Oh, no -- we've been surprise a-taxed!

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Oh, no -- we've been surprise a-taxed!

From the NYT:

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.”

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.”

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. 

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?ref=politics

First it wasn't a tax. Now, because it's a tax -- always was a tax -- you can't even challenge it in court before paying it. The Obamunists want the lawsuit summarily dismissed. 'These are OUR courts, and you rabble aren't welcome in here.'

Even the compliant MSM can't refrain from pointing out the breathtaking cynicism -- one might even say sociopathy -- of a regime which lies without compunction, assuming that the sheeple are too thick to catch on to their flat-footed bait-and-switch routine.

By no coincidence, the O'Bummer regime cites one of the most anti-freedom court rulings in U.S. history, Wickard v. Filburn. This disgraceful 1942 decision, never overturned, rubber-stamped the Roosevelt administration's Soviet-style punishment of an Ohio farmer for growing wheat in excess of his allotment in order to feed his family. 'Let the kulaks eat cake!' shrieked the hacks in black:

In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

Clearly, the same sort of expedient totalitarianism will be required to shove Obamacare down the nation's throat. 

Freedom? It's not only not free -- it ain't even on sale no more. Your insurance papers, please.

 

 

 

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
Re: Oh, no -- we've been surprise a-taxed!

You, sir, are in my court, therefore I must assume you are guilty. 

The president cannot tell a lie. 

 It is the law.

 

 

However, the healthcare you don't get will still be free!!  EnjoySurprised

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 845
Re: Oh, no -- we've been surprise a-taxed!

Oh, it's an a-tax alright.

However, only the naive are surprised.  Wait, they aren't surprised because they don't even realize it is a tax.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Re: Oh, no -- we've been surprise a-taxed!

in the bill there are also taxes on drugs and taxes on medical devices and a bunch of other stuff that when added up absolutely proves the bill needs to be repealed.  the fed gov has plenty of money, they just do not spend it properly.  in november the house turns over (and maybe the senate) and that will stop the crazy spending.  two novembers after that obama goes and the repealing starts.  what is worrying me right now is what craziness will go on after the election and before the new members are sworn in.  that is a problem.  the current crop in power has already conclusively demonstrated they do not feel bound by their oath to uphold the constitution - that is a fact.  they have also proved to be shockingly unscrupulous as they pass legislation against the wishes of their own constituents.  this is why they are going to be removed from office.  but what immoral stuff will go on during the lame duck time is unknown.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments