Posted on 06/28/2012 4:56:21 AM PDT by John W
It's not all we have left, but pushing hard on Congress is certainly our first line of attack. I think you're going to quickly see that the people definitely have the will.
47% of the US citizens don’t pay any taxes and after this there will be more. Using the tax argument against Obama will not work.
Boehner is focused on the impact to voters and he should be. It's good politics.
He’ll never admit it publicly, but the second happiest man on the planet right now is YOUR GOP Presidential nominee, Mitt (”The Godfather of Obamacare”) Romney.
On Fox they were saying that the tax imposed for not purchasing this would be
1% of your income in 2014
2% in 2015
2.5%in 2016
What does this mean for the people who are now collecting welfare?
Is it as I am thinking, only those who work are going to be supporting this?
We won a war against a corrupt goverment and we will always have this battle to fight. The other side will not give up, neither should we.
In reality though, the chances of killing it via tax reform are no better than killing it by repeal. Without the Senate and the Presidency, it won’t happen. That’s the short term. Long term, after the dust has settled, it can be worked into a bill of some sort, but we all know that, like Social Security, this will never go away once it become entrenched. Even Republicans will stop harping on it once everyone accepts it and moves on. So what little good news there is, dies with a loss in November.
This isn't accurate. The law has been upheld - it does not have to be rewritten.
Robert's decision does not redefine this as a tax - that was only his justification. It can still be implemented and considered a fine by the government.
It's just like all activities that are covered under the Interstate Commerce Clause are not treated as commerce by the government.
Refreshing thought!
Take a deep breath and quit being hysterical. We're still a long way from all-out civil war.
“Simply start a movement for a constitutional amendment that will outlaw this kind of broad taxing power.”
Yes, that would work. However, personally, I find it EASY “to believe that we can’t get enough of the public behind an anti-tax amendment to make it viable.” Since when have conservatives controlled 2/3 of both houses of Congress as well as 3/4 of the states?
“Unless you’re Muslim. Don’t forget that part. If you’re Muslim you don’t have to buy insurance; you’re exempted by Obama. Presumably that means that you don’t have to pay a tax for not buying the insurance either.
IOW, the net effect of this is that Muslims don’t pay a dime, and the infidels ALL pay a tax.
Just like sharia dictates.”
____________________________________________
Yes, I would love to see a 14th Amendment/equal protection lawsuit on this.
Got on CSPAN and said it was suitable that the Democrat party, the party of Jim Crowe and slavery, has made us slaves again.
“It’s my take that Mitt Romney is John Roberts.
Good luck, if you’re holding your breath for him to bring sanity to this situation.”
That GW sure did pick us a fine conservative, didn’t he???
I found four references to Roberts being bought and paid for, corrupt as hell, but no smoking gun.I will continue to look. But, with scotus ignoring the fact that the poser-in-chief is probably still Barry Soetoro and if his father is Obama SR he’s not a NBC you gotta think at least some if not all these clowns are dirty.
The country is trailing smoke over deep water, but all those collecting gold plated government retirement pensions keep shouting, "You can win, keep trying" as they pack for vacation. Wink wink....
This is exactly what is happening.
This may be a silly question, but if the individual mandate is now law and everyone must buy health insurance, why the provision that those up to the age of 26 can remain on their parents insurance? Won’t they have to buy their own now?
If you think I would ever, knowingly or unknowingly, support Marxism-Leninism (which I define in its original form as “workers controlling the means of production”, i.e. the loss of all private property). If you think I would ever, knowingly or unknowingly, support Fascism (which I define as the State controlling production through fiat to “privately” held interests). If you think I would, knowingly or unknowingly, support any totalitarian regime, regardless of its economic form, feel free to look at my previous posts. Feel free to take your time — you’ll find that I have a very wide libertarian streak.
I quibble with your interpretation from Proverbs. I would call someone who knowingly flip-flops a liar, but a false witness has a special connotation: someone who claims to lead people toward righteousness but is knowingly deceiving them and fully intends to lead them astray when the time is right. Is Romney one of those? Unfortunately, as is often the case with false witnesses, it’s hard to tell until they show evidence of their intent to deceive. I haven’t yet seen indications of that intent, though I’m not closed to the possibility.
Actually I’m not sowing discord, or even attempting to do so, rather I’m making it clear that I’ve had it with the people who are sowing discord by harping on the religion of our presumptive nominee. I don’t recall being a member of the Christian Political Party, but rather of the Republican Party, and last I checked it wasn’t limited exclusively to Christians or to a particular flavor of Christians. I once again pose the question, what happens should the GOP nominate a conservative Jew? Or a conservative Hindu? (for both I define ‘conservative’ as holding a strong belief in Jeffersonian democracy, Federalism, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution). Which is more important to you? If you demand that they hold the same religious beliefs as yourself, then might you be in the wrong place? Perhaps you need your own political party because it appears to me that none of the ones in existence will meet your exacting standards.
I contend that any step, no matter how small, toward the values you espouse is a net plus. I don’t expect perfection, for that can only be found in Heaven.
My question: Isn't social security only assessed against workers? If you have a stay-at-home spouse, that person does NOT pay social security, right? But that person will still be mandated to have health care coverage?
If that analogy is correct, then how are they similar? It's more like auto insurance. Only drivers have to pay auto insurance, not everyone. Social security is only paid by workers, not everyone.
But everyone must buy health insurance or the IRS will throw them in prison.
Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?
-PJ
We the People have a lot to fight for, or we will continue to go down hard. I am thinking about how the GOP House squandered their mandate and behaved as donkeys in elephant clothing. This started after Gingrich was forced from the Speakership in ‘99. Dennis Hastert was a big disappointment as Speaker. He presided over huge spending bills and never challenged the Democrats over their destruction of Fannie Mae and Freddia Mac. They passed a huge, pork-laden highway bill in Bush’s 2nd term and squandered any semblance of discipline.
The GOP’s own poor leadership is to blame for Pelosi and the mess that created the momentum for ObamaCare. We now have another chance to take another direction. We need to elect conservatives!
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.