Jump to content

White House first argues against, then argues mandatory HC is a tax


Recommended Posts

Well... is mandatory health care insurance a tax or not? White House argues with itself.

Seems, I remember a campaign promise that those making $250,000 or less will not pay one thin dime more in taxes. Sounds like politics as usual. Whatever happened to "hope and change"?

Yes, it is! No, it isn't! Yes, it is! No, it isn't

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great post Pliny! This is unbelievable.

Here's Obama INSISTING that it isn't a tax increase. Even when George Stephanopoulos reads him the very definition of a tax! :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio

And now his administration is arguing it's legality as the basis of it being a tax! :lol:

Here's from Pliny's link...

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

Link

Just when you thought it was impossible for this President to stretch the truth any further, he opens his mouth, and proves us wrong. Pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the source for this is someones live journal. It isn't even a news blog. It is just a live journal from someone. Come back with a real source please.

Oh punked, you really walked into it this time! The link is referencing The New York Times. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the article is speculation because none of these arguments have been used yet. See that Shady NONE!

Wrong again. The arguments of a tax are outlined in the Obama administration legal brief filed in its defense of their reform. How many times can you be completely wrong in one day? Are you going for a world record? Are you so blinded by partisanship that you refuse to even acknowledge simple facts? It's pretty pathetic.

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the source for this is someones live journal. It isn't even a news blog. It is just a live journal from someone. Come back with a real source please.

It's all over the place, and spreading, if you take a look. It's even reached the MLW forum.

Don't you read the NY Times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again. The arguments of a tax are outlined in the Obama administration legal brief filed in its defense of their reform. How many times can you be completely wrong in one day? Are you going for a world record? Are you so blinded by partisanship that you refuse to even acknowledge simple facts? It's pretty pathetic.

I read the legal brief the argument is centered on Wickard v. Filburn which was a commerce clause argument not a tax one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the legal brief the argument is centered on Wickard v. Filburn which was a commerce clause argument not a tax one.

The original argument is that it wasn't a tax. The commerce clause allowed the federal government to apply a tax on interstate commerce.

The argument is that health care falls under the definition of interstate commerce and can be taxed as such.

Are you always going to reject a point of view on principle or are you going to look at the facts? I think you just like annoying Shady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Universal Health care violates the 1st and 5th amendment of the constitution.

The right to liberty is protected by the Fifth Amendment against action by the federal government. It ensures that Americans may act or refrain from acting in the legal... market for goods and services. If a good or service is lawfully available, there is no constitutional power by which the federal government can compel a citizen to purchase that good or service. The decision whether to be insured or not involves an individual assessment of risk taking and preference for association.

The freedom of association is protected by the First Amendment against action by the federal government. It ensures that Americans may act or refrain from acting in choosing to associate with an individual, group, or business. If, for example, we oppose conventional medicine, believe in reliance on self help, or otherwise as adults elect not to take advantage of the services funded by private insurance, we have the right to avoid that association under the First Amendment freedom of association.

Personally I think its good old fashioned extortion. Extortion is the practice of extorting money out of people by providing a "Service" usually accompanied with a "if you don't pay we will smash your teeth down your throat." Therefore the service provided is not voluntary... and is backed up by force. The Universal health care acts in a similar manner. Only instead of 3 guys named Vito, Joey, and Mickey using your rib cages for drums; there's accompanying fines and possible jail time for not paying for the health care. Even if you opt out of the program you still have to pay a fine. Either way essentially someone is pointing a gun at your head and saying "Its for your own good"

I usually have a hard time with someone telling me what to do. Call me crazy but I wouldn't mind having a say in where my money goes. Need a real life example, Look at Social Security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post Pliny! This is unbelievable.

Here's Obama INSISTING that it isn't a tax increase. Even when George Stephanopoulos reads him the very definition of a tax! :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio

And now his administration is arguing it's legality as the basis of it being a tax! :lol:

Here's from Pliny's link...

Just when you thought it was impossible for this President to stretch the truth any further, he opens his mouth, and proves us wrong. Pathetic.

you're pathetic, and probably just don't like Obama's skin tone.

stop your penis envy and shut up, a black man's in charge and you're just pissed off that he's doing a good job.

who the hell could be against free healthcare? are you crazy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Universal Health care violates the 1st and 5th amendment of the constitution.

the consitution was written by slaveholders and bigotts, the more we modernize and change it the better. thank god for Obama.

finally getting a just and equitable president. and some much more attractive too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're pathetic, and probably just don't like Obama's skin tone.

stop your penis envy and shut up, a black man's in charge and you're just pissed off that he's doing a good job.

who the hell could be against free healthcare? are you crazy?

I don't think Shady's concerns here are of race, nor of penises.

Surely we can disagree with one another, vociferously, fundamentally--even angrily at times--without assuming some terrible personal characteristics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the consitution was written by slaveholders and bigotts, the more we modernize and change it the better. thank god for Obama.

finally getting a just and equitable president. and some much more attractive too!

"we"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Shady's concerns here are of race, nor of penises.

