Grady wrote: Isn't this thread about Obamacare? We could start a bash Bush and Romney thread for you.
Oh, you mean posting an Obama video about taxes somehow relates to "ObamaCare"? Hey, if you want to open up that door, I'm THRILLED to walk through it. Campaign promises by Romney are FAIR GAME...and his history of flip-flops is even BETTER FAIR GAME.
You don't want to go there? I don't blame you....
Obamacare was held to constitutional because individual mandate is deemed to be a tax. Therefore the video of Obama promising no tax increases fits right in with the thread.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty.
How would this be the "largest tax" in history? It only applies to a very small percentage of the population, that is, it only appliies to those individuals WITHOUT insurance, which is at most 15 - 20%, and then only to those who could afford the insurance, which will probably be around 5% (picking that number out of the air), and then it is only a modest amount, no more than .025 of an individuals taxable income beginning at a max of $95 in 2014 and capping at $645 or so by 2016. It may be that no one is subject to the penalty, and at most only a small percentage and then only a modest amount. Hardly the "largest tax" in history. Further, lower income individuals will be given credits towards premiums, and small business owners will be given substantial tax credits towards employee health insurance.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something needs to be done about the cost of health care; putting the Gubment is charge of health care is not the solution.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Something the Dog Said wrote: How would this be the "largest tax" in history? It only applies to a very small percentage of the population, that is, it only appliies to those individuals WITHOUT insurance, which is at most 15 - 20%, and then only to those who could afford the insurance, which will probably be around 5% (picking that number out of the air), and then it is only a modest amount, no more than .025 of an individuals taxable income beginning at a max of $95 in 2014 and capping at $645 or so by 2016. It may be that no one is subject to the penalty, and at most only a small percentage and then only a modest amount. Hardly the "largest tax" in history. Further, lower income individuals will be given credits towards premiums, and small business owners will be given substantial tax credits towards employee health insurance.
It's not... But every few months they have to find a way to use "largest tax in history" in a sentence... (Usually in close proximity to "socialist" and/or "communist"...) :Snooze
