Obamacare Upheld — Should We Be Shocked? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare Upheld — Should We Be Shocked?


maxsnafu
06-28-2012, 09:46
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/aca-upheld-should-we-be-shocked/

"If Republicans are serious about their opposition to the individual mandate, which I very much doubt, they can repeal it the next time they have enough legislative power. It will be interesting to watch, though, how many Republicans use this ruling as an excuse to drop their opposition to the mandate because now it’s 'constitutional'."

I predict the GOP would not repeal this law even if they had the votes to do so. But they do talk a good game.

CAcop
06-28-2012, 09:49
Probably.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

robertoh
06-28-2012, 09:52
Justice Roberts wussed out and punted the ball right into our pocketbooks.:whistling:

Cavalry Doc
06-28-2012, 10:05
The choice is clear, if you want Barrycare fully implemented, help Democrats stay in office.

Guss
06-28-2012, 10:09
The choice is clear, if you want Barrycare fully implemented, help Democrats stay in office.
All the Republicans have to do is to come up with something better.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 10:11
All the Republicans have to do is to come up with something better.


I'm really not sure about that. I sense that the majority of Americans would be satisfied, initially, with Obamacare just being gone. They seem to be of the mind that starting from scratch is a preferable option.


.

Kablam
06-28-2012, 10:22
The majority of Americans will just forget about it now that the noise is over and accept this new gov intrusion. That's what happens when the gov grows...noise about it then acceptance. Explains how we got so far from the founders idea of the US gov. Sheep.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 10:26
The majority of Americans had no idea there was even an issue before the Supreme Court, and after a few blurbs on the six o-clock news tonight, will forget it's an issue at all.

Only a small minority of Americans watch the political editorial channels (which somehow pass for "cable news").

JFrame
06-28-2012, 10:29
The majority of Americans had no idea there was even an issue before the Supreme Court, and after a few blurbs on the six o-clock news tonight, will forget it's an issue at all.

Only a small minority of Americans watch the political editorial channels (which somehow pass for "cable news").


Well -- the vast majority of Americans don't vote either. All we need to do is get enough of the ones that matter to vote.


.

engineer151515
06-28-2012, 10:31
All the Republicans have to do is to come up with something better.

How about getting the .govt out of health care?

I would consider that a much better plan.

engineer151515
06-28-2012, 10:32
The majority of Americans had no idea there was even an issue before the Supreme Court, and after a few blurbs on the six o-clock news tonight, will forget it's an issue at all.

Only a small minority of Americans watch the political editorial channels (which somehow pass for "cable news").

Polls of the voting public state otherwise.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 10:40
Polls of the voting public state otherwise.Do you know who answers polls? People who already have an opinion politically.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 10:52
it was ruled constitutionally sound because the individual mandate is a tax.

another tax from the left, imagine that.

dsa1115
06-28-2012, 11:01
IMO it's a positive because Justice Roberts just handed Romney a victory in November.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 11:04
IMO it's a positive because Justice Roberts just handed Romney a victory in November.

jew gotta splain dis to me. how did romney get the presidency with this tax vote?

JFrame
06-28-2012, 11:10
jew gotta splain dis to me. how did romney get the presidency with this tax vote?

I'm not sure I would have put it quite the same way -- but this issue definitely is one that galvanizes the conservative base, and may help rally them around Romney in a way no other single issue could.


.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 11:14
I'm not sure I would have put it quite the same way -- but this issue definitely is one that galvanizes the conservative base, and may help rally them around Romney in a way no other single issue could.


.

that could work if there were more conservatives in this country than there are liberals and pole sitters.

maxsnafu
06-28-2012, 11:15
IMO it's a positive because Justice Roberts just handed Romney a victory in November.


This is the same sort of irrational optimism that made many think the court would not uphold Obamacare.

thetoastmaster
06-28-2012, 11:19
it was ruled constitutionally sound because the individual mandate is a tax.

another tax from the left, imagine that.

Who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?

Dbltapglock
06-28-2012, 11:20
deleted

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 11:21
Who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?

i dont know. does it matter?

a president raising or making a new tax is nothing new. the health care bill was ruled as a tax, as thats what it is.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 11:22
I'm not sure if you all remember 2009, and the months leading up to the Obamacare vote. It was an extremely passionate issue, and emotions were continuously inflamed throughout. What other issue could have gotten over a million people from across the country to assemble at the Capitol to voice their displeasure (loudly)?

I can easily see these same passions re-stoked and sustained for the 4 1/2 months leading up to the election.


.

thetoastmaster
06-28-2012, 11:23
i dont know. does it matter?

a president raising or making a new tax is nothing new. the health care bill was ruled as a tax, as thats what it is.