Surely we can disagree with one another, vociferously, fundamentally--even angrily at times--without assuming some terrible personal characteristics.

cmon I've heard the arguments, you know and I know that this guy is just hating on the black man...

what other reason could there be? the man single handedly bailed out the US economy, pledge to end the senseless war in afghanistan and iraq and give FREE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE to americans...

despite all this we still get people churping and spreading hatred and lies... like Obama isnt a US citizen, he snorted cocaine, he's destroying the constitution (as if that was a bad thing!).

next he's going to take the precious guns away from retarded hillbillies... and hell get even more abuse and hatred poured against hi (as if they had a sacred right to own machine guns or whatever)...

anyways you're giving them way too much benefit of the doubt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cmon I've heard the arguments, you know and I know that this guy is just hating on the black man...

I don't know that. I don't know what's in his heart...all the more reason to assume unsinister motives unless he were to prove me wrong.

anyways you're giving them way too much benefit of the doubt!

I believe the best way to proceed is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until there is powerful evidence otherwise. I don't mean it's unfair to criticize; I mean it's unfair to criticize motivations, based on unproven assumptions of immoral or truly ugly personal characteristics.

When I do make such assumptions, I always feel that I shouldn't have.

If nothing else, the fact that there are people here who have charged me with all sorts of vile motivations only underscores my thoughts on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that. I don't know what's in his heart...all the more reason to assume unsinister motives unless he were to prove me wrong.

I believe the best way to proceed is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until there is powerful evidence otherwise. I don't mean it's unfair to criticize; I mean it's unfair to criticize motivations, based on unproven assumptions of immoral or truly ugly personal characteristics.

When I do make such assumptions, I always feel that I shouldn't have.

If nothing else, the fact that there are people here who have charged me with all sorts of vile motivations only underscores my thoughts on this.

I Completely disagree. I would advise you to follow reason rather than your feelings. However since you seem to be lead by feelings let me try to put this in your own terms. If I take your money from you without your consent how would that make you feel? I would expect you to be upset with me. Now Imagine your a shop owner who has to pay protection to the neighborhood thugs to keep himself or his store from getting hurt or destroyed. How would that make you feel? Now imagine a country forces you to purchase only one type of health care or you have to pay a fine? How does that make you feel?

Now they can call it a tax or whatever they choose, but Freedom is the only thing that really matters. John Adams said "If we give up freedom for security, we deserve to have neither freedom or security." I urge you to step back from your feelings and look at this from a rational perspective. Is forcing people to use a service promoting freedom? What is the difference between bold faced extortion and forcing Americans to buy from one source of health care. Both sources take away your freedom of choice and both sources are backed up by a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Completely disagree. I would advise you to follow reason rather than your feelings. However since you seem to be lead by feelings let me try to put this in your own terms. If I take your money from you without your consent how would that make you feel? I would expect you to be upset with me. Now Imagine your a shop owner who has to pay protection to the neighborhood thugs to keep himself or his store from getting hurt or destroyed. How would that make you feel? Now imagine a country forces you to purchase only one type of health care or you have to pay a fine? How does that make you feel?

Now they can call it a tax or whatever they choose, but Freedom is the only thing that really matters. John Adams said "If we give up freedom for security, we deserve to have neither freedom or security." I urge you to step back from your feelings and look at this from a rational perspective. Is forcing people to use a service promoting freedom? What is the difference between bold faced extortion and forcing Americans to buy from one source of health care. Both sources take away your freedom of choice and both sources are backed up by a gun.

And I would advise you to take a step back, look at the post of mine to which you are ostensibly responding, and then explain to me how it is a response based on your vaunted "reason."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I would advise you to take a step back, look at the post of mine to which you are ostensibly responding, and then explain to me how it is a response based on your vaunted "reason."

Because anyone who looks at Universal health care logically would not need feelings to determine that its wrong on a level we have never had to deal with in the united states before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because anyone who looks at Universal health care logically would not need feelings to determine that its wrong on a level we have never had to deal with in the united states before.

Once again: when I suggested you look at my actual post--the one which to you responded so strangely--I actually meant the words that I wrote. And you might find you've made some sort of error.

I wonder if I need spell this out more concretely than that.

At any rate, it certainly calls your "reason" into question...if you can't even understand that you've responded to the wrong post.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again: when I suggested you look at my actual post--the one which to you responded so strangely--I actually meant the words that I wrote. And you might find you've made some sort of error.

I wonder if I need spell this out more concretely than that.

At any rate, it certainly calls your "reason" into question...if you can't even understand that you've responded to the wrong post.

You stated you wanted to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I see no reason to make a distinction. He is wrong. What is there to pander to?

Edited by moderateamericain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated you wanted to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I see no reason to make a distinction. He is wrong. What is their to pander to?

"Pander"?

I was responding to a poster who was calling Shady a racist, as well as other slurs, because Shady doesn't like Obama's policies.

Well, Shady and I pretty much never agree. On anything.

But I came to his defense, and said that we should give posters "the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to really bad personal qualities, such as racism. That I think there should be strong evidence for this supposed racism, before we start throwing the label around.

That's it; that's what my post was entirely about. Nothing else.

Making your "reasoned" response an absolute non sequiter, unrelated to anything I'd said.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pander"?

I was responding to a poster who was calling Shady a racist, as well as other slurs, because Shady doesn't like Obama's policies.

Well, Shady and I pretty much never agree. On anything.

But I came to his defense, and said that we should give posters "the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to really bad personal qualities, such as racism. That I think there should be strong evidence for this supposed racism, before we start throwing the label around.

That's it; that's what my post was entirely about. Nothing else.

Making your "reasoned" response an absolute non sequiter, unrelated to anything I'd said.

My fault for assuming you were speaking on the actual subject of the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...