Originally posted by whodeyThat depends on the context in which you ask Obama the question.
Is the mandate to buy health insurance a tax or is it not a tax?
It's NOT a tax if he wants to say he did not raise taxes on households making under $250K. It IS a tax if he's arguing to the supreme court the mandate is constitutional under the govt's taxing authority.
16 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyYes, so what say you? Is it a tax or is it not?
That depends on the context in which you ask Obama the question.
It's NOT a tax if he wants to say he did not raise taxes on households making under $250K. It IS a tax if he's arguing to the supreme court the mandate is constitutional under the govt's taxing authority.
It's amazing how Obama can talk out of both sides of his arse. It's obvious to all he is lying simply to "win" his agenda. There is no argument to this.
I think it goes back to what sh76 said about Obama, and that is he is only interested in "winning" and not defending the truth or the Constitution. In short, he is somewhat of a sociopath in that respect.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeyYou're right I don't, a policy is effective or not so effective regardless of whether or not you call it a mandate, a tax or a dirg zurgle bruff.
Who cares? I suppose voters who want to know if they have been lied to or Supreme Court justices who want to know if Obamacare is Constitutional.
I realize you probably don't really care about either.
16 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI say it's a penalty. However, my opinion is irrelevant. The only relevant opinions now belong to the Supremes. They must decipher Congress' intent on a bill they never read and which had to be passed in order that we could find out what was in it.
Yes, so what say you? Is it a tax or is it not?
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Basically it's Obama's half-assed attempt to transform the western world's most inefficient health care system into something slightly less laughable (and deadly). True conservatives are offended by this because it puts the US on the road to a Marxist dictatorship.
Any chance of a quick round up of the reasons for this being controversial and unconstitutional and what the hell is it? or a link to the main pros and cons.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYour opinion is even less relevant than mine.
Basically it's Obama's half-assed attempt to transform the western world's most inefficient health care system into something slightly less laughable (and deadly). True conservatives are offended by this because it puts the US on the road to a Marxist dictatorship.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57US Senator Orrin Hatch joined with 42 other Senator colleagues in filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the US Supreme Court as part of the Contitutional challenge to Obamacare. The brief argues that Congress' power under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce does not extend to regulating decisions whether or not to engage in that commerce, which Obamacare does.
Any chance of a quick round up of the reasons for this being controversial and unconstitutional and what the hell is it? or a link to the main pros and cons.
For example, the goverment essentially takes over GM. So what if that same governement requires you to buy a car from GM? Get it?
16 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraEssentially Obama lied about not raising taxes to get elected. Although I may disagree with the entitlement nanny state, I am even more enraged by the fact that they refuse to pay for it. That is because they know that no one would vote for them if they did.
Basically it's Obama's half-assed attempt to transform the western world's most inefficient health care system into something slightly less laughable (and deadly). True conservatives are offended by this because it puts the US on the road to a Marxist dictatorship.
I think the plan is to create the unfunded nanny state and then try and get as many people dependent upon it as possible. Then when push comes to shove in paying for it people will be more likely to pay any price to keep it because they view it as the only means for their survival.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeyClinton was re-elected.
Essentially Obama lied about not raising taxes to get elected. Although I may disagree with the entitlement nanny state, I am even more enraged by the fact that they refuse to pay for it. That is because they know that no one would vote for them if they did.
I think the plan is to create the unfunded nanny state and then try and get as many people depend ...[text shortened]... re likely to pay any price to keep it because they view it as the only means for their survival.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCorrect. Even though pretty much every president raises taxes, the assumption is that if people think they will or they do while in office, they will not get reelected. Some do get reelected and some do not. I think Bush Sr. is well known for his promise, "Read my lips, no new taxes" and he raised taxes. That was then played over and over again for the election and he lost.
Clinton was re-elected.
Of course, I am not arguing that this assumption is based upon reality, rather, I am merely stating the perception of the matter.
What I love are the baffoons who get all exited about not raising taxes or even cutting taxes, but are oblivious to the fact that spending keeps going up. To me they are one in the same.