Point is that it's not a Left or Right issue. This is what the powers that be want; so this is what we get.

maxsnafu
06-28-2012, 11:24
Who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?

George W. Bush--surprise!--the same fellow who tried to give us Harriet Miers.

CAcop
06-28-2012, 11:24
This is the same sort of irrational optimism that made many think the court would not uphold Obamacare.

Win the battle, loose the war.

If the Supremes had smacked down Obama people would be happy the system took care of them. Now they have to do it themselves at the polls.

Obama may get his legacy as the president who got universal health care. He just might also be another one term wonder. Remember 2010? How did that happen?

I am keeping track of the RCP presidental approval poll. Currently 47.9%.

Let's see where it is in a few days, then a week, then a month.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 11:27
most tax paying voters wont care as they wont feel the pain of this new tax until after obama has been re-elected.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 11:30
Who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?


I am certainly not happy with Roberts in this regard -- but how do you think Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago would have gone without him, and with a Democrat-nominated appointee instead?


.

syntaxerrorsix
06-28-2012, 11:34
Who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?

Bush. Pretty much discredits the neocon notion that Republicans will appoint like minded Justices huh?

Progressives suck.

syntaxerrorsix
06-28-2012, 11:35
I am certainly not happy with Roberts in this regard -- but how do you think Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago would have gone without him, and with a Democrat-nominated appointee instead?


.

Heller v DC was a huge step away from states rights and one giant step towards centralized rule.

Progressives suck.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 11:35
you cant blame justice roberts for ruling along constitutional lines.

some here wanted him to rule against the obama health tax because they didnt like it, they wanted activism from the bench, this time.

Ian Moone
06-28-2012, 11:36
Who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?

The craziest irony of the SCOTUS decision is ...once again Barry can blame an outcome under his presidency on Bush. Bush appointed Roberts.

Ain't that a kick in the jewels?

syntaxerrorsix
06-28-2012, 11:45
you cant blame justice roberts for ruling along constitutional lines.

some here wanted him to rule against the obama health tax because they didnt like it, they wanted activism from the bench, this time.

According to Obama it wasn't a tax.

FFR Spyder GT
06-28-2012, 11:45
Only a small minority of Americans watch the political editorial channels (which somehow pass for "cable news").

+1 Gundude!

Too many people, especially on GTPI, think that the political editorial channel(s) are actually news shows instead of Talking Heads for either the Right (Fox) or Left (MSNBC).

porschedog
06-28-2012, 11:48
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, the principal choice now facing Americans on November 6 will be whether to keep Obamacare or to repeal it. The question is a binary one, and the answer — expressed almost entirely through their presidential vote — will go a long way toward determining the future course of this great nation.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/teaser-large/images/teasers/repeal.jpg


Yes, the economy is extremely important; and, yes, Obamacare is hurting the economy. But the reason why this election is the most important since the Civil War is not because Mitt Romney would make a far better steward of the economy than President Obama (though he would). Rather, it’s because we are about to decide whether to put what will soon be one-fifth of our economy under the control of the federal government; whether to funnel previously unthinkable amounts of power and money to Washington; and whether this nation conceived in liberty will continue to prioritize liberty.
It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-it-economy-or-obamacare_514977.html?nopager=1). With the Supreme Court’s ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he’s concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better.

series1811
06-28-2012, 11:48
It just serves to emphasize, once again, what a deep divison runs through this country at present.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 11:48
According to Obama it wasn't a tax.


Yup -- and even though the SCOTUS calls it a tax, Obama is terrified of referring to it as a tax.


.

BierGut
06-28-2012, 11:49
Justice Roberts wussed out and punted the ball right into our pocketbooks.:whistling:

BS: Roberts is the only man with integrity in this mess.

He is 100% on target when he said:

"It is not our job to protect the people from consequences of their political choices."

And he's right -- it ain't his job.

It's been said before -- we get the government we deserve and there are too many places to point the finger at on that one.

syntaxerrorsix
06-28-2012, 11:49
Besides that Roberts appears to be a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

Roberts

People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act. That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.

Today we get,

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. … That, according to the [Federal] Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition — not owning health insurance — that triggers a tax — the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn*ing income. (emphasis added)

rahrah12
06-28-2012, 11:50
According to Obama it wasn't a tax.

According to Republicans it was...I guess they won...

G19G20
06-28-2012, 11:51
it was ruled constitutionally sound because the individual mandate is a tax.

another tax from the left, imagine that.

