Posted on 06/30/2012 11:52:15 AM PDT by Starman417
That's all well and good, but I wish some hotshot reporter will ask Romney if those waivers will fire the 12,000 new IRS agents 0bamcare created, or repeal the raft of new (mostly hidden) taxes on things like wheelchairs, prescriptions and investments. I'd love to hear his answer to that one. There's almost 3000 pages of God knows what in this law, either it gets completely repealed or we'll be finding little turds in the national punchbowl for years to come.
They need to turn DC’s water supply into a EPA Superfund, there’s something in it that affects everyone and not for the better.
And there ain't enough lipstick in all the WalMarts in the Nation to dress this pig up...
“You just put a punitive tax on nonaction”
Our government levees all sorts of taxes. We may find a given tax, or the magnitude of the tax, unfair, and the Supreme Court has little involvement with taxes.
So here we have a tax on nonaction. We also have a tax on cigarettes. Do we fear that that tax opens the door to taxes on other food goods? Do we fight in court over whether it’s punitive or not?
Theoretically, our recent new “inaction” tax opens a door, but there are numerous “doors” that have been opened over the years. Limbaugh says he’s depressed because the people have no leaders they can depend on — they have only themselves now. I say “themselves” is in the final analysis all we’ve ever had. A good leader every now and then, or a leader that is occasionally good, is helpful, but “ourselves” really must do the work. Nothing wrong with that.
Thank you.
After two days of people talking down to me it’s refreshing to hear OTHER PEOPLE who get it. :)
Yeah -- He's turned the American Eagle of Liberty into a parrot.
That is right. Right now the people who cannot afford their own health care, only use health care in life threatening situations. When they are given a tax credit to purchase health care (no net costs) they will use that health care far more often. And the feds received no additional income. This is a fiscal disaster of titanic proportions.
The fact of the matter is that Roberts caved to either internal or external pressure and apparently changed his vote at the last minute, stabbing Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy in the back.
No wonder he's run off to hide in Malta. I bet the SCOTUS won't be a happy place when he gets back in October.
used car salesmen fight over people like you.
Agreed.
Only if they give the IRS the right to enforce noncompliance. Some are saying as it stands, the IRS can only use the following methods to force you to pay.
Freeze your bank account.
Garnish your wages.
Put a lien on your assets.
People that have fully gone Galt do not have a job and they do not have a bank account. The way thinks are going, there will be very few banks and jobs in the future anyway.
The last item is the one we need to worry about. As long as they do not have the ability to take action on the lien, we should be okay. IMHO.
Had Robert’s voted to invalidate the entire thing, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Right, but we could have then been looking at a fired up lib base intent on saving their Holy Grail.
Don’t know if it was intentional, but Roberts may have re-kindled Tea Parties BIG TIME and just in time with momentum to carry through the election. It basic politics 101 that anything to do with taxes is poison right before an election. Politics is Chess not Checkers.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge John Bannister Gibson thought so too in 1825.
________________________________________________________________
"The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control."
J. Roberts
________________________________________________________________
"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
________________________________________________________________
Roberts and Scalia are both complicit in nullifying the Tenth Amendment.
Bending the facts are what the libs are all about. Roberts allows it to go through because he terms it a tax, but then addressing the anti-injunction aspect he deems it not to be a tax.
Those states that were part of the lawsuit should file a legal challenge to the decision, it is incoherent and allows Congress to tax Americans for things we do not want to purchase.
No, No, and I will never miss GWB.
Another clueless idiot weighs in.
I advocated the election of Al Gore back in 2000 as an example of opportunities lost. I am confident, his lunacy would have brought about conservative blow-back strong enough to reset this nation on its right track. We are not offered an "Al Gore" very often and missed the boat on that chance. Instead, we elected you know who and he resulted in the thing we have now, which is a far worse option than Al Gore ever could have been. This country has paid an awful price for this mistake.
At first glance, this ruling appears to be one thing. Upon further reflection, it might actually be the opposite. "If" this results in a Patriotic revulsion of all things currently Washington D.C. and introduces a new appreciation for the work of the Founding Fathers, it might have been the best of several ways to get there. Remember, we are dealing with an election cycle and alternate rulings might or might not have been less effective towards the ability to achieve the desired end result. Anger spurs action. Ask yourself, just who it is that is really, really angry right now? I see this as a good thing. Bad rulings can be overturned or eliminated with new law. Let us all work towards getting as many of our type of "law-makers" elected this fall. That is our one and ONLY job to be concerned with.
Roberts ridiculous ruling has simplified everything.
Amen to that.
His ruling amounted to telling us that it’s OK for Congress to tax us not only on inactivity but on unconstitutional items as well.
Even if it is a tax does not the issue of what is taxed have to be legal in the first place?
If it indeed a tax the Legislature should have been directed to re-write it.
If Congress passes a tax it should be coherently written as such with direct intent of it being a tax, not just something that can be described as such due to similarities.
Roberts did no favors leaving the Country in a state of “what may come to pass” in the future.
It’s not his business nor job description.
This is far more cataclysmic than finding out that Susie's mommy is a man or that Joey's daddy is a woman, or that marriage now has a new definition, which by themselves as word changes are detrimental to our culture. Now we have the impossible task of trusting the sworn testimony of our elected representatives starting with "I solemnly swear.." Now that means "I may slip a couple by you if I have to, but I solemnly swear...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.