Posted on 06/30/2012 11:52:15 AM PDT by Starman417
Pyrrhus was king of the Hellenistic kingdom of Epirus whose costly military successes against Macedonia and Rome gave rise to the phrase' Pyrrhic victory'.In 281 BC Tarentum, a Greek colony in southern Italy, asked his assisstance against Rome. Pyrrhus crossed to Italy with 25,000 men and 20 elephants. He won a complete, but costly, victory over a Roman army at Heraclea. In 279 Pyrrhus, again suffering heavy casualties, defeated the Romans at Asculum.
His remark 'Another such victory and I shall be ruined' gave name to the term 'Pyrrhic victory' for a victory obtained at to great a cost. Later he tried to create a kdm of Sicily, but his harsh methods provoked a revolt of the Greek Sicilians and he returned to Italy. In 275 the Romans defeated him at Beneventum.
The dust blasted into the air from the impact of the Obamacare decision hitting Washington has yet to settle but it's recriminations all around. SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts is getting toasted by the right. Mark Levin calls the decision "lawless" and the NY Times and Michael Savage questions Roberts' mental health status. But hold on- I think Roberts did us a favor.
Roberts struck down the mandate as it pertained to the Commerce Clause and ruled that Obamacare is a tax. A lot of taxes, actually- on families and small businesses.
And that recalls Barack Obama's words to Americans. Candidate Obama and President Obama, that is. They each promised us different things.
Candidate Obama was against the personal mandate.
[VIDEO AT SITE] or HERE
For more fun, watch this
[VIDEO AT SITE or HERE
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said that Obamacare represented a “big middle class tax increase.”
President Obama swore that Obamacare was not a tax.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Roberts ruled that it is a tax. The biggest tax increase on the middle class in history.
Candidate Obama said health care should never be purchased with tax increases on middle class families:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
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.