Romney breaks with GOP, says mandate is a penalty, not a tax

http://thehill.com ^ | 07/02/12 02: | the hill

[Sons of Union Vets]

That is correct. Romney did not say that.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Thanks. That clears up things.

[Texas Songwriter]

Here is the Point:

Obama could not sell this as a tax. So he, pelosi, reid, lied to the public saying it is a penalty. It passes.

Roberts rewrites the law to allow what could never have passed Congress (mandate penalty) and renamed the mandate (penalty) tax.

Now Roberts is able to Constitutionally justify what is unjustafiable.

Now Romney is trying to not appear to be a flip-flopper.

[aruanan]

Romney breaks with GOP, says mandate is a penalty, not a tax

Geez, he's right! It IS a penalty. It was ALWAYS a penalty. If you fail to do something and you get stuck by a government body with some monetary obligation as a result of that failure to act, it is a penalty or a fine. It is not a tax. The GOP is simply saying, well, okay, if it's a tax, we'll screw you guys over with that. If it's a penalty, it's unconstitutional. If it's a tax, by Supreme Court precedents on taxation, it's also unconstitutional, regardless of Roberts's blathering. Either way, those pushing Obamacare are effed.

[uncbob]

And Obama is screaming it is not a tax

My head hurts

[aruanan]

The opportunism of the Mitt Haters in seizing on anything no matter how they have to contort it really does rival liberal Democrats in that respect.

[Sons of Union Vets]

When Romneycare was passed, we didn't have a big issue here in "Taxachusetts" over whether it was a "penalty" or a "tax." We just assumed it would be a tax and it was called a "tax penalty." LOL

By the way, the reason why Romney is justified in saying that the difference between Romneycare and Obamatax is that Romneycare was specifically for the STATE of Massachusetts, and not for the nation as a whole ( Gov. Scott of Wisconsin said Massachusetts Romneycare wouldn't work for Wisconsin ), is because Romneycare was signed into law by Mitt Romney with a view to solving a problem relatively unique to our state - namely, the excessively large number of uninsured recipients of health care services who were all too frequently using the hospital emergency rooms for their primary care. People need to be reminded that for a while, welfare here in Massachusetts was out of control.

Massachusetts hospitals were heading towards bankruptcy.

But even more importantly, owing to the rules of Medicaid funding, the Federal Government had threatened to cut $385 million in those payments to Massachusetts if the state did not reduce the number of uninsured recipients of health care services.

Ergo, the signing into law of "Romneycare."

[Graybeard58]

He’s a conservative.

Who?

[Sons of Union Vets]

People also need to be reminded that it was Obama's lawyers who argued that Obamacare was a tax before the Supreme Court because it would have been unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

The reason Obama and his confreres refused to call it a tax when they were trying to sell it to the American people is because they believed it never would have passed if sold as a "tax."

And who can forget that newsclip of Obama just about swearing the print out of the Bible to George Stephanopoulos that Obamacare was ,NOT a tax?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax/

[Huskrrrr]

But it seems to me the winning strategy is to refer to this as a TAX. Romney will appear as a flip flopper either way (Romneycare), but the Dems are extremely beatable as long as this is sold as a tax increase.

[drypowder]

My take; penalty or tax, either or, the obozo care is in the strictest of terms and accordingly, unconstitutional and in that I agree with Judge Scalia. An unrepresented reason by government of a collection from individuals that is forced upon the citizen while at risk of reprisal if not paid is nothing more than theft. In thug terms, it's a shakedown. When laws meant something people used to get jailed and hung for such theft.

[pallis]

I understand our talking points, and you are right, but the thing is this, speaking of unchangeable obstacles. There is one choice to make. That is vote for Romney, or vote for Obama, and the latter, from a conservative or Republican perspective means voting for anyone but Romney. That’s just the reality of this lousy situation. There isn’t a conservative option on the table, so why keep slamming Romney at every opportunity? I can’t stand him, and hate this situation, but it is precisely an “unchangeable obstacle.” If there were a conservative option with a serious chance, I’d be all over it. But it’s not there. There’s no sense sitting down at the table and whining about what isn’t on it when it isn’t going to be on it. So, if Romney wants to appear nuanced on this issue, let him. I don’t care what Romney says at this point. I’m not voting for him because of what he says, nor do I believe anything he says. But I’ll take him lying over Obama lying. Anyway it gets spun, Obama is worse.

[ladyjane]

Whose side are you on?

I am getting very tired of all the Romney bashing. It seems there are some freepers who would prefer Obama.

[denydenydeny]

Mark Levin said that we should forget about the mandate being a tax and go after Obamacare on the substance of what it really is.

[MCF]

We both understand the situation exactly the same way.