Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

NigelTufnel said:
Actually, the main argument they are making is a Commerce Clause argument. That WSJ editorial you posted is pretty far off base.
Click to expand...
I didn't post it. I just commented on it. I'm amazed that they would now start calling it a "tax" being as it would violate "The Pledge", the crawfishing of the Administration and the apologists just add icing to that particular case.

But let's see...

The guy who wrote the article: Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2005).

And then there's this anonymous messageboard poster...

Let me weigh the expertise....
 
NigelTufnel said:
Not really. They're saying its a penalty and that, whatever the hell you want to call it, it is an appropriate exercise of congressional power to provide for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

are they calling it a tax or not nigel, because what i read....they are

you're trying desperately to split hairs and defend obama....C+ effort, but ultimately a fail
 
Yurt said:
are they calling it a tax or not nigel, because what i read....they are

you're trying desperately to split hairs and defend obama....C+ effort, but ultimately a fail
Click to expand...


Well, in what I read they keep calling it a penalty and go out of their way to not call it a tax. Instead, they say euphemistic things like it "generates revenue" and point out that, while they aren't calling it a tax, the Joint Committee on Taxation called it a tax and so forth.

What does it matter anyway? If the government eliminated the income tax tomorrow and implemented a "working penalty" that worked exactly the same way it wouldn't really change anything.
 
apparently yurt has to come to nigel's rescue again by posting from a document :)

The Anti-Injunction Act likewise bars jurisdiction here. That statute provides in relevant part that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). The Anti-Injunction Act requires any challenge to the minimum coverage provision to be brought by the right plaintiff (one subject to the penalty under that provision) in the right forum (a refund suit) at the right time (after assessment and payment of the penalty).
Click to expand...

keyword is likewise....clearly they are also using the AIA because no suit shall be maintained if brought for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax....
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, in what I read they keep calling it a penalty and go out of their way to not call it a tax. Instead, they say euphemistic things like it "generates revenue" and point out that, while they aren't calling it a tax, the Joint Committee on Taxation called it a tax and so forth.

What does it matter anyway? If the government eliminated the income tax tomorrow and implemented a "working penalty" that worked exactly the same way it wouldn't really change anything.
Click to expand...

it matters because obama said it wouldn't be a tax...and thanks for agreeing that merely changing words and using words like penalty really do not change the fact that this is a tax..
 
Yurt said:
apparently yurt has to come to nigel's rescue again by posting from a document :)



keyword is likewise....clearly they are also using the AIA because no suit shall be maintained if brought for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax....
Click to expand...

They quote the Anti-Injunction Act and then, like I said, refer to the "penalty" in the healthcare bill, going out of their way to avoid calling it a tax.
 
Yurt said:
it matters because obama said it wouldn't be a tax...and thanks for agreeing that merely changing words and using words like penalty really do not change the fact that this is a tax..
Click to expand...


Well, Obama would absolutely reject that notion. I think he's full of shit, personally, but that doesn't change the fact that DoJ made every effort to call it a "penalty" and not a tax.
 
NigelTufnel said:
They quote the Anti-Injunction Act and then, like I said, refer to the "penalty" in the healthcare bill, going out of their way to avoid calling it a tax.
Click to expand...

you said it as good as i could:

What does it matter anyway? If the government eliminated the income tax tomorrow and implemented a "working penalty" that worked exactly the same way it wouldn't really change anything.

doesn't matter if they don't call it a tax, it is clear they are using its tax ability and identity as an argument to say the state has no standing....

its either a tax or isn't it....you of all people shouldn't fall for lawyering up words or meaning
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, Obama would absolutely reject that notion. I think he's full of shit, personally, but that doesn't change the fact that DoJ made every effort to call it a "penalty" and not a tax.
Click to expand...

you're a dummy, a moron, an less intelligent person....

but, i made every effort not to call you an idiot, please give me credit for not calling you an idiot

:rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
you said it as good as i could:

What does it matter anyway? If the government eliminated the income tax tomorrow and implemented a "working penalty" that worked exactly the same way it wouldn't really change anything.

doesn't matter if they don't call it a tax, it is clear they are using its tax ability and identity as an argument to say the state has no standing....

its either a tax or isn't it....you of all people shouldn't fall for lawyering up words or meaning
Click to expand...


But the whole point of the article is that Obama is changing his stance. He isn't. They called it a penalty on day one even though it looks like a tax and they call it a penalty now even though it looks like a tax.

If the argument were simply: Obama is full of shit, it's a tax. I'd be right with you.
 
f*cking lawyers. This is a perfect example of why lawyers and politicians are scum. Can't just simply answer something it has to be drowned out in a stream of endless rhetoric intended to never answer anything.
 
NigelTufnel said:
But the whole point of the article is that Obama is changing his stance. He isn't. They called it a penalty on day one even though it looks like a tax and they call it a penalty now even though it looks like a tax.

If the argument were simply: Obama is full of shit, it's a tax. I'd be right with you.
Click to expand...

i see your point...i'm with you then

i think the issue is that in court filings the word tax is in fact used...
 
man, these guys are idiots. And what's more, they think you and I are as stupid as they are. This makes them doubly stupid.

Seriously, the entire opponent argument was that they were imposing an unfair tax/penalty on people for not buying a product. Go back and look at posts from this site
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top