President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Memorex]

Most importantly, the ruling said a mandate is not constitutional. And that is vital. It's what I was hoping for all along. That's a big statement..

I don't think it said that at all. It said that you can pass mandates and coerce people as long as you structure it as a tax. That's fanatatically unjust, and if that were really Constitutional then the Constitution would be fantastically unjust.

We are saying the same thing. Tax people and call it a mandate, but now all people will know it is a tax.

[Memorex]

[url]based on it being an unfair tax[/url]

If this were true, why not rule it an unfair tax in this ruling?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

[url]based on it being an unfair tax[/url]

If this were true, why not rule it an unfair tax in this ruling?

I haven't read the dissenting opinion but I think that is what Alito, Thomas Kennedy and Scalia did say. I think Roberts would have, but as Slucero says above, he wanted to punt so the supreme court wouldn't get involved in the controversy.

[slucero]

[url]based on it being an unfair tax[/url]

If this were true, why not rule it an unfair tax in this ruling?

I'm pretty sure it's because it has to be in effect ...

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Charles Krauthammer just said what I've been saying most of the day:

Krauthammer:

"Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed -- elect a new president and a new Congress. That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine."

I wouldn't be so kind to Roberts. I give you that position was a conservative one - but it just goes to show that conservative viewpoint doesn't always support the principles of individual liberty and rights.

[slucero]

Except it IS their job.. they passed this crap bill... now it's been labeled as a tax by the Court.. Roberts was clearly protecting the integrity of the SCOTUS process by punting it back to Congress...


I just read the full Court opinion... http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/28/health.care.pdf

Roberts comments are very insightful... he was very clear about the SCOTUS place in reviewing this... he was also very clear about not wanting to engage in making policy...

As a conservative I'd rather he error on the side of the Constitution regarding the SCOTUS reach.

If Romney wins an Nov, and/or the conservatives gain control of Congress... it could be an interesting spring....

[slucero]

I'd put money on the WHite House trying to argue it isn't a tax.. because the Republican rallying cry is gonna be "Obama lied"....

[conversationpc]

I've been hearing that because it's now officially a tax, even though Obama lied about that, it makes it much easier for Congress to overturn because it would only require a simple majority to repeal the tax. Thoughts?

[slucero]

I've been hearing that because it's now officially a tax, even though Obama lied about that, it makes it much easier for Congress to overturn because it would only require a simple majority to repeal the tax. Thoughts?

Dead on... no supermajority required...

[conversationpc]

I've been hearing that because it's now officially a tax, even though Obama lied about that, it makes it much easier for Congress to overturn because it would only require a simple majority to repeal the tax. Thoughts?

Dead on... no supermajority required...

Excellent...I'm not feeling quite so bad about this.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

As a conservative I'd rather he error on the side of the Constitution regarding the SCOTUS reach.

....

This is where I disagree. I don't think Robers erred on the side of the Constitution at all. James Madison in the Federalist Papers outlined exactly what the power of taxation could and couldn't be used for . He said it should be used for regulating interstate commerce, setting up federal courts, post offices, enforcing the few federal laws we ought to have and providing for national defence. Everything else in his opinion wasn't a constitutional tax. I think that only that position is the true constitutional position, and Roberts is disagreeing with Madison here. I'm with Madison here.

Secondly and more importantly, nowhere in the Obamacare law does the the law say the mandate was a tax. Roberts and the majority effectively re wrote the bill by terming it a tax, so give them an excuse to come down on the side of judicial restraint. Where in the constitution does it give the right for SCOTUS to re-word a law???! Holy Christmas, this is judicial activism. at its worst and a so called conservative justice is doing it. Fuck me sideways I thought I'd never say this, but why oh why did we just not settle for Harriet Miers on the court

[The Sushi Hunter]

So if this thing is considered as a tax, it's going to be great hearing everyone bitching about paying additional taxes to the government who already takes so much from each and every hard working individual. It's like the current taxes, once they get it in force, they can raise it as much and as often as they please and the public does not have a say so in the matter what so ever. You pay it or you go to jail.