With the winning vote decided by....a Republican appointee. Anybody want to tell me again why voting for Republican presidents has any impact on SCOTUS over Democrat presidents? This same story keeps getting played out over and over again. The Feds win regardless of which party the President, Congress or SCOTUS is from. You'll never shrink government or return liberty to this country by doing the same crap that DOESN'T WORK over and over again. But hey Romney said he'd repeal his own law so yeah, I'll trust him. :rofl:

People just don't get the big picture here and it's what us Paul folks have been hammering on for months. It doesn't matter who you vote for in November. It's planned that way. You get the same policies and ever growing government no matter which box you check. GWB's appointee, Roberts, just proved this once again. The Feds ALWAYS WIN, or at least until you stop playing the game by their rules.

A Republican Congress will get just as huge of a windfall from this "Tax" as a Democrat Congress would. If you think the Republicans will take away their own punch bowl then you're a fool. It's the ruling elite vs. everyone else. Guess who keeps winning?

series1811
06-28-2012, 11:57
"It is not our job to protect the people from consequences of their political choices."

And he's right -- it ain't his job.

It's been said before -- we get the government we deserve and there are too many places to point the finger at on that one.

I don't know if we deserve it or not.

But, the problem is, I am starting to realize that a majority knows exactly what they want from the working minority, and knows exactly who will give it to them.

syntaxerrorsix
06-28-2012, 11:58
I don't know if we deserve it or not.

But, the problem is, I am starting to realize that a majority knows exactly what they want from the working minority, and knows exactly who will give it to them.

That's merely the beginning of the end for the republic.

Kablam
06-28-2012, 12:06
That's merely the beginning of the end for the republic.

Or just another example of the move to the end of the republic that started in earnest about a hundred years ago. I expect the speed of that movement to increase at an increasing rate. So sad. The potential of this society as envisioned by the founders was limitless in it's goodness. They also knew liberty was fragile. We blew it.

G19G20
06-28-2012, 12:08
I don't know if we deserve it or not.

But, the problem is, I am starting to realize that a majority knows exactly what they want from the working minority, and knows exactly who will give it to them.

Is my sig making a little more sense to you now? People do not vote themselves less public benefits. The GOP at this point is starting to lose relevance and the more people that end up on the public dole, the less people that will vote Republican in the future. No one takes away their own punch bowl. They want bigger and bigger bowls and will vote accordingly. That spells death for the GOP and conservatism as a whole. And lookie who the presumptive GOP nominee is. Another liberal. Great.

rahrah12
06-28-2012, 12:11
Surprised - Yes. I think I am more surprised by how it happened. Obama is incredibly lucky.

Now I don't think this is a disaster for the GOP. "TAX"...everyone hates that. Should galvanize the base. Might have to be careful just how much they want to talk about this. Ultimately the people want the narrative to be on jobs and the economy.

I guess the real negative is that SCOTUS striking this down might've been the death kneel for Obama. The narrative coming from the right would've been devastating.

chuckz28
06-28-2012, 12:23
So this basically allows the government to tax any form of inactivity they please. I fail to see how taxing lack of participation is constitutional. Government can say everybody must buy a GM vehicle or face a tax, or everyone must buy a gun or face a tax. Where does it end?

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 13:24
So this basically allows the government to tax any form of inactivity they please. I fail to see how taxing lack of participation is constitutional. Government can say everybody must buy a GM vehicle or face a tax, or everyone must buy a gun or face a tax. Where does it end?

you could argue that everyone must buy a car or be taxed if they took government rides to wal-mart for free.

of everyone must buy a gun if they got personal protection from the government for free.

but, you have to pay to ride the bus, you dont get personal police protection, but you get free drain on society medical care at a hospital if you have a life threatening condition.

chuckz28
06-28-2012, 13:35
you could argue that everyone must buy a car or be taxed if they took government rides to wal-mart for free.

of everyone must buy a gun if they got personal protection from the government for free.

but, you have to pay to ride the bus, you dont get personal police protection, but you get free drain on society medical care at a hospital if you have a life threatening condition.
I'm not seeing where they say if you get medical care of any kind you must be insured. They are saying if you are alive and a US citizen then you must have insurance or pay a tax.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 13:45
I haven't seen much reporting on the dissent.

The majority opinion is that this is simply a tax on a certain life decision. The government does it all the time. You pay more if you rent your home than if you own. You pay more if you buy a regular car than if you buy a hybrid. The fact that it'll cost you more to buy the stuff you need to get the lower tax rate has long been acceptable, and that's all that's happening here. In a purely objective manner, the decision makes sense.

What did the dissenters say to counter it?

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 13:55
I haven't seen much reporting on the dissent.

The majority opinion is that this is simply a tax on a certain life decision. The government does it all the time. You pay more if you rent your home than if you own. You pay more if you buy a regular car than if you buy a hybrid. The fact that it'll cost you more to buy the stuff you need to get the lower tax rate has long been acceptable, and that's all that's happening here. In a purely objective manner, the decision makes sense.

