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

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys do realize this argument could be made about any tax on income, right?

The health care mandate is an income tax?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys do realize this argument could be made about any tax on income, right?

No. The Constitution, as amended, allows for a tax on income. No one challenges the constitutionality of the income tax. The wisdom of it, maybe.

The mandate is a tax on income, so where exactly are you going with this?

Only a complete idiot, or a government employee, could possibly argue that a government requirement to buy a product from a private complany is an income tax.

Are you a government employee?

 

[dblack]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Why people make the comparison to car insurance I'll Never get. I guess they simply do not understand that we are a federal Republic....

It's because there are two separate issues, and both are worthy of discussion. First, is whether government should have the power to mandate purchase of a specific product from approved vendors, regardless of their jurisdiction. The other debate is the different scope of powers available to the states vs the federal - which is what you're pointing out.

I happen to think the state commanding us to buy certain products is a really bad precedent for government regardless of whether it happens at the state level or the federal level. But I also agree that it's much less egregious a the state level, and not unconstitutional in most states that I'm aware of.

 

[teapartysamurai]

This debate is sixty if not 100 years old, not new. Just let hospitals throw the broke and dying out on the purely capitalistic streets and you will have a constitutional healthcare system.

Whatever legal precident must have been set back then and was reaffirmed when John Ashcroft decided the good folks of Oregon had no right to determine their health care options.

Oops if Ashcroft was against Obamacare. He should not have used big government to impose his religous views on Oregon.

Are you talking about Oregan healthcare?

I know about the Oregan Healthcare plan. I met with the people responsible for the Oregan Healthcare plan.

I typed out the speech and prepared the reports for it when representatives visted OSU.

Oh my gosh you are stupid.

Number one Oregan healthcare came about long before Ashcroft was on the USSC.

Number two, A STATE INSTITUTING HEALTHCARE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOING THE SAME.

A State has the right to set up it's own healthcare PER THE 10TH AMENDMENT YOU IDIOT!

Helloooooooooooooooooooooooo, you ever read the 10th Amendment?

oh my gosh you are stupid.

That's not the same as the Federal GOVERNMENT mandating we buy something.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

If you are going to pretend you know what you are talking about, try refreshing yourself on the Constitution, okay?

It might make you look less foolish.

All you managed to do was let us know about your bigotry toward Aschcroft's faith. Thanks for letting us know.

The Oregon right to die thing a few years back was what I was referring to.

Is this where I should make an oddly placed personal attack on you even though it is likely to make you angry and entrench you in your position?

IMO a constitutional ammendment probably is needed if you just take a snap shot of the document. BUT over the last hundred years or so enough constitutional ignoring has occcured that quite a few things would need changed.

I was using Ashcroft as an example I thought everyone was familiar with. Perhaps just I was because he started off near me in something called Missoura.

None of that made any sense.

The Kervorkian movement has nothing to do with healthcare, and the fact that liberals try to ignore the constituiton has nothing to do with whether or not we should just let liberals ignore the constituiton again.

 

[Polk]

You guys do realize this argument could be made about any tax on income, right?

The health care mandate is an income tax?

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?

 

[boedicca]

You guys do realize this argument could be made about any tax on income, right?

The health care mandate is an income tax?

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?

But Obama said it wasn't a tax, and that is how the legislation was passed.

 

[The T]

The health care mandate is an income tax?

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?

But Obama said it wasn't a tax, and that is how the legislation was passed.

And when they were confronted on the Commerce Clause, they went immediately to 'Congress has the authority to TAX'...

 

[dblack]

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?

That's an excellent point and highlights why tax credits and incentives are fundamentally unjust - and a radical expansion of government's power to dictate how we live our lives. It's my sincerest hope that Obama has done us all a favor with his equivocation and that it will lead to a widespread reversal of this policy. Discriminatory taxation is wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys do realize this argument could be made about any tax on income, right?

The health care mandate is an income tax?

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.

 

[Polk]

The health care mandate is an income tax?

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?

But Obama said it wasn't a tax, and that is how the legislation was passed.

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

 

[Polk]

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?

That's an excellent point and highlights why tax credits and incentives are fundamentally unjust - and a radical expansion of government's power to dictate how we live our lives. It's my sincerest hope that Obama has done us all a favor with his equivocation and that it will lead to a widespread reversal of this policy. Discriminatory taxation is wrong.

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.

 

[dblack]

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?

 

[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?

But Obama said it wasn't a tax, and that is how the legislation was passed.

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?

 

[Polk]

The health care mandate is an income tax?

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.

 

[boedicca]

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?

But Obama said it wasn't a tax, and that is how the legislation was passed.

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

Wow. What a great example of corruption.

 

[Polk]

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.

 

[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?

That's an excellent point and highlights why tax credits and incentives are fundamentally unjust - and a radical expansion of government's power to dictate how we live our lives. It's my sincerest hope that Obama has done us all a favor with his equivocation and that it will lead to a widespread reversal of this policy. Discriminatory taxation is wrong.

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

As does the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformity_Clause#Uniformity_Clause

Guess who is going to win that argument?

 

[Polk]

But Obama said it wasn't a tax, and that is how the legislation was passed.

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.

 

[dblack]

I disagree with your belief that "discriminatory taxation" is wrong. There is a legitimate public interest in incentivizing certain behaviors and actions.

Of course you do. You're defending the mandate after all.

But I think you're wrong. The tax code should be used to generate revenue for the government in good faith - not as back door legislation to expand government's power to dictate behavior.

 

[Polk]

That's an excellent point and highlights why tax credits and incentives are fundamentally unjust - and a radical expansion of government's power to dictate how we live our lives. It's my sincerest hope that Obama has done us all a favor with his equivocation and that it will lead to a widespread reversal of this policy. Discriminatory taxation is wrong.

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.