-
dave1954 said...
Ole Mittens stepped in it today, again, with a statement saying that the Obamacare penalty for not buying healthcare insurance is really a tax. Of course he said this after getting heat from the rest of the Republican Party. This after 2 of his people said last week its a penalty, not a tax. Does this weak, Richie Rich wannabe think he will get away with this . I dont think so. Either does the WSJ. He has no backbone, doesn't have a clue what the avg. guy does and goes through and really isn't very smart. Now he's got his wifey protecting him. What a coward!
Schaefnuts70426
- 5 stars Rating: 82
1355 votes total - (1224)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Schaef-nuts said...
"Ole Mittens stepped in it today, again, with a statement saying that the Obamacare penalty for not buying healthcare insurance is really a tax." - Hey, genius. The Supreme Court called it a tax. You may want to read up a little bit more on these issues before you post.
"Does this weak, Richie Rich wannabe think he will get away with this" - Please end sentences like this with a question mark.
"Either does the WSJ" - This should be re-worded to say "NEITHER does the WSJ".
Please correct and resubmit. It's due no later than Friday.
minsterbuckeye
- 4 stars Rating: 61
5900 votes total - (4195)
- 28 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Darcangelo said...
So a day before the ruling was handed down the msm was already deeming the SCOTUS a far right wing activist court rewriting laws (see Chris Matthews, David Gregory, etc..) Once the ruling came out, Roberts became an instant hero to the left. Funny how that works. Now boneheads like dave are in complete shock and disarray that in the ruling they determined it was in fact a tax, not some "penalty" as the Obama lap dogs want you to believe. Dave is one of two things here, he's either trolling or he's just plain ignorant.
minsterbuckeye
- 4 stars Rating: 61
5900 votes total - (4195)
- 28 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Schaefnuts70426
- 5 stars Rating: 82
1355 votes total - (1224)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Schaef-nuts said...
"Ole Mittens stepped in it today, again, with a statement saying that the Obamacare penalty for not buying healthcare insurance is really a tax." - Hey, genius. The Supreme Court called it a tax. You may want to read up a little bit more on these issues before you post.
"Does this weak, Richie Rich wannabe think he will get away with this" - Please end sentences like this with a question mark.
"Either does the WSJ" - This should be re-worded to say "NEITHER does the WSJ".
Please correct and resubmit. It's due no later than Friday.
Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.
-
TimMcM said...
Schaef, The SC did not call it a tax, if they had they could not have ruled upon it. Surprised that you of all the folks on here did not know about the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.
According to JC Roberts who was the swing vote, sometimes it is a tax and sometimes it is not. If it were just another tax, the SC could not have ruled on it because the SC cannot rule on a tax until it is collected which in this case this does not happen until 2014. Though it is therefore not a tax in the regular sense, the Congress has the Constitutional power to do what is in the bill. This power comes from Congress' authority to tax, whether it is called a tax or not. This is not that different than the different types of Federal fees and penalties. There is no Constitutional power for Congress to collect penalties or fees but they can pass laws doing so because fees and penalties come under the authority to tax.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/06/28/when-is-a-penalty-a-tax-sorting-through-the-scotus-health-care-decision/2/ "Chief Justice Roberts says that Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act and therefore, the Anti-Injunction Act doesn’t bar this suit.
I know – you’re scratching your head at this point and maybe even scrolling back up to read. How can it be a tax for one purpose and not another? Here’s the distinction: the label matters for purposes of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act. But the label doesn’t “control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax.” That question is based on “substance and application.”
Schaefnuts70426
- 5 stars Rating: 82
1355 votes total - (1224)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
It's Thursday, It Must Be ATax