What did the dissenters say to counter it?

dude, this is a tax for not owning or buying something.

maxsnafu
06-28-2012, 13:59
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, the principal choice now facing Americans on November 6 will be whether to keep Obamacare or to repeal it. The question is a binary one, and the answer — expressed almost entirely through their presidential vote — will go a long way toward determining the future course of this great nation.




What you say is true assuming the GOP will repeal Obamacare if they have the votes. I don't think they will. Republicans who gave us No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D will have no problem with Obamacare at all.

Ruble Noon
06-28-2012, 14:07
I'm not shocked at all that a government that gives one person the power of life and death over its citizens, a power that most of you cheered for BTW, would decide that they can force you to buy anything they want you to buy.

Hopefully this illegitimate ruling by our overlords will wake the people from their Bush/ Obama derangement syndrome and to the fact that the left/ right paradigm is false. Instead, it is a matter of the government vs. the people.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 14:08
dude, this is a tax for not owning or buying something.Is that the dissent? Even paraphrased, it sounds a bit simplistic to have come from the SC.

Given the broad authority the government has to tax, what is unconstitutional about this particular tax?

I'm not asking what's offensive about it, just what's unconstitutional about it.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 14:14
Is that the dissent? Even paraphrased, it sounds a bit simplistic to have come from the SC.

Given the broad authority the government has to tax, what is unconstitutional about this particular tax?

I'm not asking what's offensive about it, just what's unconstitutional about it.

the sc saw this as the tax that it is, and in doing so had to see this as within the constitutional scope of the federal government to impose, as it has.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 14:19
the sc saw this as the tax that it is, and in doing so had to see this as within the constitutional scope of the federal government to impose, as it has.Right. That was the majority opinion. Legally, it makes sense.

But I still haven't been able to find the dissenting judges' argument against that position.

engineer151515
06-28-2012, 14:23
I'm not asking what's offensive about it, just what's unconstitutional about it.

It is a mandate to enter a commercial contract strictly by virtue of being a US Citizen least you face fines or additional penalties.

There is nothing in the Constitution which demands the purchase of a product as a condition of citizenship.

And apparently, there is no consequence to Congress deliberately avoiding calling legislation a "tax" when the Supreme Court says that, in essence, it is just that.

The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 14:57
It is a mandate to enter a commercial contract strictly by virtue of being a US Citizen least you face fines or additional penalties.

There is nothing in the Constitution which demands the purchase of a product as a condition of citizenship.

And apparently, there is no consequence to Congress deliberately avoiding calling legislation a "tax" when the Supreme Court says that, in essence, it is just that.

The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.It's not a fine, it's a tax, that's the difference. People without health insurance get taxed higher than people with. There are thousands of variables in the tax code which determine which people get taxed higher than others on the basis of decisions they've made in their lives, and this is now another one. You aren't forced to get married to pay lower taxes. You aren't forced to pay mortgage instead of rent to pay lower taxes. You can choose to do them or not do them and pay taxes accordingly.

The only consequence Congress faces for denying it's a tax when it's indeed a tax, is any consequence the voters decide to impose on them.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 15:00
It's not a fine, it's a tax, that's the difference. People without health insurance get taxed higher than people with. There are thousands of variables in the tax code which determine which people get taxed higher than others on the basis of decisions they've made in their lives, and this is now another one. You aren't forced to get married to pay lower taxes. You aren't forced to pay mortgage instead of rent to pay lower taxes. You can choose to do them or not do them and pay taxes accordingly.

The only consequence Congress faces for denying it's a tax when it's indeed a tax, is any consequence the voters decide to impose on them.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: you say that like Americans are edjucated voters.

Ruble Noon
06-28-2012, 15:00
It's not a fine, it's a tax, that's the difference. People without health insurance get taxed higher than people with. There are thousands of variables in the tax code which determine which people get taxed higher than others on the basis of decisions they've made in their lives, and this is now another one. You aren't forced to get married to pay lower taxes. You aren't forced to pay mortgage instead of rent to pay lower taxes. You can choose to do them or not do them and pay taxes accordingly.

The only consequence Congress faces for denying it's a tax when it's indeed a tax, is any consequence the voters decide to impose on them.

It is a fine for failure to buy a product. Even Obama said so.

Stephanopoulos: "You Reject That It’s A Tax Increase? " Obama: "I Absolutely Reject That Notion"



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/stephanopoulos-you-reject-it%E2%80%99s-tax-increase-obama-i-absolutely-reject-notion

Gundude
06-28-2012, 15:02
It is a fine for failure to buy a product. Even Obama said so.

