Posted on 07/08/2012 8:16:40 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen
Politicians have been lying since the dawn of the republic. Calling them out is an exercise in futility, roughly akin to handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
But, every so often, a lie is so shamelessly brazen that it behooves us to bemoan it
---- snip---
But the GOP's new tax claim is in another league. So let's bridge the chasm between the lie and the truth:
Obama's supposedly sweeping tax — his penalty for noncompliance — will be levied on a grand total of 1.2 percent of the American people.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
All horse shi!. Nobody knows how this will work out but the fact remains that Government does not have the right or authority to penalize or tax on something it may not want.
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758
(It’s weird that your post didn’t come up as a link.)
Anyway, this story is from one of the most reliable Democrat propaganda organs in the nation. It’s very existence is predicated on lying for its party. It’s a minor miracle the Stinky hasn’t folded yet.
Bad arithmetic.
Obama said himself that 30 million Americans will not be covered by his plan.
If there are 310 million Americans, that means 9.7% of Americans will not be covered.
We’ll be spending $1 trillion to give free healthcare to illegals. We’ll be getting a lot more illegals.
Churches are penalized the same way for speaking of politics and they’re only penalized for speaking favorably toward the GOP.
We can’t support the whole world. This new law can promise us what Ben Franklin said “The only things that will last forever are death and taxes.
Lets not forget that this isn’t the first tax to be imposed to pay for health care under Obama. In 09 a 2300% increase in the tax on loose tobacco was imposed to pay for children’s health care.
No folks, we can’t let the left get away with this. They want it both ways.
Obama TOLD US that these were the folks that were breaking down the medical care system in the US. He said there were millions and millions of them. If only we could get them to buy health insurance the budgets would be balanced.
Now the spin is there really aren’t that many of them and it’s no big deal.
Huh?
Obama’s LIES were used to promote this takeover, and now they’re being used to justify it. Call them out on it every chance we get.
Right, the tax is hardly going to impact anyone at all.
I guess that’s why the Zombie Administration wants to add 50,000 new IRS agents.
The worst lie ever told by Republicans pales in significance when compared to what Democrats do as a matter of routine. This bit of tripe demonstrates that. ...To reduce things to the lowest common denominator, a tax is any money taken from “the people” for the sake of funding government, or redistributing wealth. How the money gets confiscated matters little to the empty pocket.
As usual, a lib writer picks and chooses his facts and then spins for the damocrats.
The AMT was meant to tax 20-30 millionaires. Sooner, than later, the ZerOcare tax penalty will catch the majority.
SCOTUS said it was a tax. What's the matter, Philly Inquirer? Don't believe them?
1.2%? That's over 3 million people. Weren't liberals in a tizzy about that many people being homeless? Of course, that's only during a Repub administration....
But still, I believe it will affect a lot more than 1.2%, especially middle class people who really cannot afford to purchase anymore health insurance than what they have (or will lose when their employer drops any and all contributions to said insurance!).
I think the Inquirer is typically liberal: accusing others of exactly what they are doing.
I quit reading that liberal rag over 40 years ago
My other brother continually bitches about the damn paper but I could never get him to quit buying it
Ditto. And if the tax only afffects 1.2% of the population, why again all the thousands of new agents??
Ignore the liars! Let me assure you, yes yes, make no mistake about because I am being perfectly clear: our Dear Leader "Obama's supposedly sweeping tax — his penalty for noncompliance — will be levied on a grand total of 1.2 percent of the American people."
I know how it will work out, at least in the long run. That is, in 25-50 years.
People who can afford them will have their home robots download instructions on how to do surgery - even major surgery - from the internet.
All drugs necessary will be manufactured on the spot by little molecular-reformer machines that use nanotechnology and software to make - in quantity - any molecule you want.
When human medical specialists are needed (say, for diagnosis) they'll get all the info they need, over the internet, from sensors anyone with the money can get.
All information transfer will be encrypted and therefore invisible.
