Remember when Obama was shoving his health care plan down our throats...

[il Padrino Ute]

despite the country telling him that we don't want it? And remember when he said that no taxpayer funded abortions would not be included in Obamacare?

Well, no surprise, but he's a liar.

[il Padrino Ute]

Maryland will be the 2nd state to have taxpayer funded abortions.

[Uncle Ted]

At least it won't raise our taxes... remember Obama promised about the health care bill:

"If you're a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan won't raise your taxes one penny - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Wait... dammit to hell!

Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

[...]

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

[Moliere]

At least it won't raise our taxes... remember Obama promised about the health care bill:



Wait... dammit to hell!

Good find Nuggy!

The part of this that makes me crazy is the apparent lack of understanding of how the tax system works and how corporations view taxes. People are all fine with taxing businesses and corporations but they don't understand how doing so has a great affect on them even indirectly.

[RobinFinderson]

I don't get what people are complaining about. The plan itself hasn't changed. It was always clear what the administration meant when they were talking about the plan not raising taxes. It isn't as if they ran the program as one thing, then changed the plan. The plan itself is the same as ever. The only thing that has changed is what the plan means within a certain legal context. If anyone should be kicking themselves for dropping the ball, it should be the Republicans, for failing to successfully brand the mandate as a 'tax.' I don't remember the Republicans ever trying to seriously brand it that way. I remember lots of talk about the mandate being unconstitutional, and I heard that the legislation would cause taxes to go up, but I never remember hearing anyone argue against the mandate because it WAS a tax. Anyhow, the fines for failure to buy health insurance are no more a tax than the lottery and speeding tickets are taxes. Both serve a certain tax-like function, and in some contexts may even be legitimately considered a 'tax,' but no one really thinks of them that way.

[Moliere]

I don't get what people are complaining about. The plan itself hasn't changed. It was always clear what the administration meant when they were talking about the plan not raising taxes. It isn't as if they ran the program as one thing, then changed the plan. The plan itself is the same as ever. The only thing that has changed is what the plan means within a certain legal context. If anyone should be kicking themselves for dropping the ball, it should be the Republicans, for failing to successfully brand the mandate as a 'tax.' I don't remember the Republicans ever trying to seriously brand it that way. I remember lots of talk about the mandate being unconstitutional, and I heard that the legislation would cause taxes to go up, but I never remember hearing anyone argue against the mandate because it WAS a tax. Anyhow, the fines for failure to buy health insurance are no more a tax than the lottery and speeding tickets are taxes. Both serve a certain tax-like function, and in some contexts may even be legitimately considered a 'tax,' but no one really thinks of them that way.

You can passively avoid playing the lottery or getting a speeding ticket. A lottery ticket is gambling. A speeding ticket is a fine. Those are not taxes.

I agree with you that it's all just semantics and I agree on the repubs not branding this as a tax, but it was Obama that specifically said he would not tax the middle class. Now it is Obama that is trying to assert that it is a tax. Maybe Obama should have been the one to be forthcoming and just call it what it is, which is a tax.

The more I listen to Obama, the more I wonder how far up his butt Rahm and the rest of his team have their hands. I doubt he could talk his way out of a paper bag on his own when it actually comes to explaining any of the bills that he has signed into law. I'm not saying Obamacare sucks, all I'm saying is the guy is an empty-suit politician through and through, which makes 12 straight years of this type of thing.

[il Padrino Ute]

You can passively avoid playing the lottery or getting a speeding ticket. A lottery ticket is gambling. A speeding ticket is a fine. Those are not taxes.

I agree with you that it's all just semantics and I agree on the repubs not branding this as a tax, but it was Obama that specifically said he would not tax the middle class. Now it is Obama that is trying to assert that it is a tax. Maybe Obama should have been the one to be forthcoming and just call it what it is, which is a tax.

The more I listen to Obama, the more I wonder how far up his butt Rahm and the rest of his team have their hands. I doubt he could talk his way out of a paper bag on his own when it actually comes to explaining any of the bills that he has signed into law. I'm not saying Obamacare sucks, all I'm saying is the guy is an empty-suit politician through and through, which makes 12 straight years of this type of thing.