Stephanopoulos: "You Reject That It’s A Tax Increase? " Obama: "I Absolutely Reject That Notion"



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/stephanopoulos-you-reject-it%E2%80%99s-tax-increase-obama-i-absolutely-reject-notionYes, they'll have to "clarify" their previous remarks to accept that it's a tax increase, but it won't go away unless congress makes it go away.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 15:03
It is a fine for failure to buy a product. Even Obama said so.

Stephanopoulos: "You Reject That It’s A Tax Increase? " Obama: "I Absolutely Reject That Notion"



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/stephanopoulos-you-reject-it%E2%80%99s-tax-increase-obama-i-absolutely-reject-notion


If the GOP is smart -- yeah, a big "if" -- they'll have Obama twisting on those words from now till November.


.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 15:12
If the GOP is smart -- yeah, a big "if" -- they'll have Obama twisting on those words from now till November.


.Yeah, he'll have no choice but to admit it's a tax, since that's the only way he can keep it, but then he'll say "net" taxes haven't gone up because he heroically prevented the Republicans from expiring the FICA taxes. Remember that fiasco where Democrats kept the taxes down in spite of Republican's best efforts to raise them? Will his argument make any sense? Nope, but given the Republicans' complete lack of any political savvy or backbone, it doesn't have to.

certifiedfunds
06-28-2012, 16:01
BS: Roberts is the only man with integrity in this mess.

He is 100% on target when he said:

"It is not our job to protect the people from consequences of their political choices."

And he's right -- it ain't his job.

It's been said before -- we get the government we deserve and there are too many places to point the finger at on that one.

Actually, he's wrong. That is the courts role in the sense that it is an intentionally anti-democratic branch of government charged with protecting the COTUS which was written to keep government off the backs of the people

JFrame
06-28-2012, 16:11
Of course I'm biased, but the dissenting vote makes more sense. The Democrats called Obamacare's individual mandate one thing, and passed it under that definition. Then, when it came to a court challenge, they fundamentally changed the definition of the product.

By accepting the mandate as a tax, the majority opinion basically exercised judicial activism in rewriting what had been created, and existed, as law.


.

countrygun
06-28-2012, 16:18
Of course I'm biased, but the dissenting vote makes more sense. The Democrats called Obamacare's individual mandate one thing, and passed it under that definition. Then, when it came to a court challenge, they fundamentally changed the definition of the product.

By accepting the mandate as a tax, the majority opinion basically exercised judicial activism in rewriting what had been created, and existed, as law.


.


Exactly. By redefining it themselves SCOTUS stepped out of their job, deciding the Constitutionality of the mandate as passed and present to the Court.

It is as if they took a major gun snatch Bill and said "No it isn't confiscating guns, the legislation asks people to turn them in or face penalties if they don't, but the Government isn't actually 'taking" them"

APERS
06-28-2012, 16:41
Is my sig making a little more sense to you now? People do not vote themselves less public benefits. The GOP at this point is starting to lose relevance and the more people that end up on the public dole, the less people that will vote Republican in the future. No one takes away their own punch bowl. They want bigger and bigger bowls and will vote accordingly. That spells death for the GOP and conservatism as a whole. And lookie who the presumptive GOP nominee is. Another liberal. Great.
Exactly. :steamed:

Kablam
06-28-2012, 16:57
Of course I'm biased, but the dissenting vote makes more sense. The Democrats called Obamacare's individual mandate one thing, and passed it under that definition. Then, when it came to a court challenge, they fundamentally changed the definition of the product.

By accepting the mandate as a tax, the majority opinion basically exercised judicial activism in rewriting what had been created, and existed, as law.


.

That's exactly it. The supporters of the bill specifically didn't call it a tax (vociferoulsy if I recall correctly) because they knew it would not pass if there was a "tax" increase attached, so they called it a fine/penalty to get around that. The SCOTUS then went and "re-wrote" it so that it would be constitutional. That's judicial activism, not to be confused with judicial review. The law sould have been reviewed as written, deemed unconstitutional, and voided. The obamacare folks could then try again to get it passed after they wrote it honestly and showed a new tax. Good luck with that.

That friggin Roberts pi$$es me off. He says its not the job of the court to protect us from bad political choices, and I agree. It's also not their job to re-write a purposely deceptive law so it can become constitutional.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 17:28
That friggin Roberts pi$$es me off. He says its not the job of the court to protect us from bad political choices, and I agree. It's also not their job to re-write a purposely deceptive law so it can become constitutional.


If you didn't watch tonight's Fox News/Bret Baier segment, you would have appreciated the all-star panel discussion. Judge Napolitano (increasingly my favorite commentator) referred to the 5-4 decision as a "camel threading the eye of a needle." He remarked on what amazingly circuitous and puzzling logic they had to apply to come up with a decision that might make some very vague sense.

