Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, EARN LESS MONEY

[dblack]

So, would you agree then that the bill was promoted and 'sold' to the American public based on a deliberate lie?

I would say that statements claiming the mandate is not a tax were a lie, but would disagree with the notion that the bill was promoted on that basis. The selling point of the bill was covering those without insurance and efforts to bend the cost curve.

Ok, no offense, but I have to call bullshit on that. The whole point of avoiding calling it at tax, indeed of Obama vehemently denying it publicly, was to deceive people who would have otherwise been opposed to the bill. I'll gladly join you in shaming those people for their gullibility, but the fact remains they were conned. And Obama and the Democrats in congress did the conning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. It's a tax levied on people without health insurance, with waivers if their income falls under a certain level. Consider this alternative. What if the Affordable Care Act included a $700 tax if your income was over a certain, but you'd get a tax credit for $700 if you had health insurance. Would you argue that's not a tax on income?

If it is a tax on people who do not have insurance it is not a tax on income.

Would I argue that a tax credit is not a tax on income? Every single day of the week. I categorically oppose the use of the tax code to do anything other than raise revenue for the government. I oppose social engineering in all forms it comes in, even if I agree with the results. A tax on income is used to raise revenue.

Medicare and Social Security are not income taxes, and they are not graduated at all specifically because they are not taxes on income, they are taxes designed to accomplish a specific goal, which is to make sure that everyone has a medical coverage and income for their retirement.

The mandate is unconstitutional because it is not permissible under the commerce clause because it regulates by forcing people to participate in a market. It is not an income tax because it is not in any way about raising revenue for the government. It is not a tax because taxes cannot be punitive in nature, and this is.

Like I said, only an idiot or a government employee would argue that the mandate is an income tax.

So would you argue that the mortgage interest deduction is a tax on renters?

It's not punitive. No one is being punished. People are, in effect, being given a tax break for having insurance. It's no different from that tax breaks given to homeowners or investors.

Also, it's completely permissible under the commerce clause to force people into a market when there is a legitimate public interest. Don't take my word for it. The Founding Fathers believed it, and implemented in a law.

No, I would argue that it is a deduction that applies before you figure out your taxable income, which I approve of. I would also argue that it is social engineering because it favors people who buy houses, which I oppose. To make it fair people should be able to deduct rental expenses.

As usual, you loose.

The Constitution specifically says that all duties, imports, and excises must be uniform throughout the United States. That means that Congress does not have the power to use taxes to accomplish social engineering based on discriminatory criteria. Please show me how the founding fathers codified social engineering into law when they specifically forbade the federal government the power to do so. Unless, that is, you are talking about states doing it, which is another issue entirely.

 

[The T]

So, would you agree then that the bill was promoted and 'sold' to the American public based on a deliberate lie?

I would say that statements claiming the mandate is not a tax were a lie, but would disagree with the notion that the bill was promoted on that basis. The selling point of the bill was covering those without insurance and efforts to bend the cost curve.

Ok, no offense, but I have to call bullshit on that. The whole point of avoiding calling it at tax, indeed of Obama vehemently denying it publicly, was to deceive people who would have otherwise been opposed to the bill. I'll gladly join you in shaming those people for their gullibility, but the fact remains they were conned. And Obama and the Democrats in congress did the conning.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_-qh9XDbgE]YouTube - ‪OBAMA MANDITORY TAX ON HEALTH CARE IS NOT A TAX‬‏[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What Obama said is irrelevant. The mechanism is a tax, whether the President desired to call it one or not.

So, would you agree then that the bill was promoted and 'sold' to the American public based on a deliberate lie?

I would say that statements claiming the mandate is not a tax were a lie, but would disagree with the notion that the bill was promoted on that basis. The selling point of the bill was covering those without insurance and efforts to bend the cost curve.

Then why keep up the lie after the law is passed?

 

[Polk]

So, would you agree then that the bill was promoted and 'sold' to the American public based on a deliberate lie?

I would say that statements claiming the mandate is not a tax were a lie, but would disagree with the notion that the bill was promoted on that basis. The selling point of the bill was covering those without insurance and efforts to bend the cost curve.

Ok, no offense, but I have to call bullshit on that. The whole point of avoiding calling it at tax, indeed of Obama vehemently denying it publicly, was to deceive people who would have otherwise been opposed to the bill. I'll gladly join you in shaming those people for their gullibility, but the fact remains they were conned. And Obama and the Democrats in congress did the conning.

Deceive them in what sense? Do you really think there was some sizable group that supported the bill, but would have opposed it if they considered the mandate a tax? It's not like we had a plebiscite on the issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What Obama said is irrelevant. The mechanism is a tax, whether the President desired to call it one or not.