The only people who will be using the "public" (human) system will be members of the dependent class.
It sounds like big Dick Polmam is psycic. Wasn’t it “Stretch” Pelosi who said they need to pass the bill before they know what’s in it? HEY, DICK, use your psycic powers to tell me the numbers that’ll come up on the next Powerball drawing and I’ll split my share of the winnings 60-40 in your favor. OK, 70-30, would that work for ya?
the thing about opinions has never changed, we have one
this writers loses his in first two paragraph’s
“...Witness the Republican talking point du jour, about how President Obama has supposedly slapped a humongous tax hike on the middle class, thanks to his health-reform provision that requires most Americans to buy health coverage.
Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the law,...”
Roberts ruled a TAX, not a law
BTW, can anyone find the Commerce Clause in the Constitution?
BULLSHIT! This rat is assuming that after all the crap kicks in, that ONLY 1.2% won't be able to afford insurance. It'll be WAY more than that.
Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers. States are powerless to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. ...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause+of+the+United+States+Constitution
Aren’t there some 20-21 new TAXES in that unconstitutional 2,700-page bill? Yup.
The biggest Republican lie is that they are republicans.
I wonder why they forgot to mention that?
With brand spanking new 12 gauge shotguns. Can't forget about those new shotguns.
That the lib writer’s name is Dick Polman is quite appropriate.
Well you can believe this guy or you can believe what’s happening to your wallet.
So Dick, what are those 16,000 new IRS commandos going to do with all of that free time they are going to have on their hands?
The precedent would be that the Government can tax you for anything you do not do.
That opens the door to a limitless authority to tax people for not doing whatever they don't do.
While Roberts said we could not be penalized for not purchasing something, the narrowly interpreted issue of the specific type of tax was not addressed as such in the case:
Is it Constitutional to tax someone for not doing or purchasing something?
Dear Sir,
You article on Obamacare and the "Republicans' Big Lie" simply is not factual. Read the following piece that I wrote. "Joe" is, in fact, me:
Joe’s Healthcare:
The recent healthcare decision affects us all in different ways. But, let’s consider a very real person named Joe. Now, Joe is a nice fellow who lost his job during this recession and now works two jobs rather than rely on welfare. Joe is also a heart patient, and he does have limited but affordable catastrophic insurance. He hears on television that Obamacare will require him to buy a comprehensive policy that costs almost three times what he is paying now, according to the best estimates of the insurance companies themselves, and that his much less expensive catastrophic insurance will be outlawed. Not permissible. Everyone must be the same. Joe works hard at his two jobs, and his salary is just enough to pay his mortgage, put food on the table, and purchase gas for his car, but it is too high for him to qualify for government subsidies under Obamacare. He cannot afford this new insurance, but Joe hears Democrats on television telling him that he is “selfish” and a “freeloader” if he does not buy insurance because clearly, in their arrogant presumption, “he can afford it.” He can't, but they tell him that, anyway. He must pay a tax-penalty, one that will rise from 1% of his income to 2.5% over three years. Joe sees that these Democrats have no idea how hard he has worked all his life to have a home, how much his mortgage payment is, and know nothing about anything else in his life. They just blindly assume that he can afford their expensive new insurance, a form of insurance that covers Joe for pregnancy, birth-control pills, and pediatric services, none of which he will ever need. And, the cheapest of these more expensive plans offered to him will cover only 60% of costs, anyway. Joe reads that Obamacare imposes a big tax on medical device companies, who are laying off people. Joe’s retirement plan contains stock in two of those companies, stock now losing value. Then Joe hears that even if he were to buy this new insurance, he will not be able to deduct it as medical expense on his tax return, as he usually does, because under Obamacare the income threshold for medical deductions will be raised from 7.5% to 10%, a very difficult level to reach. This will cost Joe about $2,500 on top of the $1,500 tax-penalty he will have to pay if he does not buy insurance. This is also a tax. Joe then learns that some woman named Kathleen Sibelius has added an abortion-services surcharge to every month’s premium in all but the most limited of plans offered to him (i.e. as the norm,not the exception). Joe is a pro-life Catholic. And he doesn’t think he should have to read the fine print just because he is Catholic. In the end, it seems, this new insurance will require him to sell his home and, if he is not careful, to violate his conscience. Joe does not buy this expensive new insurance and lives without any health insurance at all, having lost the affordable catastrophic insurance he once had. Joe is left with nothing, but is penalized . . . taxed . . . for it, anyway. Joe decides to vote Republican.