Charles Krauthammer (whom we can agree is a rather dispassionate and impassive sort) opined that Roberts feared having a legacy as an ideologically right-wing court (because of Bush/Gore), so he "made" the decision work on behalf of Obama (i.e., twisted the logic completely out of shape).


.

bowtie454
06-28-2012, 17:30
My biggest concern is the precendent set today regarding the ability of the government to use the tax code to force people to purchase specified goods and services. As for the argument that this is no different than current deductions in the tax code (marriage, mortgage, student loans, charitable contributions, etc.), I say B.S. The current deductions are incentives to get people to do things, arguably things the government thinks are in the best interest of the country (i.e. go to college, get married, buy a house, help the less fortunate...). These are all voluntary and REDUCE you tax liability. Today's ruling states that the government can INCREASE your tax liability for not purchasing a product they think you need. It's the difference between the carrot and the stick. A couple of analogies:

Giving your child a treat for cleaning thier room vs. telling them they will be spanked if they don't clean thier room

Influencing the behavior of a foriegn government with financial aid vs. the threat of military force.

There is a clear difference here. This goes beyond health care, it has opened up the door for Congress to force citizens to purchase any product they deem in the best interest of the country. How long before we are all forced to buy "carbon offset credits" or face punitive tax increases? Very scary ruling.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 17:31
My biggest concern is the precendent set today regarding the ability of the government to use the tax code to force people to purchase specified goods and services. As for the argument that this is no different than current deductions in the tax code (marriage, mortgage, student loans, charitable contributions, etc.), I say B.S. The current deductions are incentives to get people to do things, arguably things the government thinks are in the best interest of the country (i.e. go to college, get married, buy a house, help the less fortunate...). These are all voluntary and REDUCE you tax liability. Today's ruling states that the government can INCREASE your tax liability for not purchasing a product they think you need. It's the difference between the carrot and the stick. A couple of analogies:

Giving your child a treat for cleaning thier room vs. telling them they will be spanked if they don't clean thier room

Influencing the behavior of a foriegn government with financial aid vs. the threat of military force.

There is a clear difference here. This goes beyond health care, it has opened up the door for Congress to force citizens to purchase any product they deem in the best interest of the country. How long before we are all forced to buy "carbon offset credits" or face punitive tax increases? Very scary ruling.


Great observation -- thank you!


.

syntaxerrorsix
06-28-2012, 17:32
...edited


Giving your child a treat for cleaning thier room vs. telling them they will be spanked if they don't clean thier room

Influencing the behavior of a foriegn government with financial aid vs. the threat of military force.

There is a clear difference here. ...edited..

Well said.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 17:32
this is yet another federal tax, welcome to Amerika.

i wonder how small businesses will be able to afford the $400.00 per employee per month health tax they will have to pay now.

Stubudd
06-28-2012, 17:35
Hopefully this illegitimate ruling by our overlords will wake the people from their Bush/ Obama derangement syndrome and to the fact that the left/ right paradigm is false. Instead, it is a matter of the government vs. the people.

yea what he said. I'm whatever the furthest thing from shocked is. I'm the opposite of shocked.

syntaxerrorsix
06-28-2012, 17:38
This is a great indication of what the Fed will do on the part of those that support the incorporation doctrine so many neocons and other similarly challenged voters claim exist but can't point to.

States rights absorb another hit. Secession looks more favorable by the minute.

It looks more and more like the next time I'm fed up and grab my rifle to run outside I won't be alone.

certifiedfunds
06-28-2012, 18:42
This is the official end of Federalism and the final blow to the republic.

Folks, its time to make protecting yourself from your government a central focus of your life if you aren't already.

I truly weep for my children.

cowboywannabe
06-28-2012, 18:45
This is the official end of Federalism and the final blow to the republic.

Folks, its time to make protecting yourself from your government a central focus of your life if you aren't already.

I truly weep for my children.

nothing short of an "American spring" can save us now.

they have opened the door to tax us to death, again.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 18:58
My biggest concern is the precendent set today regarding the ability of the government to use the tax code to force people to purchase specified goods and services. As for the argument that this is no different than current deductions in the tax code (marriage, mortgage, student loans, charitable contributions, etc.), I say B.S. The current deductions are incentives to get people to do things, arguably things the government thinks are in the best interest of the country (i.e. go to college, get married, buy a house, help the less fortunate...). These are all voluntary and REDUCE you tax liability. Today's ruling states that the government can INCREASE your tax liability for not purchasing a product they think you need.Actually, it's not because they think you need it, it's because they think it's in the best interest of the country (at least as much as they think so in the other examples you gave). Just like buying a house (and carrying a mortgage), you pay less tax if you do it, more tax if you don't. Mark my words, by the time this "penalty" makes it into the IRS instructions, it'll be a "deduction", just like the others. As long as you have health insurance, you can claim it. People will soon forget it's a penalty, and it'll be treated just like the other thousands of convoluted deductions in the tax code.

beforeobamabans
06-28-2012, 19:15
this is yet another federal tax, welcome to Amerika..

