Obama lied about mandate not being a "Tax"

[Soul Crusher]

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…

[240 is Back]

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.

[DKlent]

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.

[tonymctones]

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..............

[DKlent]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

Roberts is a traitor    even ghettobama argued it was not a tax   


fu libs     

[DKlent]

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? 

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[DKlent]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[DKlent]

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.

[avxo]

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?

[DKlent]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[DKlent]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[DKlent]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court


Obama's lawyer argued in court it was a tax.   

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[avxo]

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)

[240 is Back]

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. 

[MCWAY]

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.

[whork]

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