[slucero]

As a conservative I'd rather he error on the side of the Constitution regarding the SCOTUS reach.

....

This is where I disagree. I don't think Robers erred on the side of the Constitution at all. James Madison in the Federalist Papers outlined exactly what the power of taxation could and couldn't be used for . He said it should be used for regulating interstate commerce, setting up federal courts, post offices, enforcing the few federal laws we ought to have and providing for national defence. Everything else in his opinion wasn't a constitutional tax. I think that only that position is the true constitutional position, and Roberts is disagreeing with Madison here. I'm with Madison here.

Secondly and more importantly, nowhere in the Obamacare law does the the law say the mandate was a tax. Roberts and the majority effectively re wrote the bill by terming it a tax, so give them an excuse to come down on the side of judicial restraint. Where in the constitution does it give the right for SCOTUS to re-word a law???! Holy Christmas, this is judicial activism. at its worst and a so called conservative justice is doing it. Fuck me sideways I thought I'd never say this, but why oh why did we just not settle for Harriet Miers on the court

Have you read the SCOTUS ruling?

If no, then I'd strongly suggest you read it. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/image ... h.care.pdf

If yes.. then sorry for posting the following.

Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. 648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11– 15.

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

(a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do notdo. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

(b)Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable CareAct’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding lawsunder that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, andin service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress withthe extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27–30.
----------------------------------

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155

U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285
U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44.

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“disregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35.

(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population. Pp. 40–41.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Have you read the SCOTUS ruling?

If no, then I'd strongly suggest you read it. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/image ... h.care.pdf

If yes.. then sorry for posting the following.

yeah I did read it . admittedly Id have to read it a number of times to even partly understand it, but I am taking my view from the dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kennedy writes .....

" And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, .containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling".


So in other words ... the law doesn't say this is a tax and we (the court ) have no right to call it at tax. To do is a violation of judicial restraint.

One would have thought that Roberts a conservative would have concurred! but now we are seeing evidence that he may have changed his vote at the last minute - see how Kennedys dissenting opinion refers to Ginsburg dissenting opinion! Ginsburg wasn't in the dissent. Did Roberts change it because he thought it better for his reputation as an umpire to do so ? I am wondering.

I think we might have a further unfolding story here.! King Solomon never actually cut the baby in half when he was being a clever umpire - he was smart enough not to. I think Roberts may in his attempt to be clever, cut the baby, and he not going to look so wise in the long term. After all as Alito said that Roberts parsing of the tax definition (that you quoted) carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists."

By the way I agree that one cant cry over spilled milk - the way forward now is to convince people to democratically repeal it. I m much less confident than all the rest of you here that we will elect a president and congress this year that will either want to or be able to repeal this thing.

[slucero]

Have you read the SCOTUS ruling?

If no, then I'd strongly suggest you read it. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/image ... h.care.pdf

If yes.. then sorry for posting the following.

yeah I did read it . admittedly Id have to read it a number of times to even partly understand it, but I am taking my view from the dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kennedy writes .....

" And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, .containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling".


So in other words ... the law doesn't say this is a tax and we (the court ) have no right to call it at tax. To do is a violation of judicial restraint.

One would have thought that Roberts a conservative would have concurred! but now we are seeing evidence that he may have changed his vote at the last minute - see how Kennedys dissenting opinion refers to Ginsburg dissenting opinion! Ginsburg wasn't in the dissent. Did Roberts change it because he thought it better for his reputation as an umpire to do so ? I am wondering.

I think we might have a further unfolding story here.! King Solomon never actually cut the baby in half when he was being a clever umpire - he was smart enough not to. I think Roberts may in his attempt to be clever, cut the baby, and he not going to look so wise in the long term. After all as Alito said that Roberts parsing of the tax definition (that you quoted) carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists."

By the way I agree that one cant cry over spilled milk - the way forward now is to convince people to democratically repeal it. I m much less confident than all the rest of you here that we will elect a president and congress this year that will either want to or be able to repeal this thing.