If Roberts declares this a "tax", and the bill comes out of the Senate (which it did), how can it be "constitutional" when The Constitution clearly says that only the House of Representatives can initiate taxes?

Ruble Noon
06-28-2012, 19:26
If Roberts declares this a "tax", and the bill comes out of the Senate (which it did), how can it be "constitutional" when The Constitution clearly says that only the House of Representatives can initiate taxes?

We're in uncharted waters and the Constitution is but a distant memory.

Kablam
06-28-2012, 19:30
There you go with that talk about that annoying fairly short and succinct constitution (sarcasm). This whole process of passing the bill and signing it into law smacks of the progressive's disdain for that document. I fear it is dead. A casualty of self serving anti-Americanism. The founders and the philosophers that guided them in crafting one of the greatest governments in history warned of this. Guess what? Pretty smart guys back then...they were right.

thetoastmaster
06-28-2012, 21:01
If Roberts declares this a "tax", and the bill comes out of the Senate (which it did), how can it be "constitutional" when The Constitution clearly says that only the House of Representatives can initiate taxes?

Nice try, but it started in the House (HR 3962).

You had me excited; so I had to look it up.

RHVEtte
06-28-2012, 21:16
Nice try, but it started in the House (HR 3962).

You had me excited; so I had to look it up.

Ah, but IIRC, part of the controversy behind PPACA was that the bill which originated in the House didn't pass in the Senate. A modified version did, but that version didn't go before the House first. Technically, I believe that means it didn't originate in the House.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 21:41
Ah, but IIRC, part of the controversy behind PPACA was that the bill which originated in the House didn't pass in the Senate. A modified version did, but that version didn't go before the House first. Technically, I believe that means it didn't originate in the House.


I believe that's correct. It's the reason the Senate went with their version (which did not have the tax) -- because they knew the House version with the tax would not get through the Senate.

It was one of the more treacherous and duplicitous bits of Congressional sleight-of-hand ever perpetrated...And that's saying something for that den of thieves.


.

Fred Hansen
06-28-2012, 21:42
I'm not sure if you all remember 2009, and the months leading up to the Obamacare vote. It was an extremely passionate issue, and emotions were continuously inflamed throughout. What other issue could have gotten over a million people from across the country to assemble at the Capitol to voice their displeasure (loudly)?

I can easily see these same passions re-stoked and sustained for the 4 1/2 months leading up to the election.


.I remember the reactionary nonsense of 2009 quite well. It was pointless agitprop that ultimately led nowhere. Most of that same bunch of useless ****bags hopping up and down with their little signs, and waving their little flags, are the same dolts who have blessed us with RINO Romney.

RINO Romney--Barry's brother from another mother--who pledges to act to repeal Romneyca... er, Obamacare. :animlol: :upeyes:

Roberts is right, not because of the semantics over the issue of penalty vs. tax, but because the ultimate source of this cancer, i.e. Romneyca... er, Obamacare, is the electorate itself.

The majority of Americans want the .gov controlling every aspect of their lives. The proof of that is that is the ACA having passed in the first place. The American people allowed their government to take over the most intimate aspect of their lives by placing their healthcare in the hands of government thugs.

No force in the universe can un-ring that bell. And the politician who would even consider relinquishing that much power over their constituents would be destroyed by his fellows for merely suggesting such a thing. There will be no repeal. Roberts told the libtards today: Hey dummies! Stop with the Commerce Clause crap! Just make everything a TAX, and your power is infinite.

Consider the following... The leftist pigs I know tell me that healthcare is a right. The leftist pig's legislation says one (as long as one is a member of the producer class) must pay for that right--SCOTUS agrees--and not one little pinko piggy squealed. Should one not pay for that right, one shall be assessed a penalty (now considered a tax) that even when paid, does not entitle one to exercise one's "right" to healthcare. One is still required to pay for that in addition to the penalty (now considered a tax).

So:

Got food in your house not approved by Mr. Worf herself? Unhealthy Food penalty! Pay up sucka!

Got a firearm in your home? Unsafe Home penalty! And a several magnitudes health insurance surcharge over and above your good neighbors who have been certified firearms free by minions of the Safe Homes Czar. You'll take it to court, because it infringes on your 2nd A rights, you say? Oh, the court will find that you can have your rights; just pay your Unsafe Home surcharge and penalty (taxes) and you're good to go. Pay up sucka!

There isn't a single human behavior or activity that can't be deduced from one's medical history. And with this precedent, there won't be a single human behavior or activity that will escape future tax assessments by the government.

