Obama lied about mandate not being a "Tax"

[Skeletor]

One post at 01:24:42 PM, the next at 01:26:02 PM.. Someone is anxious to "make a point", pressing f5 furiously..

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Skip8282]

*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. 

[avxo]

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.

[whork]

Obama lied no doubt.

[chadstallion]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

'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 ...

[Soul Crusher]

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!

[Soul Crusher]

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

[blacken700]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[blacken700]

your man says it's not, you two have to get on the same page   

[Soul Crusher]

your man says it's not, you two have to get on the same page   

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

[Skip8282]

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. 

[avxo]

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

[Skip8282]

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.

[Skip8282]

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?

[avxo]

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.

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!:

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[blacken700]

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

[Soul Crusher]

your man says it's not a tax so i'm going with that

[whork]

And then the robber runs over to the children orphanage and gives them money for health care

[240 is Back]

didn't team romney step in shit by saying it was NOT a tax this weekend?

[MCWAY]

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.

[chadstallion]

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.