It isn't just Congress/POTUS that can repeal this thing... ruling it a tax will cause additional lawsuits.. that may very well wind this thing right back up in the SCOTUS... which is what I think Roberts real intent could be, so he can rule it an unfair tax, which it actually is.

this isn't over by a long shot

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

It isn't just Congress/POTUS that can repeal this thing... ruling it a tax will cause additional lawsuits.. that may very well wind this thing right back up in the SCOTUS... which is what I think Roberts real intent could be, so he can rule it an unfair tax, which it actually is.

this isn't over by a long shot

Yes, seems like Roberts wants it both ways - he doesn't really like the law, but was worried about his own reputation and the Supreme Courts reputation. So yes he cleverly terms the law a tax , and you are right the day it goes on place it gets challenged and back to the supreme court, where he can rule it unfair.

The problem is that trying to be clever he had to sacrifice what was supposedly a principle he believed in - that the supreme court should interpret, and not write, rewrite., or alter laws. Says little about him in my book.

[slucero]

It isn't just Congress/POTUS that can repeal this thing... ruling it a tax will cause additional lawsuits.. that may very well wind this thing right back up in the SCOTUS... which is what I think Roberts real intent could be, so he can rule it an unfair tax, which it actually is.

this isn't over by a long shot

Yes, seems like Roberts wants it both ways - he doesn't really like the law, but was worried about his own reputation and the Supreme Courts reputation. So yes he cleverly terms the law a tax , and you are right the day it goes on place it gets challenged and back to the supreme court, where he can rule it unfair.

The problem is that trying to be clever he had to sacrifice what was supposedly a principle he believed in - that the supreme court should interpret, and not write, rewrite., or alter laws. Says little about him in my book.

yup I get that... but he actually used case law in his opinion.. and using case l aw is also part of the SCOTUS process...

I'd love it to come back and get crushed..

[Monker]

When you post this crap, it would be nice if you actually checked to see if it were true:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

When does your home become part of your health care? After 2012!

Your vote counts big time in 2012, make sure you and all your friends and
family know about this !


HOME SALES TAX

I thought you might find this interesting, -- maybe even SICKENING!

The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to
get it repealed, -- before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we
aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from
unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in
2012?


Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8%
sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill, -- and it goes into effect in
2013.

Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn?t come to light until after the
2012 elections? So, this is change you can believe in??

Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be
subject to a 3.8% sales tax.

If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is
set to screw the retiring generation, -- who often downsize their homes.

Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important?

Also, Obamacare mandates the hiring of 16,000 IRS Agents to enforce the tax provisions,
BUT, Obamacare does not hire one single Doctor or Nurse.

[Monker]

ECONOMIST: 75% of Obamacare costs to fall on Americans making less than $120,000 a year...

Obamacare: It’s not just a big f***ing deal… It’s a big f***ing tax.

Which comes from FOX and Friends...in other words, pure Republican propaganda.

[The Sushi Hunter]

ECONOMIST: 75% of Obamacare costs to fall on Americans making less than $120,000 a year...

Obamacare: It’s not just a big f***ing deal… It’s a big f***ing tax.

Which comes from FOX and Friends...in other words, pure Republican propaganda.

The democrats have their own version of propaganda too.

As for Obamacare, once they get this thing in force, stand by for them to increase it as often as for as much as they wish and then stand by and watch how the government dictate who benefits from it.

[AR]

What is really disturbing is that a sweeping change has been enacted but no one really knows what is involved. Our politicians SUCK. Pelosi said they had to pass the bill to see what was in it.

I feel that change IS needed but in small doses. The easiest fix should be the cost of prescription drugs.

[The Sushi Hunter]

What is to be expected when more people take from the system than who pay into it. America is being overrun by sponges.

[Memorex]

The thing that I really hate is the lowering of the FSA amounts. I contribute much more than $2500 every year and use every penny. With a family of 9, $2500 is nothing.

[The Sushi Hunter]

What's FSA?

[Memorex]

What's FSA?

FSA allows you to save pre-tax money for health costs and dependent care expenses. So you contribute a certain amount per account before taxes are taken out. Then when you have an expense, you are reimbursed from that account without a tax penalty. So it's taking a portion of your income and paying for health and childcare expenses without being taxed.