Orwell's nightmare was the goverment using the citizen's own thoughts against him/her. No one needs your thoughts when they control your whole body. Who needs crimethink when they have your nuts in a vise? :rofl:

Not to mention that all of this must be paid by people whose government has spent them into debts so large they can't even be fathomed, much less paid. Stick a fork in America, she's done.

TDC20
06-28-2012, 23:37
If Michael Savage is right, we had a good run...236 years and counting from the Declaration of Independence, or 213 years if you go by the Constitution.

I've had a lot of great life experiences growing up in the generation that I grew up in. Things were different back then. I look at how things are now and think about how it would suck to grow up in the U.S. today in comparison.

As a young man, I had the privilege of serving my country under President Ronald Reagan. Reagan stood down the Iranians, stood down the PLO, stood down the communists, the Russians, the Cubans, the Contras. In all of this, I never once had a fear that President Reagan would needlessly sacrifice my life on the altar of political gain. I knew that whatever role I played in America’s security, that I wouldn’t be left behind or forgotten by him or my country.

To those who say there’s no hope in electing a filibuster-proof Senate, you may be right. But that’s no reason to think that a couple of dems couldn’t be “persuaded” to vote for a repeal of 0bamacare. Remember, most of these politicians would throw their own mothers under a bus for the right price. Mary Landrieu’s and Ben Nelson’s votes were bought for less than a billion. That’s a drop in the bucket of a $1.5T deficit. I’m sure we can buy off a few sticky-handed dems to get a repeal passed. Especially if they are in states where the voters are watching and waiting for the days to tick off until they can throw their sorry arses from their Senate seats.

To my brothers and sisters who took the oath…all I ask is to keep the faith. I have hope that this election year brings about “change we can believe in.” Freedom was dealt a massive sucker punch today, but this is a long way from being over. I want to prove Michael Savage is wrong.

Fred Hansen
06-29-2012, 00:05
But that’s no reason to think that a couple of dems couldn’t be “persuaded” to vote for a repeal of 0bamacare. Remember, most of these politicians would throw their own mothers under a bus for the right price.What "price" would trump the infinite power SCOTUS just handed Congress? Feel free to use exponential function in your answer. I wouldn't want you to run out of zeros.

TangoFoxtrot
06-29-2012, 02:03
The choice is clear, if you want Barrycare fully implemented, help Democrats stay in office.

:violin::violin::violin:Sorry but this is an old tune:rofl:

aircarver
06-29-2012, 07:15
:violin::violin::violin:Sorry but this is an old tune:rofl:

True, nonetheless .......

.

Cavalry Doc
06-29-2012, 07:24
:violin::violin::violin:Sorry but this is an old tune:rofl:

And it's still in the top ten. I will oppose democrats at every opportunity. It's the best course if action to take. I'm exempt from the AAC as a military retiree, and my personal professional marketability will be increased by the Barrycare. But just because I will likely benefit personally from it does not change the fact that this law and the SCOTUS decision is as wrong as two brothers kissing with tongue. I'm not alone in that, and I'm hoping a lot of people see it that way too, and get off their couches to vote in November.

bowtie454
06-29-2012, 08:35
Actually, it's not because they think you need it, it's because they think it's in the best interest of the country (at least as much as they think so in the other examples you gave). Just like buying a house (and carrying a mortgage), you pay less tax if you do it, more tax if you don't. Mark my words, by the time this "penalty" makes it into the IRS instructions, it'll be a "deduction", just like the others. As long as you have health insurance, you can claim it. People will soon forget it's a penalty, and it'll be treated just like the other thousands of convoluted deductions in the tax code.

1. You are splitting hairs. I am using "government thinks you need" and "government thinks is in the best interest of the country" in the same context in my post. Why does the government "think you need" it? Because they think it is "in the best interest of the country".

2. The only way to turn this into a deduction is to increase everybody's taxes across the board. Given that President Obama is on record (multiple times) as saying this is "not a tax increase", I don't see that happening (unless he was lying GASP!). Taxes were not raised for any of the other examples I gave to punish those who don't have a given deduction. This is apples and oranges.

Dbltapglock
06-29-2012, 21:40
deleted

Ruble Noon
07-03-2012, 15:07
I believe that's correct. It's the reason the Senate went with their version (which did not have the tax) -- because they knew the House version with the tax would not get through the Senate.

It was one of the more treacherous and duplicitous bits of Congressional sleight-of-hand ever perpetrated...And that's saying something for that den of thieves.


.

Yep, remember the Slaughter Rule that the house used to pass the senate bill?

Judicial Watch: Slaughter Rule Unconstitutional

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/judicial-watch-slaughter-rule-unconstitutional-88596302.html