning, saying he's lucck it happened during summer lull in coverage on a holiday week. not sure the name of the romney campaign operative on MTP this weekend - i'm sure DU is all over it.
-
Depends on how you define "Tax". The mandate, or to be specific the refusal to purchase insurance, results in a FINE that is paid to the IRS. Is this "fine" considered a tax? There is debate over that.
-
Depends on how you define "Tax". The mandate, or to be specific the refusal to purchase insurance, results in a FINE that is paid to the IRS. Is this "fine" considered a tax? There is debate over that.
hmm yet another gimmick...
hey brainchild, why is obamacare still legal?
b/c it was deemed a tax, there isnt any getting around that
you can spin it anyway you want just like pelosi, the fact is there reason its still legal is b/c roberts deemed it a tax.................
deal with it..............
-
hmm yet another gimmick...
hey brainchild, why is obamacare still legal?
b/c it was deemed a tax, there isnt any getting around that
you can spin it anyway you want just like pelosi, the fact is there reason its still legal is b/c roberts deemed it a tax.................
deal with it..............
"Gimmick"?
Obamacare is legal because it was deemed a tax? What does that even mean? What part of the decision did ROberts say it was a tax? Quote it. Thanks.
-
Roberts is a traitor even ghettobama argued it was not a tax
fu libs
-
Roberts is a traitor even ghettobama argued it was not a tax
fu libs
Traitor to whom? Supreme court judges aren't supposed to be on anyone's side except for the laws. Are you assuming that he is some republican stooge who traded on his party? ::)
-
Traitor to whom? Supreme court judges aren't supposed to be on anyone's side except for the laws. Are you assuming that he is some republican stooge who traded on his party? ::)
Traitor to reality. Ghettothugbama argued it was not a tax remember?
-
Traitor to reality. Ghettothugbama argued it was not a tax remember?
It is a penalty paid to the IRS, which can be interpreted as a tax. Read the SC decision before opening your mouth again.
-
It is a penalty paid to the IRS, which can be interpreted as a tax. Read the SC decision before opening your mouth again.
LOL - so you have to go so far as make an argument that even your getto messiah did not make to make it legal
________________________ ______________-
Thomas Dissents: It’s All Unconstitutional
http://www.redstate.com/ ^ | June 29 2012 | by Daniel Horowitz
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 7:55:10 PM by Para-Ord.45
Oh, how far we’ve deviated from our Founders in just over 200 years.
The entire country is pouring over an incoherent, internally contradictory, ill-conceived and politically motivated decision by Chief Justice Roberts, which grants Congress the power to regulate anything that moves and the power to tax anything that moves and anything that doesn’t move.
Amidst the garrulous analysis from the conservative pundit class on the Roberts decision, there is a one-page dissent from Justice Thomas (in addition to his joint dissent with the other 3 conservatives) that has been overlooked. The joint dissent with Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy focuses primarily on taking down Roberts’s tax powers jurisprudence and Ginsburg’s opinion on the unlimited power of the Commerce Clause. Thomas felt there was a need to add one point. Not only was Roberts way off the reservation by rewriting this law as a tax and concurrently expanding the tax power of Congress, he was also wrong about the Commerce Clause.
Take a look at this paragraph from Thomas’s dissent (last two-pages of pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )
"I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress un-der the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate“economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995). I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545"
As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity...
Here’s what James Madison had to say about the Commerce Clause in a letter to Joseph C. Cabell in 1829:
" For a like reason, I made no reference to the “power to regulate commerce among the several States.” I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and
was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government "
Madison is bemoaning the expansion and misconstruing of the Commerce Clause circa 1829! One can only imagine what he would say about our entire domestic policy in 2012.
The reality is that not only is Obamacare unconstitutional, almost every discretionary department, welfare program, and entitlement program is unconstitutional. Obviously, we cannot repeal each one overnight and must deal with them prudently, but we must not buy into the notion that the prevailing view of federal power over the past 80 years is sacrosanct. It’s not. We get our rights from God, not from the government, and not even from the Constitution. The Constitution grants the federal government a few enumerated powers. We must not let the views of one unprincipled man in a black robe – or even decades’ worth of misguided court decisions – abrogate our founding documents.
James Madison would be proud of Clarence Thomas.
-
LOL - so you have to go so far as make an argument that even your getto messiah did not make to make it legal
________________________ ______________-
Thomas Dissents: It’s All Unconstitutional
http://www.redstate.com/ ^ | June 29 2012 | by Daniel Horowitz
Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 7:55:10 PM by Para-Ord.45
Oh, how far we’ve deviated from our Founders in just over 200 years.
