Above is his pledge.
just in,"individual mandate is" now a tax according to the White house.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/07/18/wh-individual-mandate-now-a-tax/
Which means, by the way, that when the President promised not to raise taxes he lied. And he thinks that the American people will swallow that lie, because he and his party’s leadership cadre all think that the American people are stupid.
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.”
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
The individual mandate is a tax. It has always been a tax, denials of the administration to the contrary. And, as the article makes clear, the administration is now going to enthusiastically call it a tax in order to keep it from being thrown out as blatantly unconstitutional. You see, the Commerce Clause argument falls down when you put too much pressure on it:
To assess the constitutionality of a claim of power under the Commerce Clause, the primary question becomes, “what class of activity is Congress seeking to regulate?” Only when this question is answered can the Court assess whether that class of activity substantially affects interstate commerce. Significantly, the mandate imposed by the pending bills does not regulate or prohibit the economic activity of providing or administering health insurance. Nor does it regulate or prohibit the economic activity of providing health care, whether by doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, or other entities engaged in the business of providing a medical good or service. Indeed, the health care mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate” inactivity.
Proponents of the individual mandate are contending that, under its power to “regulate commerce…among the several states,” Congress may regulate the doing of nothing at all! In other words, the statute purports to convert inactivity into a class of activity. By its own plain terms, the individual mandate provision regulates the absence of action. To uphold this power under its existing doctrine, the Court must conclude that an individual’s failure to enter into a contract for health insurance is an activity that is “economic” in nature– that is, it is part of a “class of activity” that “substantially affects interstate commerce.”
Never in this nation’s history has the commerce power been used to require a person who does nothing to engage in economic activity.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/07/18/wh-individual-mandate-now-a-tax/
Originally posted by utherpendragonYes, the commerce clause argument is a major stretch... completely untenable.
The individual mandate is a tax. It has always been a tax, denials of the administration to the contrary. And, as the article makes clear, the administration is now going to enthusiastically call it a tax in order to keep it from being thrown out as blatantly unconstitutional. You see, the Commerce Clause argument falls down when you put too much p ...[text shortened]... ic activity.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/07/18/wh-individual-mandate-now-a-tax/[/b]
AS G-mo said (you like the nick, G-mo?), Obama made an untenable promise and is now breaking it. It says more about people that believed that such a promise was keepable than it does about Obama. Even without any spending hikes, taxes needed to go up in SOME capacity somewhere. They weren't $1.3T deficits, but $400B deficits are bad enough.
Originally posted by sh76Oh Okay!
Yes, the commerce clause argument is a major stretch... completely untenable.
AS G-mo said (you like the nick, G-mo?), Obama made an untenable promise and is now breaking it. It says more about people that believed that such a promise was keepable than it does about Obama. Even without any spending hikes, taxes needed to go up in SOME capacity somewhere. They weren't $1.3T deficits, but $400B deficits are bad enough.
The person who is a liar gets a pass because he "got over."
People actually believed him.
People including you defended him w/the tobacco tax. saying "oh thats not what he really meant" when he said he would not raise taxes of any kind on folks making under 250,000.
Now you are defending his lies again. Saying basically only fools would believe such a thing.
So its ok for the President who based a big big part of his campaign on this to lie.
Originally posted by utherpendragonFair point. You want to rip Obama for promising not to raise taxes in 95% of Americans? Go ahead. I can't really argue. What can I say? I never took that promise seriously to begin with. I would be shocked if any President could go 4 years without raising ANY taxes on more than 5% of the population. It doesn't seem possible. He might as well have promised to land a man on the Sun*.
Oh Okay!
The person who is a liar gets a pass because he "got over."
People actually believed him.
People including you defended him w/the tobacco tax. saying "oh thats not what he really meant" when he said he would not raise taxes of any kind on folks making under 250,000.
Now you are defending his lies again. Saying basically only fools woul ...[text shortened]... thing.
So its ok for the President who based a big big part of his campaign on this to lie.
* At night of course, when it's a little cooler
Originally posted by sh76You seem to believe a rise in taxes are the only solution:
Yes, the commerce clause argument is a major stretch... completely untenable.
AS G-mo said (you like the nick, G-mo?), Obama made an untenable promise and is now breaking it. It says more about people that believed that such a promise was keepable than it does about Obama. Even without any spending hikes, taxes needed to go up in SOME capacity somewhere. They weren't $1.3T deficits, but $400B deficits are bad enough.
(quote) “Obama made an untenable promise and is now breaking it. It says more about people that believed that such a promise was keepable than it does about Obama.”
Why you arrived at the conclusion rising taxes are unavoidable is demonstrated when you say:
(quote) ”Even without any spending hikes, taxes needed to go up in SOME capacity somewhere. They weren't $1.3T deficits, but $400B deficits are bad enough.”
I believe this is where you miss the obvious cure for the budget ailment. Spending CUTS must be made in Federal and State Budgets to bring Debt in order.
If I am to believe what I've read about US governance, the US budget is set up so as the majority of budget items automatically increase each year. In fact these increases cannot be prevented from occurring.
By contrast only a small portion of the yearly budget is actually voted on each year and are the only bits subject to being decreased. Apparently it has been arranged this way so the feckless ruling class cannot be pilored by their constituents for voting in favour of tax rise.
This being the case, it is not possible to reach a point where tax increases can cover expenditures those automatic increases. In which case a balanced budget cannot be achieved. If the operation of governmental budgets there is as I have been lead to believe the answer is: Bring ALL items back into the budget debate and make CUTS!
____________________________________________________________
*as information*
The Outstanding Total Public Debt as of Nov 2008 was (app.):
$10,570,000,000.000
The Outstanding Total Public Debt as of 19 Jul 2010 (app.):
$13,256,000,000,000
These figures represent an increase of app. 30% over 1-½ years.
Originally posted by MacSwainMost federal spending is non-discretionary. Unless you want to take an axe to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, you cannot close the budget deficits on spending cuts alone; not in the short term anyway.
You seem to believe a rise in taxes are the only solution:
(quote) “Obama made an untenable promise and is now breaking it. It says more about people that believed that such a promise was [b]keepable than it does about Obama.”
Why you arrived at the conclusion rising taxes are unavoidable is demonstrated when you say:
(quote) ”Even ...[text shortened]... 13,256,000,000,000
These figures represent an increase of app. 30% over 1-½ years.[/b]
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm afraid I agree, although I hope not. I don't think it will a full-out civil war but if/when it occurs, I can easily imagine it being something like Greece on steroids.
When I read these debates about Obama and American politics, then I believe that USA is nearing its new civil war...
Or it is just populism.
Originally posted by sh76I was sure I read a few months ago this administration WAS cutting either Medicare or Medicaid by $80 billions. Is that still in the hopper?
Most federal spending is non-discretionary. Unless you want to take an axe to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, you cannot close the budget deficits on spending cuts alone; not in the short term anyway.