I'll say it. Obamacare sucks great big hairy donkey ones.

[RobinFinderson]

You can passively avoid playing the lottery or getting a speeding ticket. A lottery ticket is gambling. A speeding ticket is a fine. Those are not taxes.

Of course you can avoid the health-care fine/tax. Just buy insurance. Then you won't get a fine. If you can't afford insurance, the government will help put it within your reach, even making it free for people making less than a certain amount. Everyone will be able to afford health insurance, and if the private market is unable to find reasonable insurance products within the reach of all people (even with some government assistance) then we now have a system in place to transition toward a single-payer system. Look, everyone needs health care. As a people we are saying that we are both capitalists but also humane. We are using our government to shape the free marketplace so that it will sell affordable products something that we ALL need. If there is no reasonable market solution, then health care will naturally become something like roads, bridges and all of the other things that we provide for the public where a private alternative has proved to come up short of our civilization's best interests. But it isn't a traditional tax, and it is avoidable. If the program is able to coax the marketplace into creating the products we want (more affordable health insurance) then only society's Scroogiest gamblers will get the fine. In this sense it is like both lotteries and speeding tickets.

Anyhow, lets not forget that a mandate to buy health insurance (something everyone should buy), is less a government imposition on our personal liberty than is the requirement to enroll in the Selective Service System. One is just some money, every year, for something you should be buying anyway. The other is the government literally claiming ownership of your life.

[Uncle Ted]

I remember lots of talk about the mandate being unconstitutional, and I heard that the legislation would cause taxes to go up, but I never remember hearing anyone argue against the mandate because it WAS a tax.

You don't remember this part of George Stephanopoulos interview where he talks about Obama's critics calling it a tax?

You don't recall this dialog?

Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"

Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."

Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"

Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."

Either Obama is really stupid or lying his ass off in front of all America. So RF, which is it? I like to give the president the benefit of the doubt and, therefore, think it is the former.

[Uncle Ted]

Of course you can avoid the health-care fine/tax. Just buy insurance. Then you won't get a fine. If you can't afford insurance, the government will help put it within your reach, even making it free for people making less than a certain amount. Everyone will be able to afford health insurance, and if the private market is unable to find reasonable insurance products within the reach of all people (even with some government assistance) then we now have a system in place to transition toward a single-payer system. Look, everyone needs health care. As a people we are saying that we are both capitalists but also humane. We are using our government to shape the free marketplace so that it will sell affordable products something that we ALL need. If there is no reasonable market solution, then health care will naturally become something like roads, bridges and all of the other things that we provide for the public where a private alternative has proved to come up short of our civilization's best interests. But it isn't a traditional tax, and it is avoidable. If the program is able to coax the marketplace into creating the products we want (more affordable health insurance) then only society's Scroogiest gamblers will get the fine. In this sense it is like both lotteries and speeding tickets.

Anyhow, lets not forget that a mandate to buy health insurance (something everyone should buy), is less a government imposition on our personal liberty than is the requirement to enroll in the Selective Service System. One is just some money, every year, for something you should be buying anyway. The other is the government literally claiming ownership of your life.

There is a reasonable market solution. Singapore's system is far from a single-payer and is closer to a free market healthcare system and pretty much kicks every country's ass (including the US's) on the standard benchmarks.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...86&postcount=7

[Moliere]

Of course you can avoid the health-care fine/tax. Just buy insurance. Then you won't get a fine. If you can't afford insurance, the government will help put it within your reach, even making it free for people making less than a certain amount. Everyone will be able to afford health insurance, and if the private market is unable to find reasonable insurance products within the reach of all people (even with some government assistance) then we now have a system in place to transition toward a single-payer system. Look, everyone needs health care. As a people we are saying that we are both capitalists but also humane. We are using our government to shape the free marketplace so that it will sell affordable products something that we ALL need. If there is no reasonable market solution, then health care will naturally become something like roads, bridges and all of the other things that we provide for the public where a private alternative has proved to come up short of our civilization's best interests. But it isn't a traditional tax, and it is avoidable. If the program is able to coax the marketplace into creating the products we want (more affordable health insurance) then only society's Scroogiest gamblers will get the fine. In this sense it is like both lotteries and speeding tickets.

