Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
I plan on continuing to buy health insurance, so I don't quite see what tax you are talking about. Now for you freeloaders who don't want to pay for insurance and want those who do to subsidize you, well, tough fucking shit.
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
I plan on continuing to buy health insurance, so I don't quite see what tax you are talking about. Now for you freeloaders who don't want to pay for insurance and want those who do to subsidize you, well, tough fucking shit.
It was only upheld because the SCOTUS said the federal government does have the right to impose taxes after the Obama Administration testified before them as much. However, that was after almost two years of claiming their bill was NOT a tax (so they could get it approved through Congress).
It's a pretty agregious lie - tell Congress it's not to push it through, tells SCOTUS it is to keep it from being ruled unconstitutional. The question becomes, which is it? Is the bill a tax or is it not a tax?
And this is a poll to see if the liberals have a problem with the lie or if they feel the ends justifies the means.
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Acts other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congresss power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
I must sheepishly admit I feel really stupid right now. When I posted this, it seemed like such a straight forward, simple yes or no question. But everyone is just dancing around it. Then I realized, you can't have a simple conversation with a liberal. They contradict themselves, so you can't expect them not to get confused when someone else is talking.
I must sheepishly admit I feel really stupid right now. When I posted this, it seemed like such a straight forward, simple yes or no question. But everyone is just dancing around it. Then I realized, you can't have a simple conversation with a liberal. They contradict themselves, so you can't expect them not to get confused when someone else is talking.
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
I plan on continuing to buy health insurance, so I don't quite see what tax you are talking about. Now for you freeloaders who don't want to pay for insurance and want those who do to subsidize you, well, tough fucking shit.
It was only upheld because the SCOTUS said the federal government does have the right to impose taxes after the Obama Administration testified before them as much. However, that was after almost two years of claiming their bill was NOT a tax (so they could get it approved through Congress).
It's a pretty agregious lie - tell Congress it's not to push it through, tells SCOTUS it is to keep it from being ruled unconstitutional. The question becomes, which is it? Is the bill a tax or is it not a tax?
And this is a poll to see if the liberals have a problem with the lie or if they feel the ends justifies the means.
I must sheepishly admit I feel really stupid right now. When I posted this, it seemed like such a straight forward, simple yes or no question. But everyone is just dancing around it. Then I realized, you can't have a simple conversation with a liberal. They contradict themselves, so you can't expect them not to get confused when someone else is talking.
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
It was never the Governments position that the provision was not a tax:
The CJ didn't just pull 'tax' out of thin air.The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Acts other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congresss power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
I like it as a tax. Opens the door for a full single payer universal health care system based on an income tax on all forms of income. Suddenly Medicare would be the whole system. And we could adjust the tax as we went along to pay the full amount spent.
Look at the bright side Rott, as a tax, the Senate can kill Obamacare with 50 votes (plus the VP) along with the House and the President. The Democrats can't filibuster budget reconciliation. Thus the tax "penalty" can be lowered to zero dollars.
Republicans and Independents ought to be pretty highly motivated come November.
Look at the bright side Rott, as a tax, the Senate can kill Obamacare with 50 votes (plus the VP) along with the House and the President. The Democrats can't filibuster budget reconciliation. Thus the tax "penalty" can be lowered to zero dollars.
Republicans and Independents ought to be pretty highly motivated come November.
Yes, God forbid we penalize someone who chooses not to purchase health insurance and expects everyone who does to pick up the tab for them, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars. You cons are a trip; all you talk about is self-reliance and personal responsibility, then you mooch off of everyone else who pays for their health insurance or you support the right of anyone who wants to mooch to do so. It's the hypocrisy of conservatives that made me leave the Republican Party.