Court, oks obama care as A TAX

[yubba]

So they lied it wasn't going to be a tax, so everybody gets soaked and then they'll want too, raise taxes some more, with not one word of cutting spending, I guess I'll go get some of that free health care, since I'm poor.

[Takeda Shingen]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=196477

I guess I'll go get some of that free health care, since I'm poor.

poor yubba. I thought you was already entitled to healthcare?
Did you forget it

[AVGWarhawk]

There needs to be a budget passed to create cuts in spending.

[vienna]

The Obama administration can do what the Regan/Bush administrations did: don't call it a tax; call it a "revenue enhancement"...

...

[flatsixes]

Originally Posted by vienna

The Obama administration can do what the Regan/Bush administrations did: don't call it a tax; call it a "revenue enhancement"...

...

Call it what you like, it's a tax... now. But it wasn't described as a tax when our representatives voted for passage. In fact it was billed as being anything but a tax. So our representatives were bamboozled into voting for new tax thinking it wasn't a new tax. That hardly seems fair. Perhaps the legislation should go back to Congress for a vote as the imposition of a new federal tax. It only seems fair to allow our legislators to stand up and be counted as being in favor of this new federal tax. As the overwhelming majority of their constituents favor this new tax, in election year every incumbent deserves a chance to prove that he or she would have voted for this new tax had he or she known it was a new tax when he or she voted for it the last time. It only seems fair.

[vienna]

Call it what you like, it's a tax... now. But it wasn't described as a tax when our representatives voted for passage. In fact it was billed as being anything but a tax. So our representatives were bamboozled into voting for new tax thinking it wasn't a new tax. That hardly seems fair. Perhaps the legislation should go back to Congress for a vote as the imposition of a new federal tax. It only seems fair to allow our legislators to stand up and be counted as being in favor of this new federal tax. As the overwhelming majority of their constituents favor this new tax, in election year every incumbent deserves a chance to prove that he or she would have voted for this new tax had he or she known it was a new tax when he or she voted for it the last time. It only seems fair.

When the prior "revenue enhancements" were passed, they also were "sold" to the representatives as "anything but a tax", but the representatives passed them then anyway knowing full well what they were as did the current represenatives when they passed "Obamacare". The sheer concept of representatives being "bamboozled" is extremely laughable. The idea they are now "shocked" by this is akin to the Claude Rains police captain in "Casablanca" being "...shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" at Rick's casino when he was a full participant in the games. The members of Congress are not naive simpletons taken in by a superiorly devious Obama; these are shrewd, political creatures who know how to play the game. Any member of Congress who claims he/she did not realize they were voting on a tax should be voted out for being an outstanding example of a clueless idiot who does not deserve to be a member of Congress and a "representative" of their constituency (unless, of course, they are representing clueless idiots).

BTW, thanks for at least temporarily reviving the word "bamboozled"...

...

[AVGWarhawk]

Vienna is right. Where did anyone think the money would come from? The issue was forcing someone to comply to government mandate under the commerce clause. Demanding someone pay for government health insurance. Doing this does not stand the test under the Constitution. However, call it a tax and it does stand the test.

[yubba]

Just think, when it dawns on the occupiers that they have too pony up for health care.