Sorry my fellow conservatives, I side with the SCOTUS' decision.

[JWBooth]

The administration and the democrats denied it was a tax. They denied it vehemently. They said in no uncertain terms it was not a tax. The statute does not call it a tax.
Roberts had to rewrite the statute to call it a tax before allowing it.
That is no way to run a court.

It doesn't matter what those idiots call it. The question for the SCOTUS is only wether it's constitutional or not.

True

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But they already had that power. No new amendments to the constitution had to be written to allow this. It already existed.

They already had the power to tax you for NOT purchasing something?

What else do they levy a tax on for non-purchasing?

Yes, taxes are put to Congressional vote and either pass or die. That's why the liberals all lied. Now it can be put to a vote to overturn and win with only 51 votes by the same process. They can try to tax anything and everything, that's why we need to elect honest representation....the left who voted for this all lied.

That is also why it was argued that the gov'ts legalistic position was that the ACA penalty is a “tax” for purposes of Congressional power, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act

If you are this stupid in real life, you are a poster child for forced abortions and death panels for imbeciles.

As written, the law says it is a penalty. The Congress will not have the power you imagine. Anyway, the GOP will not gain control of the government.

 

[Zoom-boing]

They already had the power to tax you for NOT purchasing something?

What else do they levy a tax on for non-purchasing?

Yes, taxes are put to Congressional vote and either pass or die. That's why the liberals all lied. Now it can be put to a vote to overturn and win with only 51 votes by the same process. They can try to tax anything and everything, that's why we need to elect honest representation....the left who voted for this all lied.

That is also why it was argued that the gov'ts legalistic position was that the ACA penalty is a “tax” for purposes of Congressional power, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act

If you are this stupid in real life, you are a poster child for forced abortions and death panels for imbeciles.

As written, the law says it is a penalty. The Congress will not have the power you imagine. Anyway, the GOP will not gain control of the government.

It has to go back to Congress where they will change the language to 'tax'.

 

[chikenwing]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

It's constitutional to tax people for not purchasing something?

How is taxing someone for not purchasing something any different than fining/imposing a penalty on someone for not purchasing something?

While it reigned in gov'ts over reach via the commerce clause it expanded gov't reach via taxation. The gov't will be able to 'tax' you for not purchasing something they (the gov't) deems is 'for your own good and the good of all'.

And you're ok with this?

It's hard to understand their thought?? ,150 bucks out of my pocket is still 150 bucks no matter what you call it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

It's constitutional to tax people for not purchasing something?

How is taxing someone for not purchasing something any different than fining/imposing a penalty on someone for not purchasing something?

While it reigned in gov'ts over reach via the commerce clause it expanded gov't reach via taxation. The gov't will be able to 'tax' you for not purchasing something they (the gov't) deems is 'for your own good and the good of all'.

And you're ok with this?

It's hard to understand their thought?? ,150 bucks out of my pocket is still 150 bucks no matter what you call it.

It's more than clear, I'm just miffed that you can be specifically taxed for NOT purchasing something.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, taxes are put to Congressional vote and either pass or die. That's why the liberals all lied. Now it can be put to a vote to overturn and win with only 51 votes by the same process. They can try to tax anything and everything, that's why we need to elect honest representation....the left who voted for this all lied.

That is also why it was argued that the gov'ts legalistic position was that the ACA penalty is a “tax” for purposes of Congressional power, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act

If you are this stupid in real life, you are a poster child for forced abortions and death panels for imbeciles.

As written, the law says it is a penalty. The Congress will not have the power you imagine. Anyway, the GOP will not gain control of the government.

It has to go back to Congress where they will change the language to 'tax'.

 

[Ravi]

It's constitutional to tax people for not purchasing something?

How is taxing someone for not purchasing something any different than fining/imposing a penalty on someone for not purchasing something?

While it reigned in gov'ts over reach via the commerce clause it expanded gov't reach via taxation. The gov't will be able to 'tax' you for not purchasing something they (the gov't) deems is 'for your own good and the good of all'.

And you're ok with this?

It's hard to understand their thought?? ,150 bucks out of my pocket is still 150 bucks no matter what you call it.

It's more than clear, I'm just miffed that you can be specifically taxed for NOT purchasing something.

You get taxed for not purchasing a house.

 

[PredFan]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

It is not constitutional because it will force people to buy health care.

No, people could pay the tax instead.

If you agree with the ruling then you must be a liberal deep down.

That's just plain stupid.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's hard to understand their thought?? ,150 bucks out of my pocket is still 150 bucks no matter what you call it.

It's more than clear, I'm just miffed that you can be specifically taxed for NOT purchasing something.

You get taxed for not purchasing a house.

and don't forget MAO's Little Red Book. Huge penalty/fine for not purchasing that from a certified Communist Book Store.

 

[PredFan]

This tax isn't FOR buying something, it's for NOT buying something. The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem.

But they already had that power. No new amendments to the constitution had to be written to allow this. It already existed.

They already had the power to tax you for NOT purchasing something?

What else do they levy a tax on for non-purchasing?

I don't know, name something. I didn't say I thought it was a good thing, I just said it was constitutional.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you agree with the ruling then you must be a liberal deep down.

That's just plain stupid.

Not really. Chief Justice Roberts has revealed himself to be a self-loathing white person full of Marxist sympathies. I wouldn't be surprised if he can't produce a long form birth certificate certified by Donald Trump and Herman Cain.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's hard to understand their thought?? ,150 bucks out of my pocket is still 150 bucks no matter what you call it.

It's more than clear, I'm just miffed that you can be specifically taxed for NOT purchasing something.

You get taxed for not purchasing a house.

No, you get a break for purchasing a house. Same with a small business. I don't get taxed for not opening a small business but I do get tax breaks for opening a small business.

 

[Zoom-boing]

But they already had that power. No new amendments to the constitution had to be written to allow this. It already existed.

They already had the power to tax you for NOT purchasing something?

What else do they levy a tax on for non-purchasing?

I don't know, name something. I didn't say I thought it was a good thing, I just said it was constitutional.

I don't know either, that's why I asked.