The entire country is pouring over an incoherent, internally contradictory, ill-conceived and politically motivated decision by Chief Justice Roberts, which grants Congress the power to regulate anything that moves and the power to tax anything that moves and anything that doesn’t move.
Amidst the garrulous analysis from the conservative pundit class on the Roberts decision, there is a one-page dissent from Justice Thomas (in addition to his joint dissent with the other 3 conservatives) that has been overlooked. The joint dissent with Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy focuses primarily on taking down Roberts’s tax powers jurisprudence and Ginsburg’s opinion on the unlimited power of the Commerce Clause. Thomas felt there was a need to add one point. Not only was Roberts way off the reservation by rewriting this law as a tax and concurrently expanding the tax power of Congress, he was also wrong about the Commerce Clause.
Take a look at this paragraph from Thomas’s dissent (last two-pages of pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )
"I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress un-der the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate“economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995). I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545"
As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity...
Here’s what James Madison had to say about the Commerce Clause in a letter to Joseph C. Cabell in 1829:
" For a like reason, I made no reference to the “power to regulate commerce among the several States.” I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and
was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government "
Madison is bemoaning the expansion and misconstruing of the Commerce Clause circa 1829! One can only imagine what he would say about our entire domestic policy in 2012.
The reality is that not only is Obamacare unconstitutional, almost every discretionary department, welfare program, and entitlement program is unconstitutional. Obviously, we cannot repeal each one overnight and must deal with them prudently, but we must not buy into the notion that the prevailing view of federal power over the past 80 years is sacrosanct. It’s not. We get our rights from God, not from the government, and not even from the Constitution. The Constitution grants the federal government a few enumerated powers. We must not let the views of one unprincipled man in a black robe – or even decades’ worth of misguided court decisions – abrogate our founding documents.
James Madison would be proud of Clarence Thomas.
I ignore long articles unrelated to the request I made.
-
It is a penalty paid to the IRS, which can be interpreted as a tax. Read the SC decision before opening your mouth again.
So it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, but it's a kitty?
-
So it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, but it's a kitty?
Taxes are levied for specific purposes and under specific rules and circumstances. "Fines" are different.
-
Taxes are levied for specific purposes and under specific rules and circumstances. "Fines" are different.
Taxes are meant for revenue generation, not to penalize behavior. Taxes also must be apportioned amongst the states.
For them to call this a penalty is absurd since the IRS is collecting it.
-
Taxes are meant for revenue generation, not to penalize behavior. Taxes also must be apportioned amongst the states.
For them to call this a penalty is absurd since the IRS is collecting it.
There is also a specific reason that the IRS is collecting it.
Go to work. Get a job. Get a life!
If you are at work...Stop wasting company time on GETBIG.
-
There is also a specific reason that the IRS is collecting it.
Go to work. Get a job. Get a life!
If you are at work...Stop wasting company time on GETBIG.
The reason is that its now considered a tax by the court - whether obama says so or not.
Obama lied - Health Care died.
-
The reason is that its now considered a tax by the court - whether obama says so or not.
Obama lied - Health Care died.
Go to work. Get a job. Get a life!
If you are at work...Stop wasting company time on GETBIG.
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court
Obama's lawyer argued in court it was a tax.
-
Byron York: 0bama administration denies it argued the ACA mandiate was tax
Twitter ^
Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:57:16
Question for legal tweeps: Obama campaign is now denying that administration SG ever argued that Obamacare mandate is a tax.
Looking at oral arguments, SG Verrilli said mandate is 'justifiable under its tax power.' Can't find him saying 'It is a tax'…
So therefore: Is Obama hiding behind legal hairsplitting, arguing mandate is constitutional under tax power but is not actually a tax?
This is your Afro-communist president for you.
-
Taxes also must be apportioned amongst the states.
Not strictly true. See the 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." (emphasis mine)
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court
Obama's lawyer argued in court it was a tax.
looks like romney and obama are now in agreement -
that the law authored by romney and copied by obma -
is in fact a TAX.
-
looks like romney and obama are now in agreement -
that the law authored by romney and copied by obma -
is in fact a TAX.
And, when you say you're not going to raise taxes on the middle class yet you do, that makes Obama the very thing he and his supporters claim Romney is.
The American people have told Obama and the Dems, in no uncertain terms, that they don't want this mess. Arguing what Romney did in Massachusetts doesn't change that.
-
And, when you say you're not going to raise taxes on the middle class yet you do, that makes Obama the very thing he and his supporters claim Romney is.
The American people have told Obama and the Dems, in no uncertain terms, that they don't want this mess. Arguing what Romney did in Massachusetts doesn't change that.
Yes im sure the american people dont want health coverage ::)
Nothing says freedom like dying of sickness or in an accident because you cant afford healt care