Anyhow, lets not forget that a mandate to buy health insurance (something everyone should buy), is less a government imposition on our personal liberty than is the requirement to enroll in the Selective Service System. One is just some money, every year, for something you should be buying anyway. The other is the government literally claiming ownership of your life.

My issue is not with Obamacare (I'm a single-payer base healthcare with secondary/supplement insurance to be provided by the free market guy) but with the spin that this administration is putting on it. It's an obviouis "about-face" on the whole "is it a tax or is it not a tax" issue when Obama stated time and time again that the middle class would not see any increase in taxes. This whole mess might come back to bite Obama in the butt in 2 years. It's a glaring 180, a Mitt Romney flip flop, a broken promise, a John Kerry waffle, etc.

I personally believe Obamacare is not a tax nor is it purely a fine but it is somewhere in the middle, a hybrid governmental financial instrument if you will. I'll admit though that it is more like a fine, but even then it's not really a fine in the same way as a speeding ticket in that you can get fined for doing nothing with Obamacare. In the case of a speeding ticket you still have to buy a car and then actively drive it over the speed liimit.

[RobinFinderson]

You don't remember this part of George Stephanopoulos interview where he talks about Obama's critics calling it a tax?

You don't recall this dialog?



Either Obama is really stupid or lying his ass off in front of all America. So RF, which is it? I like to give the president the benefit of the doubt and, therefore, think it is the former.

I'm not personally denying that it is literally a tax. I'm saying that this is a game of semantics, because while it is technically a tax, and that is how it will be presented before the Supreme Court, to most people it will feel like a fine. At the Constitutional level, when you see how far the commerce clause has been interpreted, some of the stuff that technically qualifies as interstate commerce is mind boggling. So much of the Civil Rights Act was justified as the regulation of interstate commerce. This is similar. I don't think it was dishonest or stupid of Obama to present the fine the way he did. In the eyes of the American people, it will look, feel and smell like a fine. There are a whole different set of legalistic hoops the administration has to jump through in order to justify the government's right to levy this fine in the eyes of the Supreme Court, and one of those hoops requires technically defining this thing as a tax.

So it is both a tax and a fine. Whatever it is, its nature hasn't changed. In spite of a former Clinton aid's interview, and the WSJ picking up on that the next day, the Republican party didn't make defining the fine as a tax a central part of their strategy to defeat it. Why not? Were they too stupid?

[Moliere]

So it is both a tax and a fine. Whatever it is, its nature hasn't changed. In spite of a former Clinton aid's interview, and the WSJ picking up on that the next day, the Republican party didn't make defining the fine as a tax a central part of their strategy to defeat it. Why not? Were they too stupid?

It seems they may have been either smart or ignorantly lucky since Obama's admin is the one that is now labeling it a tax. You contrast that with his statement during and after the campaign about not taxing people making under $250K and now the Repubs have Obama directly contradicting one of his main political promises. I expect to see many commercials from the GOP that juxtapose this contradiction.

Of course none of this changes the nature of Obamacare (which you pointed out) and it's all a game of semantics, but really when has politics ever been founded on actual facts? It's a spinsters game and semantics is part of that game.

[Hallelujah]

despite the country telling him that we don't want it? And remember when he said that no taxpayer funded abortions would not be included in Obamacare?

Well, no surprise, but he's a liar.

Don't forget that he had to bribe Senators to get it passed. He's a liar and briber. So what else is new?

[Hallelujah]

Good find Nuggy!

The part of this that makes me crazy is the apparent lack of understanding of how the tax system works and how corporations view taxes. People are all fine with taxing businesses and corporations but they don't understand how doing so has a great affect on them even indirectly.

Why are you surprised about lack of understanding in taxes, healthcare, business, etc? None of the legislators have any experience in any of those areas or markets.