[The Sushi Hunter]

What's FSA?

FSA allows you to save pre-tax money for health costs and dependent care expenses. So you contribute a certain amount per account before taxes are taken out. Then when you have an expense, you are reimbursed from that account without a tax penalty. So it's taking a portion of your income and paying for health and childcare expenses without being taxed.

Thanks for the info. Well if you have a family of 9, wouldn't it have been smart to maybe have two or three if that's how much you could comfortably afford? I know I would. If you win the lottery then yeah, have 9. And this is the primary reason I don't shop at Safeway grocery store. Union got in there and single parent highschool dropouts with five kids make no less than $21 per hour and a fortune of health and family benefits. Obama is turning the government into one of these stupid unions.

Obamacare is sort of like the cigarette tax. But in this situation, not enough smokers are able to cover the tax so they now are taxing everyone, smokers and the non-smokers alike. So in the situation with the healthcare, the only people benefitting are the ones that can't afford to pay for their healthcare. People who live a clean active live to stay healthy have to pay and get nothing from it.

So many people think this is great, giving the government another reason to take money away from us. And common sense tells me that they are going to charge whoever they want out the ass for this and then apply those funds to whomever they want.

[Memorex]

What's FSA?

FSA allows you to save pre-tax money for health costs and dependent care expenses. So you contribute a certain amount per account before taxes are taken out. Then when you have an expense, you are reimbursed from that account without a tax penalty. So it's taking a portion of your income and paying for health and childcare expenses without being taxed.

Thanks for the info. Well if you have a family of 9, wouldn't it have been smart to maybe have two or three if that's how much you could comfortably afford? I know I would. If you win the lottery then yeah, have 9. And this is the primary reason I don't shop at Safeway grocery store. Union got in there and single parent highschool dropouts with five kids make no less than $21 per hour and a fortune of health and family benefits. Obama is turning the government into one of these stupid unions.

Obamacare is sort of like the cigarette tax. But in this situation, not enough smokers are able to cover the tax so they now are taxing everyone, smokers and the non-smokers alike. So in the situation with the healthcare, the only people benefitting are the ones that can't afford to pay for their healthcare. People who live a clean active live to stay healthy have to pay and get nothing from it.

So many people think this is great, giving the government another reason to take money away from us. And common sense tells me that they are going to charge whoever they want out the ass for this and then apply those funds to whomever they want.

I can certainly afford my 6 kids and grandkid. That wasn't the point. But when making the decision of what one can and cannot afford, it sucks when they change the rules on you. And the reason the rules are changing is so that not only can I pay for mine, but everyone else's. That's who I can't afford - the rest of the country.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Next the government will make it manditory that everyone get uninsured motorist insurance, even though they don't drive a car or own one. You know....just in case someone gets hit by a motorist who is in America illigally, has no insurance but can legally get a Ca state drivers license.

When everyone starts bitching about this new health "tax" like they have been doing with the IRS forever now, I'll remember everyone pushing for it in the first place.

[conversationpc]

Medical-device companies are making a new push to roll back their 2.3% tax.

This is apparently a big deal here in Indiana where it's estimated that this tax alone could cost the state 18,000 jobs. Indiana's one of the biggest states for medical device manufacturing and this would really hurt us here.

[Monker]

When you post this crap, it would be nice if you actually checked to see if it were true:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

Well, it actually is true for the 65,000 or so folks who the tax actually will fall on, which makes the tax even more egregious imho. That so few people are asked to shoulder the load for millions of others just plain sucks ass. Yes, you are right, the e-mail was misleading, but the tax does actually exist, as do about 20 other taxes that are going to used to run this ACA if the Pubbies don't kill it first.

It would also be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about when you write such replies.

The tax is only applicable to those who earn over $200,000 a year AND who sell their house for a profit of $250,000....meaning if they bought their house for $100,000 they sold it for $350,000.

So, your unnamed source is saying 65,000 "or so" people pass the above criteria for their house sales in the middle of housing market that crashed, and a barely recovering recession.

That is either being totally naive, stupid, or just spouting bullshit for political reasons.