Funny thing here, until it was necessary to defend the mandate in court it was not a tax, then it suddenly became one. Mu guess is that, as usual, lawyers started throwing a bunch of shitty ideas around in the hope that something would stick. Why did the shitty tax idea stick with you? Does it not bother you that, if this is a tax, you are arguing that Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less that $250,000? I am pretty sure that I could find you defending the claim that he has not broken that particular promise, even though you are arguing here that he did.

Can you explain that?

It doesn't bother me because it was pretty stupid promise to begin with. People need to get real about what they want. You can't finance a state the size the public wants without everyone paying a share of their income than is the case today.

You don't care that he lied? Or that he continues to lie? Got it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I disagree with your belief that "discriminatory taxation" is wrong. There is a legitimate public interest in incentivizing certain behaviors and actions. Where I do agree is that this action shouldn't be done via the tax code. It creates highly inefficient outcomes.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

JURIST - Paper Chase: Supreme Court upholds railroad challenge to discriminatory taxation

Guess who is going to win that argument?

You may want to read that decision more closely. It doesn't say what you think it says.

What do you think I think it says?

 

[dblack]

Do you really think there was some sizable group that supported the bill, but would have opposed it if they considered the mandate a tax? It's not like we had a plebiscite on the issue.

Absolutely. You may be assuming that most people are as up on politics as we are, but they aren't. They listen to the talking heads on the radio and tv and many of them only have on question they're concerned with about new legislation: "Will it require a tax increase?"

Obama was perfectly aware of this. Why else did he go to such lengths to lie about it?

 

[boedicca]

Do you really think there was some sizable group that supported the bill, but would have opposed it if they considered the mandate a tax? It's not like we had a plebiscite on the issue.

Absolutely. You may be assuming that most people are as up on politics as we are, but they aren't. They listen to the talking heads on the radio and tv and many of them only have on question they're concerned with about new legislation: "Will it require a tax increase?"

Obama was perfectly aware of this. Why else did he go to such lengths to lie about it?

Congress was quite careful to make sure the language was a fine, not a tax. This was done for political purposes as making it a tax would have provided ammunition against the Dems for upcoming elections (shortsighed of them as ObamaCare itself is ammunition against them).

The entire Obamanation was one of the most deceitful and cynical legislative processes in ages.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would say that statements claiming the mandate is not a tax were a lie, but would disagree with the notion that the bill was promoted on that basis. The selling point of the bill was covering those without insurance and efforts to bend the cost curve.

Ok, no offense, but I have to call bullshit on that. The whole point of avoiding calling it at tax, indeed of Obama vehemently denying it publicly, was to deceive people who would have otherwise been opposed to the bill. I'll gladly join you in shaming those people for their gullibility, but the fact remains they were conned. And Obama and the Democrats in congress did the conning.

Deceive them in what sense? Do you really think there was some sizable group that supported the bill, but would have opposed it if they considered the mandate a tax? It's not like we had a plebiscite on the issue.

Do you really think there isn't?

 

[dblack]

So would you argue that the mortgage interest deduction is a tax on renters?

It's not punitive. No one is being punished. People are, in effect, being given a tax break for having insurance. It's no different from that tax breaks given to homeowners or investors.

Again, I believe you're right that there's no difference. But in both cases, it's wrong and equally punitive. In either case you're presented with a mandate - do as you're told, or you'll have to pay more taxes. You can play games with the psychology of it by calling it a 'break' for those who comply, rather than a 'punishment' for those who don't. But the dynamic is exactly the same.

 

[Polk]

Funny thing here, until it was necessary to defend the mandate in court it was not a tax, then it suddenly became one. Mu guess is that, as usual, lawyers started throwing a bunch of shitty ideas around in the hope that something would stick. Why did the shitty tax idea stick with you? Does it not bother you that, if this is a tax, you are arguing that Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less that $250,000? I am pretty sure that I could find you defending the claim that he has not broken that particular promise, even though you are arguing here that he did.

Can you explain that?

It doesn't bother me because it was pretty stupid promise to begin with. People need to get real about what they want. You can't finance a state the size the public wants without everyone paying a share of their income than is the case today.

You don't care that he lied? Or that he continues to lie? Got it.

No, I don't care that he lied about it. Politicians make crazy promises to get elected. It's part of the process.

 

[Polk]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

JURIST - Paper Chase: Supreme Court upholds railroad challenge to discriminatory taxation

Guess who is going to win that argument?

You may want to read that decision more closely. It doesn't say what you think it says.

