How does it feel to now be a taxpayer?

apple0154 said:
Huh? Obama did have a plan on how to fund it but the court struck it down so now Obama will think of another way. As I said before the money is there and the savings will be enormous.
Click to expand...

Just as I said:
You agree that Obama signed a bill that has no funding.

This essentially makes it a mute point.

Thanks for agreeing.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Just as I said:
You agree that Obama signed a bill that has no funding.

This essentially makes it a mute point.

Thanks for agreeing.
Click to expand...

It did have funding. The Repubs didn't like the way it was funded so they went to court and the court struck down that particular way of funding it. No big deal. There are other ways which Justice Roberts was so kind to suggest.

A important point that seems to be overlooked here is while Justice Roberts could have simply gone along with the other Conservatives he must have realized how important ObamaCare was/is as he suggested an alternate way to fund it. My take on it is he realized that if Obamacare failed it would be a long time before any politician brought up health care reform and that wasn't an attractive option. He handed the solution to the Dems because he knew it was the "right" thing to do. The right thing as in the correct thing and, also, as in the right wing thing to do. :)
 
apple0154 said:
It did have funding. The Repubs didn't like the way it was funded so they went to court and the court struck down that particular way of funding it. No big deal. There are other ways which Justice Roberts was so kind to suggest.

A important point that seems to be overlooked here is while Justice Roberts could have simply gone along with the other Conservatives he must have realized how important ObamaCare was/is as he suggested an alternate way to fund it. My take on it is he realized that if Obamacare failed it would be a long time before any politician brought up health care reform and that wasn't an attractive option. He handed the solution to the Dems because he knew it was the "right" thing to do. The right thing as in the correct thing and, also, as in the right wing thing to do. :)
Click to expand...

And after all that typing, it still has no funding. :D
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And after all that typing, it still has no funding. :D
Click to expand...

Oh, but it doesn't need funding, haven't you been listening to Tom and OneCell? The only thing that was at issue was the mandate and the penalty, and those are taxes... there is no other cost involved here, according to them! Yes... the MIRACLE of Obamacare! We are going to administer health care and health care coverage, set up all these panels to study cost-effectiveness, for 40 million extra people, and it's not going to cost us a dime! Ain't that great? I suppose all the people who will be involved with making sure regulations are followed and mandates satisfied... they are all going to be volunteers. I think that is just great!
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It is not a tax, it is a fine, payable via the tax system by those that choose to have no insurance and can afford to pay.
Click to expand...


According to the Supreme Court, it can't be anything BUT a tax, it's unconstitutional otherwise.

You can keep on saying it's NOT a tax, but the highest court has spoken. It's a tax, if it's constitutional.
 
apple0154 said:
I said the money is there. The government collects money and proportions it as it sees fit.

Think of the government as the average Joe. Taxes are like Joe's pay check. They can be spent on whatever the government decides just like Joe can spend his pay check on whatever he decides. Is that so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

You need to brush up on how government works in the US. I am not sure about Canada, I'll admit, I don't really know how things work there... but in the US, the government doesn't have any money... in fact, they currently owe other governments $15 trillion and counting. Now, each year, the government is supposed to decide where and how the money collected from taxes are distributed, and pretty much all of that is already spoken for. In fact, not since Clinton, has the government actually had money left over, they generally overspend by several hundred billion... Obama & Co. have overspent each year by closer to $1 trillion (average).

You see, we can't "think of the government as the average Joe" because the government doesn't go to work and make a living like the average Joe. The government is more like the average Joe who is on welfare, and who gets a certain fixed amount of money given to him by the people. But here lately Welfare Joe has gone out and bought a new car, a new boat, new jet skis, one of those ATV things, a giant plasma screen TV, and maxed out all his credit cards. The measly little amount of 'welfare' he gets from the people in the form of taxes, is barely enough to pay the interest on all this shit, but he just keeps on buying more and more stuff, because his brain is controlled by liberal democrats.

Obamacare was not funded by Congress when it was approved. If it had been, it would have cost us about $10 trillion up front. I think we would have heard something about that, since we are already $15 trillion in debt. I can't imagine ANY Congressman approving such an expenditure, even IF we had the money to spend, which we don't. A considerable portion of the initial implementation, was funded with a $600 billion transfer from Medicare, which now has to be returned, according to SCOTUS. Another large chunk of the cost regarding implementation, was mandated to the States, who were ordered to pay for it out of their state Medicare funds. The court also ruled this was unconstitutional. So at this point, here is what you have:

A SCOTUS ruling that you CAN implement the individual mandate to purchase insurance or levy a fine, under the Feds ability to tax. That takes care of getting everyone on insurance... I don't know of a single Republican who is opposed to people buying their own insurance. Granted, it would be nice if we had the option to NOT do it... and I think that is encroaching our freedoms, but that's what the court has ruled. I can live with it being the law that every person has to be responsible and carry health insurance, or pay a fine if they don't. But now... THAT is NOT what Obamacare sought to do, was it?

You see... the "problem" is going to be the millions who can't afford to buy insurance. Someone will have to pick up the tab for them, and we don't have passage of any kind of a tax bill to remedy that. In order for Congress to do this, a special tax will have to be voted on and passed by supermajority in both houses, and signed by the president. The court has already told us, we can't take money out of something else to pay for this... so the only way to do it, is to introduce some legislation and put it to a vote. I don't think you are going to have the votes to pass ANY tax increase.
 
Dixie said:
According to the Supreme Court, it can't be anything BUT a tax, it's unconstitutional otherwise.

You can keep on saying it's NOT a tax, but the highest court has spoken. It's a tax, if it's constitutional.
Click to expand...

It is just semantics, nothing more, nothing less. It is a fine which is retrieved via the tax system.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It is just semantics, nothing more, nothing less. It is a fine which is retrieved via the tax system.
Click to expand...

Again, the government has no authority to fine me because I don't purchase a product. The SCOTUS said so. They can charge me a tax, because Congress does have the authority to tax. But now, this raises another constitutional question I have... when did a supermajority of both houses, approve this tax?
 
Dixie said:
According to the Supreme Court, it can't be anything BUT a tax, it's unconstitutional otherwise.

You can keep on saying it's NOT a tax, but the highest court has spoken. It's a tax, if it's constitutional.
Click to expand...
Yea...and the highest court said that money=speech.

Go figure
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Mere semantics, which you know perfectly well. It is a penalty which is retrieved via the tax system.
Click to expand...

you mean when you call the tax a penalty instead of a tax it's semantics?.......do you realize Robert's opinion specifically refers to that argument?.....he points out that whether you call it a penalty of a tax, it's still a tax.....
 
"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. " - Justice Roberts majority opinion!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top