Sir, there are 21 different taxes in this bill, and at least seven of them hit the middle class. It is hardly a lie to say so. What constitutes a lie are the words "If you like your healthcare, you can keep it," and the words "We will not under any circumstances tax the middle class." Now, THOSE are lies, and we all know who repeatedly gave voice to them. The man lies. Joe Wilson was right. Respectfully,
I love how the Left uses Percentages of People affected to protect their schemes. The OWS Evil 1% come to mind.
If only a “Whopping 1.2%” are going to be taxed(penalized) isn’t that a clear indication there wasn’t such a dire need for this law to be passed?
So why exactly does the IRS needs 6000 more agents?
Really? The author of this is DICK POLMAN?
This idiot doesn't grasp the difference between "truth and lie" an opinions.
Children in adult bodies.
What has happened in the past is fact, therefore truth or lie, depending on the observer.
What is in the future cannot be a fact under any circumstances, therefore cannot be truth or lie, merely opinion.
Why would anyone waste their time reading anything written by a fool?
How can you go from “tens of millions” of uninsured to only 1.2% of people not being insured after the mandate becomes law? Only if the vast majority of the uninsured decide to buy the insurance — and pay much higher premiums than the ones they couldn’t afford before the mandate became law — instead of paying the fine which will be much cheaper (at first).
As usual, the liberal’s math is way off.
Lets forget about the penalty and talk about the other taxes associated with Obamacare.
How about the 3.8% tax on home sales, and the other taxes?
How about the 3.8% tax on home sales, and the other taxes?
Do you know if the current $500,000 exclusion on home sales will be eliminated and replaced by this ?
Dick, you’re worse than a liar, you’re a fool; in fact you’re worse than a fool, you’re a willing fool:
By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml
Social Security Act in 1935. This law provided payments known as “unemployment compensation” to workers who lost their jobs. Other sections of the Act gave public aid to the aged, the needy, the handicapped, and to certain minors. These programs were financed by a 2 percent tax, one half of which was subtracted directly from an employee’s paycheck and one half collected from employers on the employee’s behalf. The tax was levied on the first $3,000 of the employee’s salary or wage.http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml
Between 1949 and 1962 the payroll tax rate climbed steadily from its initial rate of 2 percent to 6 percent. The expansions in 1965 led to further rate increases, with the combined payroll tax rate climbing to 12.3 percent in 1980. Thus, in 31 years the maximum Social Security tax burden rose from a mere $60 in 1949 to $3,175 in 1980.
Despite the increased payroll tax burden, the benefit expansions Congress enacted in previous years led the Social Security program to an acute funding crises in the early 1980s. Eventually, Congress legislated some minor programmatic changes in Social Security benefits, along with an increase in the payroll tax rate to 15.3 percent by 1990. Between 1980 and 1990, the maximum Social Security payroll tax burden more than doubled to $7,849.http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml
That's among the reasons I suggested here (while also detailing the adverse consequences of ObamaCare) that Governor Romney attack the rest of ObamaCare (RomneyCare was different in myriad ways as explained at the link) but emphasize its economic consequences.
‘Obama’s supposedly sweeping tax — his penalty for noncompliance — will be levied on a grand total of 1.2 percent of the American people’.
Exactly so who’s going to pick up the tab for the lazy freeloaders, who sit in the back of the cart while the middle class work their butts off? You got it the middle class for the largest tax hike in American history.
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.