Gawd, I wanna fuck Palin silly! I bet she's great in the sack. Ultra Christian conservative chicks usually are. Its the one time they can let their hair down.
Obama's landmark achievement is little more than a regressive tax that impacts the poor far more than it does the rich. Have fun defending that one on the campaign trail, Democrats.
Good point that I saw on a legal forum. Expect hundreds of lawsuits to be filed under the 14th amendment. It's a cut and dry equal protection violation. People not having to pay a tax based solely on their membership to a union is a clear violation of the 14th.
Yeah, the more you analyze the reasoning behind this decision, you see that the Dem waivers to their supporters simply won't stand now that the mandate/penalty has been literally reworded into a "tax". So not only does Obama, thanks to Obama's own lawyers (who argued it was a tax and not a penalty in USSC chambers), Roberts, and the 4 libs, have to defend a massive regressive tax that he said wasn't a tax when he was pushing it, but he'll also have to deal with the organizations who financially back him, and were granted waivers from this bill. The SEIU comes to mind.
That's a nice theory, but the waivers actually allow some unions (and also a bunch of corporations) to continue to offer their current health care plans that have benefit limits until 2014. It does not exempt them (or their members/employees) from the mandate or penalty/tax, which doesn't kick in until 2014. barfo
Since it's a tax bill, the current waivers need to cease IMMEDIATELY. It's not that hard to understand. Any waiver under this new tax bill is unconstitutional unless it's written into the bill.
It's not a 'tax bill'. It is a bill that contains tax provisions, among other things. It is one of the other things that the waivers are for. barfo
Actually, it's a tax bill, which is why it can be repealed with only 51 votes in the Senate. Lawsuits will be filed ASAP to not only end waivers now, but to also go back and try to recover payments.
This guy lies with such ease that it's scary. The TV ads for this obvious lie are going to be devastating not only for Obama, but also those who voted for his tax increase. [video=youtube;bg-ofjXrXio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bg-ofjXrXio#![/video]
It's semantics whether you call it a fee or a tax increase. On this point, the comparison to auto insurance is perfectly appropriate (I'm not saying the entire proposal is the same as mandating auto insurance)...we don't call requiring auto insurance a "tax increase" even though there are usually penalties for not having it. I don't think a semantics war is going to be particularly devastating politically. Even if you do view it as a "tax increase" it's not going to affect all that many people in the middle class...most middle class people have health insurance and therefore won't incur the penalty/tax. Those too poor to be able to afford health insurance will get subsidies to hep them afford it. I guess we'll see.
I can choose not to drive a car. Breathing is involuntary. There is a huge difference between incurring a tax for an action and incurring a tax because of inaction. What a shitty, legally flimsy decision.
You didn't read my post carefully. I said "on this point" (which was whether it was a tax or a fee), and not on the entire concept of the bill, it was an appropriate comparison. As for whether the entirety of the bill is appropriate to compare to an auto insurance mandate, that's a different discussion. You can choose to not to drive a car, and you can choose not to live in the US. It's not contingent on you "being alive" as cool a talking point as that is. It's contingent on you being part of the US society who's elected officials have decided one social responsibility is health insurance. You can always choose not to be a part of the society, if you find it too objectionable. You could also choose to remain in the society and fight the mandate, though you'll then have to abide by it until your fight is won.
Congress hammered out and passed a law. SCOTUS found it constitutional...what part about "case closed" don't you understand? It's not perfect by any means, but US citizens flat hated the mess that was in place before. STOMP
Whoa cowboy, you stuck an oversized dildo up your ass this morning and twisted it? Relax a little. Get your coffee... STOMP, baby, you're one of my favorite posters. Although that avitar... I think my point is a good one. Many people do not like, nor can afford, another massive entitlement program on the backs of the low & middle class. And if history is an indicator, entitlement programs grow out of control and the tax payers just have to keep paying more and more. Also, many people are not liking Obamacare and want it repealed. Independents in any of the mentioned categories may either switch from Obama to Mitt, or vote when they otherwise may not have. Other traditional non voters may up and vote for Mitt. I mean, this isn't going to generate Obama votes. A 1-2% swing in a few key states and Obama is not reelected. Same with Senators in close elections. I mean, if you really believe that the final passage of Obamacre won't have so much as a scintilla of difference in the election, fine, I respect your opinion. I just disagree.
Sounds like conservative wish-casting to me. Casual political observers put far too much emphasis in their own narratives and pop psychological analysis of the electorate. One could just as easily (and probably as incorrectly) argue that Romney's insistence that his presidency will mean a repeal of the ACA will galvanize liberals to the voting booths to vote for Obama. One could just as easily argue that conservatives will lose hope choosing between "Obamacare" and "Romneycare" (for a long time on hard-right websites like Free Republic, they've been mocking Romney as a RINO). Bear in mind, I'm not saying those narratives are the "right ones." I'm saying that based on what you'd like to happen, you can imagine all sorts of emotional responses in the electorate. As Nate Silver of 538.com points out, the unpopularity of the ACA thus far has already been "priced into" Obama's current approval rating. If this Supreme Court decision has any effect, it's probably be the very minor, temporary "positive headline" bump for Obama (Supreme Court vindicates Obama) and then most people (i.e. not the hyper-partisans on both sides) will stop paying attention again.
