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 ...
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?
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.