What do you think I think it says?

You think the difference between railroad and other firms in that case is analogous to the difference between those who have insurance and those who don't have insurance. The problem is that analogy doesn't add up. There is a pretty clear difference between the two cases. Namely, Alabama's taxation of railroads at a different rate from its competitors is discriminating against railroads for an inherent property they possess. There is nothing inherent about an individual not having health insurance.

 

[Polk]

Ok, no offense, but I have to call bullshit on that. The whole point of avoiding calling it at tax, indeed of Obama vehemently denying it publicly, was to deceive people who would have otherwise been opposed to the bill. I'll gladly join you in shaming those people for their gullibility, but the fact remains they were conned. And Obama and the Democrats in congress did the conning.

Deceive them in what sense? Do you really think there was some sizable group that supported the bill, but would have opposed it if they considered the mandate a tax? It's not like we had a plebiscite on the issue.

Do you really think there isn't?

No. The views of the public aren't that nuanced. People like to talk about how deliberate and well-informed swing voters are. It couldn't be further from the truth. The more informed members of the electorate, by and large, are the groups within the core of each party. Independents blow with the wind.

 

[Polk]

So would you argue that the mortgage interest deduction is a tax on renters?

It's not punitive. No one is being punished. People are, in effect, being given a tax break for having insurance. It's no different from that tax breaks given to homeowners or investors.

Again, I believe you're right that there's no difference. But in both cases, it's wrong and equally punitive. In either case you're presented with a mandate - do as you're told, or you'll have to pay more taxes. You can play games with the psychology of it by calling it a 'break' for those who comply, rather than a 'punishment' for those who don't. But the dynamic is exactly the same.

You realize I agree with your interpretation of the situation, but disagree on the philosophy, right? I asked the previous poster that question because there is an inheritance inconsistency in his position.

 

[WillowTree]

It doesn't bother me because it was pretty stupid promise to begin with. People need to get real about what they want. You can't finance a state the size the public wants without everyone paying a share of their income than is the case today.

You don't care that he lied? Or that he continues to lie? Got it.

No, I don't care that he lied about it. Politicians make crazy promises to get elected. It's part of the process.

and you wonder why the country is fucked up??? Folks here be your answer!


Holy Shit!

 

[Too Tall]

It's not the same. A state has the right to mandate you carry insurance as part of the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING in their state.

I didn't say it was the same. It's certainly not a constitutional violation. But I think it's just as bad in terms of overreaching government and undercutting personal responsibility.

Point taken, but there are so many in our society that are personally unresponsible. (Is that a word?)

 

[Polk]

You don't care that he lied? Or that he continues to lie? Got it.

No, I don't care that he lied about it. Politicians make crazy promises to get elected. It's part of the process.

and you wonder why the country is fucked up??? Folks here be your answer!


Holy Shit!

So if John McCain had been elected, do you really think he would have balanced the budget?

 

[Too Tall]

Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.

You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.

I'm for the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it state that the Government can force anyone to buy anything. If they choose not to buy insurance, that's their decision. Let them accept the consequences.

Every country in the world that has a 'single payer' system is collapsing under the weight of it. That's true. Research it. And by research, I mean you need to actually research, not google it and link to an MSNBC article.

Learn to think critically instead of accepting one side as fact and the other as bullshit.

Just like nowhere in the document does it state we should be using nuclear weapons or an air force. Funny how you skipped over that part.

When people don't purchase insurance it's not them that suffers the consequences, it's the rest of us who pay higher rates to cover their care. Are you ignorant to that fact? Or are you of the opinion that if you can't afford care, you shouldn't receive it?

Learn to live in todays world.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Too Tall]

It's not the same. A state has the right to mandate you carry insurance as part of the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING in their state.

The 10th amendmemnt gives them that right.

The Federal government, on the other hand, does NOT have the right to mandate you have car insurance.

The same goes for health insurance.

The federal government does not have a right to mandate you buy ANYTHING.

Privilege of driving? WTF is that? I paid for the vehicle, right? I should have the right to drive it!

You see? it just depends on how ridiculous you want to get on these subjects. As far as I'm concerned, if there were a National Health Care Policy... no one would have to BUY anything... we'd all have to pay... but none of us would have to buy.

Health Care, IMO... is akin to Police, Fire, Education and Military. It's a basic necessity that preserves our quality of life.

As long as you drive your car on your own land and don't drive it on any public road or highway, knock your self out. You won't need a drivers license, license plates or insurance. However, if you wish to endanger the public on roads paid for by the taxpayers, you will be required to have all of the mentioned items.