Obamacare easily survives supreme court

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Overall, this is a significant victory for Obama, but I don't see how anyone can say he doesn't look buffoonish in this respect.

The SCOTUS said it was a tax in their interpretation.
Obama did not, how does this make him look buffoonish?

Nice regurgitation of the primary talking point on basically every news network today.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

The SCOTUS said it was a tax in their interpretation.
Obama did not, how does this make him look buffoonish?

.

Obama sold this bill as something other than a tax hike. Obama got infuriated at anyone who said it was a tax hike. Then the liberal justices, plus Roberts, say that it's obviously a tax hike.

Obama threw a temper tantrum everytime someone called it a tax hike. Some impatrtial, intelligent folks called it a tax hike.

Shows that Obama may not fully grasp what a "tax hike" is, which in my opinion makes him a buffoon. Disagree if you wish...

[scottw]

I'm curious, I've not had time to read much but from what I have read and from what we were told which was that the individual mandate was the funding mechanism for Obamacare and that if it were struck down, the other parts, even if upheld, could not survive without the funding mechanism....

anyway...I did read that while the mandate was upheld, individual states retain the right to opt out of the individual mandate clause, if this is the case, are the states that choose not to opt out going to bear all of the burden of funding this monstrosity?

if so, this is pretty funny...except that I live in the bluest of blue states

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama sold this bill as something other than a tax hike. Obama got infuriated at anyone who said it was a tax hike. Then the liberal justices, plus Roberts, say that it's obviously a tax hike.

Obama threw a temper tantrum everytime someone called it a tax hike. Some impatrtial, intelligent folks called it a tax hike.

Shows that Obama may not fully grasp what a "tax hike" is, which in my opinion makes him a buffoon. Disagree if you wish...

Obama was selling it by what it provided, the justices ruled on it based on how it is funded.

Only a buffoon couldn't understand that.

[scottw]

G. Will and the Kraut both have interesting articles on the why's and what for's


Chief Justice Roberts Provides Swing Vote To Uphold Health Care Law CBS DC

The justices rejected two of the administration’s three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts said.

Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax - ABC News

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.

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

my favorite part is where he says "What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore" Obama


really????? can we apply this to the rest of your programs and rapidly expanding welfare state....please????

at some point you will have a healthcare deduction on your pay stub right along with Social Security, Medicare and all the rest and whatever else they dream up...it's already in place, just need to send the money to a different address

[CTSurfrat]

So now the government can tax you for doing nothing. If I don't buy health insurance, I have to pay a tax! CNS new has a great analysis of Robert's ruling. At one point he says it is not a tax, and the later in his ruling he says it is....you can't make it up.

Chief Justice Roberts: It's Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break It | CNSNews.com

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

So now the government can tax you for doing nothing. If I don't buy health insurance, I have to pay a tax! CNS new has a great analysis of Robert's ruling. At one point he says it is not a tax, and the later in his ruling he says it is....you can't make it up.

Chief Justice Roberts: It's Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break It | CNSNews.com

Not only does he contradict himself, but his general observation that the Congress has the power to tax does not point to its specifec constitutional powers of taxation: the income tax, excise tax, or capitation. His phantom power to tax inactivity doesn't fall under any of the three categories. It sets a precedent and opens the door for the Federal Government to have unlimited powers of taxation. Which basically gives it back the unlimited power that was taken away by denying the government its commerce clause power to regulate inactivity. Very strange ruling indeed. But this has been the pattern by which the Federal Government has grown beyond the limits imposed by the Consitution and is becoming the very leviathan the Founders and their Constitution wished to prevent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Obama was selling it by what it provided, the justices ruled on it based on how it is funded.

Only a buffoon couldn't understand that.

Obama said the way it's funded is not a tax hike. He sold the bill as something other than what it is. Since you chose to get personal here, allow me to retort. Only a brainwashed, unthinking Kool Aid drinker would fail to admit that.

When the federal government confiscates more money from its citizenry than it did previously, that's the textbook definition of a tax increase. Obama denied that to make the bill appear less objectionable. Is that the "change" we were promised? Only a buffoon would say "yes". Welcome to buffoonery.

Obama said it's not a tax hike. That means one of two things. Either he is a liar, or he doesn't know what a tax hike is. Those are the only two choices, there simply isn't a third choice. Only an ideologically-blinded buffoon would fail to see that. Try making that wrong.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama said it's not a tax hike. That means one of two things. Either he is a liar, or he doesn't know what a tax hike is.

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

Unless you're in on the take, you've been fleeced too. So you're either a buffoon or a crook.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Unless you're in on the take, you've been fleeced too. So you're either a buffoon or a crook.

It doesn't take either to have common sense.
And having actually done some reading.

Technically speaking the IRS collects more than just taxes, but, semantics, etc.

Calling it a tax just makes it constitutionally sound.

I'm gonna guess nobody realized that the "penalty" aka "tax" was collected by the IRS did they?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

"or he's a politician who's fleeced you."

(1) Fleeced means tricked, which is pretty close to lying.

(2) When Obama was campaigning he promised change, bringing people together, and transparency. So if he "fleeced" anyone, that necessarily means he lied on the campaign trail, doesn't it? That doesn't sound like the "change" he promised.

(3) He didn't fleece me, because I don't worship at his altar. I didn't believe for one second he was going to add millions to insurance rolls, increase coverage for all of them, and lower costs. Only the Kool Aid drinkers got fleeced, not the people who live in the real world and act accordingly.

Yes, only a buffoon would allow himself to get fleeced by Obama. His opponents are obviously not the ones getting fleeced, however...his disciples are the ones getting fleeced. The people who buy into his liberal rehtoric are the ones getting fleeced. The ones who accept it when Obama says Medicare isn't going bankrupt, are the ones who are getting fleeced. The ones who accept it when Obama sas that Social Security isn't in serious trouble, are the ones getting fleeced.

Because Obama is tricking them into believing that all those benefits will still be there in 30 years. And they will not. The impact of the Baby Boomers is a mathematical guarantee that those benefits will not exist for subsequent generations, not at anywhere near current benefit and funding levels.

Unfortunately for liberals, arithmetic trumps ideology.

Likwid, I know Obama is full of crap when he denies that Social Security and Medicare are in serious trouble. Liberals don't question anything that comes out of his mouth, as long as he is promising to give them goodies. I know that 7-th grade mathematics means those benefits cannot possibly survive much longer, so I am planning accordingly. Liberals believe Obama's false promises. When the demographic earthquake of the baby boomer generation brings down the house of cards, those who believed Obama will be left with nothing but his empty promises. Those who use their brains will weather the storm.

I'm saving for retirement and my kids' education in post-tax accounts, and I'm almost done. When the house of cards collapses, and we realize that european-level income tax rates are the only way to pay our bills, I won't have much pre-tax income for you and your ilk to touch. Unfortunately, Obama is "fleecing", in your words, millions of saps into believeing that things are better than they are.

We'll see who gets fleeced, and who didn't.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm saving for retirement and my kids' education in post-tax accounts, and I'm almost done. When the house of cards collapses, and we realize that european-level income tax rates are the only way to pay our bills, I won't have much pre-tax income for you and your ilk to touch.

So tell me, since you're obviously on the up and up, who exactly is "you and your ilk"?