penalties are not taxes

[stockerup]

Quote from Mav88:

Think about the bizarre and backdoor way this all went down, ACA passed with reconciliation, and then survived with an extremely tortured bit of law by Roberts. Roberts' theory was alone, the court by 8-1 did not concur with his reasoning. This law fails if it isn't a tax, Roberts was clear on that since he sided with conservatives on commerce.

The only people I have seen defend him here are piezoe and Ricter here, albeit lamely. This is not the way a landmark piece of legislation should become law of the land, but I don't expect the left to care since after the ends justify the means in religion....

Roberts said that it isn't a mandate when all you have to do is pay a non-criminal penalty collected by the IRS, therefore it is a tax. Roberts also said the penalty must be reasonable in order to be a tax (so who gets to say what is reasonable?). Therefore having the city cut my grass is simply a tax (a penalty for non action on a mandatory behavior collected by a gov't)... I'm starting to believe the medication theory.

Let's say for the sake of argument that this is a tax, or even as piezoe calls it, a tax deduction if I do what they say I should do. Then congress never voted on it as such, and it is illegal.

Hey Mav,

Thanks for posting; I totally agree. Since the ruling of the SCOTUS on the ACA, the thought occured to me that something is not quite right about the ruling. The law was ruled upon in a different form than what was voted upon by congress; and, more importantly, what was told to the American people. That being the case, is it not reasonable to think, since the law was technically changed by interpretation from its original form, it needs to go back to congress to be approved with the change before it can be implemented?

Justice Kennedy gives rise to this question when, as quoted from the WSJ: Reading a joint dissent from the bench, Justice Kennedy said the majority engaged in “vast judicial overreaching” and decided “to save a statute Congress did not write.”

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Mav88:

You subscribe to the leftist religion, impulsively you mock anything that opposses it. You just proved it, there are actually 3 distinct 'sides' that I have been discussing. A black and white religious thinker always has 2 sides: us and them.

The only thing I'm mocking is you. You're mucho mockable.

 

[JamesL]

White House still insists this is not a tax but a penalty, contrary to what SCOTUS ruled:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-health-care-penalty-not-tax-debate-is-over/

(afraid of how GOP will spin this I guess)

 

[Mav88]

The only thing I'm mocking is you. You're mucho mockable.

...and your childish mockery is all you have. I know what drives you to it as well, it's that I know what you really are instead of what you pretending to be, I expose liberalism for the religious sham it is.

ok your turn, the only question is will the next mock be even emptier than the last? Really child, I can spare you the trouble, mockery is almost expected and it doesn't affect me or anyone else much when you have no real ideas to go with it.

 

[Mav88]

Thanks for posting; I totally agree. Since the ruling of the SCOTUS on the ACA, the thought occured to me that something is not quite right about the ruling. The law was ruled upon in a different form than what was voted upon by congress; and, more importantly, what was told to the American people. That being the case, is it not reasonable to think, since the law was technically changed by interpretation from its original form, it needs to go back to congress to be approved with the change before it can be implemented?

Justice Kennedy gives rise to this question when, as quoted from the WSJ: Reading a joint dissent from the bench, Justice Kennedy said the majority engaged in “vast judicial overreaching” and decided “to save a statute Congress did not write.”

amazing what just happened isn't it? even more amazing is that Roberts acted all alone in ignoring legislative intent and basically rewriting the law so he could support it.

It may be possible to do something else legally now that Roberts said it was a tax, but the troubling part of that is he is the only justice that said so. How is it possible to interpret this ruling that ACA is a tax when the 8 other justices ruled on commerce clause alone and didn't think so?

We now have a law, which when judged on the nature that Obama and the democrats held it up as, is unconstitutional 5-4.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Mav88:

...and your childish mockery is all you have. I know what drives you to it as well, it's that I know what you really are instead of what you pretending to be, I expose liberalism for the religious sham it is.

ok your turn, the only question is will the next mock be even emptier than the last? Really child, I can spare you the trouble, mockery is almost expected and it doesn't affect me or anyone else much when you have no real ideas to go with it.

What is it with you calling everyone religious. I recognize the method for
The righties, repeat the same thing over and over and over and it will maybe stick even though untrue. But I don't know why you keep telling everyone they're religious.
I just think you personally are a fool, full of yourself and an all around asshole.
As for this argument of constitutional or not, there is no argument there, I can see where it could of been struck down. I can also see a good argument for why it passed. I know I know when you look at both sides to an argument it's religion. Maybe the religion of not being a dumbass (which seems to be your religion).
So carry on fool post another 1000 words of ranting on this subject and be sure to call everyone religious.

 

[Mav88]

White House still insists this is not a tax but a penalty, contrary to what SCOTUS ruled:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...debate-is-over/

(afraid of how GOP will spin this I guess)

Well in the context of just the penalty portion, I agree with them James, and in that regard the supreme court just ruled 5-4 that this is unconstitutional.

Roberts is right that they have the same outcome, money given to the government, but a non-criminal penalty on a mandate is not a tax. They have entirely different semantical meanings and they have different sets of broader impacts.

Saying that simply because they both result in money paid in to uncle sam, then they are the same, is really narrow.

 

[Mav88]

What is it with you calling everyone religious. I recognize the method for
The righties, repeat the same thing over and over and over and it will maybe stick even though untrue. But I don't know why you keep telling everyone they're religious.

No, just you and a few others. However many times I say it is irrelevent to the truth. You have an set of beliefs tied to your brainstem that makes you reflexively hurl ad hominems when they are challenged- EXACTLY what religious people do.

I just think you personally are a fool, full of yourself and an all around asshole.

oh and likewise, but so what?

As for this argument of constitutional or not, there is no argument there, I can see where it could of been struck down. I can also see a good argument for why it passed. I know I know when you look at both sides to an argument it's religion. Maybe the religion of not being a dumbass (which seems to be your religion).
So carry on fool post another 1000 words of ranting on this subject and be sure to call everyone religious.

I will post as I see fit, like everyone else does. I'd rather post 1000 words with some thought behind them than the shit you post, but to each his own I guess. I don't really care what you say you understand, you have posted nothing so what does it matter? I have taken a position, and I defend that position with arguments that everyone is free to take on. You are offended by that? really, I don't care, you are not going to affect me with your little insults.

ok, your turn, vent off since I have again insulted your belief system.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Mav88:

Well in the context of just the penalty portion, I agree with them James, and in that regard the supreme court just ruled 5-4 that this is unconstitutional.

Good thing we no longer are bound by the Constitution, then.. eh?

 

[bigarrow]

belief system ???

Guess I'll have to listen to some conservative radio gurus to get the definations to all y'alls catch phrases and talking points.