HUGE VICTORY FOR BARACK OBAMA … SEISMIC DEFEAT FOR U.S. ECONOMY, RULE OF LAW
|| By FITSNEWS || Willfully ignoring the letter of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the administration of Barack Obama can continue to levy taxes and dole out benefits in thirty-six states which explicitly rejected the creation of health care exchanges.
In so ruling, the court not only ignored the clear language – and explicit intent – of Obamacare, it overturned multiple lower court rulings striking down the taxes and subsidies.
The case – Halbig v. Burwell – addressed whether Obama’s notoriously corrupt Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had the authority to levy taxes in the thirty-six states which chose to let the federal government administer their health care exchanges.
Why shouldn’t they? Well, Obamacare’s authors wrote their law in such a way as to bribe the states into creating their own exchanges.
“They want to sort of squeeze the states to do it,” Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber (this guy) said. “I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”
Exactly … which is exactly what the law said.
“The legal principles involved in Halbig are simple: If Obamacare is to be taken at its word – then the law’s subsidies and penalties do not apply in two-thirds of the country ,” Nathan Mehrens of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) wrote last year. “And if that’s the case, then Obamacare is a ‘Dead Law Walking’ – incapable of sustaining itself without hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending.”
Lower courts agreed with Mehrens’ analysis. And still … Obama defied them.
And now the highest court in the land is covering for him … again.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” chief justice John Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority.
Wow.
That’s pure editorial commentary … and the last time we checked, Roberts’ job was to interpret the law, not ignore its explicit language and clearly stated intent.
Obama and his allies in Congress wrote their law with the deliberate and expressly communicated intention of forcing states to bend to their will. The states didn’t do that, though. They said “no.”
Now thirty-six of these states are being subjected to what amounts to the greatest example of taxation without representation in American history.
Of course whether you support Obamacare (as 43.6 percent of Americans do, according to Real Clear Politics) or oppose it (as 51.4 percent do) … the issue here is much more fundamental.
“This ruling is bigger than Obamacare,” we wrote last year. “It is about whether the laws passed in our nation’s capital are worth the paper they’re printed on.”
Clearly, they are not …
The latest Obamacare ruling comes three years after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s right to tax …
“(Obamacare)’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably characterized as a tax,” a narrow majority of the Justices concluded in that ruling. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
Obama repeatedly claimed his signature legislation was not a tax hike.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in September 2009.
Years ago, we warned that Obama’s law was going to be disastrous for the American economy – and we were right (see HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE). As a candidate in 2008, Obama projected annual savings of $2,500 per family by the end of his first term in office – yet when his first term ended, there had been a $2,400 increase in insurance costs.
And those costs are still climbing.
But as dire as Obamacare’s economic impact has been, this latest ruling rescuing it … and rescuing “Republicans” from having to bail it out … is far more damaging to the American Republic.
It is quite simply the costliest, most indefensible, most egregious, most flagrant rebuke of the rule of law we’ve ever seen.
306 comments
Fuckin’ A
Like, F’en A cool? Or F’en A bad?
For a Christian,you sure do lapse;)
Quit saying that, my knees just wobbled.
I’ll fix it for you. “The flag down and Obamacare upheld all in the same week. Awesome!!! F’en A!!!!!
Is there anything you don’t want to hump?
Hurrah for America! This is a great day for our beloved country! God bless Barak Obama!
PLAIN SIMPLE WORDS. I thought these were supposed to be intelligent human beings, our best. Obviously they cannot even read. I am not even sure you have to have much of a brain to understand this one.
It’s. The. Law.
Yes it’s the law and was sold by the President with lies.
Bless your heart. :)
Truth hurts doesn’t it.
The truth does hurt.
Obamacare is upheld twice and IS constitutional.
Obamacare has resulted in MILLIONS being insured.
Obamacare is good for the country overall.
Bless your heart. :)
Of those millions how many lost the coverage they had.
The President lied.
They probably lost their crappy insurance and got something better? :)
Uninsured rate has still dropped thanks to Obama, no thanks to Republicans!
Crappy you say and you know this how?
What about the 30 million that still do not have Obamacare?
Gotta pass it to know what is in it.
The President lied.
Crappy because they didn’t have enough coverages to be continued.
You’re right though, Obamacare doesn’t go far enough!
That doesn’t mean it isn’t an improvement!
Bless your heart! :)
Maybe they didn’t need the coverage demanded in Obamacare.
The President lied.
Maybe they didn’t know they could get screwed by preexisting conditions, and now they can’t.
6-3.
It’s still the law. :)
Maybe, but you sure know if you need maternity coverage or not.
The President still lied.
It’s still an improvement in the system.
It’s still the law. :)
Do you have a problem using the same user name?
The President still lied.
If that’s what you want, I’ll use the same username.
It’s still the law. :)
I Don’t Care You Don’t Matter.
The President still lied.
I obviously matter if I’m getting a response.
It’s still the law. :)
Went right over your head.
The President still lied.
Have a good day.
Have a good day?
I already am!
It’s still the law!
Don’t let that spoil your day though! :)
No, her existing plan through her employer covered her quite nicely, and she has several health issues. She was crushed when her employer dropped her existing plan because of the 0bamacare law. Like myself, she refuses to sign up for 0bamacare due to the site being a hacker’s paradise of personal data that will always be there for the taking.
And the yellow and black helicopters.
A good friend lost her coverage through her employer, a large chain store. She hasn’t been able to get coverage since as she cannot afford anything that is out there. Yeah, good ol’ 0bamacare made her life better,… NOT.
Sorry to hear that and she’s not the only one.
That’s the employers fault. Has she even tried to go through her state exchange? I’ll wait for an answer…………………………………………
That’s point dude. No one loses coverage. In fact, you have to have it. They buy coverage off the exchange, else they get from their employer or enjoy Medicare.
“millions lost the coverage they had”. You know this how?
The President lied or did you just not like what he said? Was it “big” lie like “voter fraud” or a “small” lie “like you can keep you health insurance”?
Or a so-so lie like “we’ll be greated as liberators” or a tweeny weeny lie like “Mission Accomplished.” Or a fat lie like “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”
The President lied.
You sound like a broken record my man.
Who cares?
It’s still the law.
Obviously many do not care that the President lied.
Some people care that they can actually get insured now thanks to the ACA.
The law is overall a win for America.
And it is still the law. :)
Which President? Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush1, Reagan, Carter, Ford (he might not have), Nixon, LBJ?
Which president has not lied?
Honest Abe?
What odes Lincoln think about the Confederate Flag?
So that makes it Ok that this President lied.
You may not expect more from your Presidents but I do.
What makes it OK is that the law fixes a lot of things wrong with the health care system.
We are better off, even if some parts are not as well off as they said they would be.
More people are insured, better insured, and less likely to be kicked off their coverage.
And it’s still the law. :)
A lot of the people who “lost” coverage did not actually lose coverage.
Most of the times the insurance company just offered a similar plan that did conform to the ACA requirements.
I’m sure some people did get screwed over, but millions were helped.
I’d love to have something better than the ACA, but no one has offered anything better.
Chances are, anything better would be “socialist” too!
No.Rejected by Nikki Haley with lives..
“Oh Lordy, now I have health insurance! What shall I evah dooooo!”
Now covered by the ACA. Thanks, Obama!
http://www.reactiongifs.us/deal-with-it-obama/
I gots my own version of the ACA. I rolled into a nice neighborhood, cased a joint, and went in through some chump’s backdoor, which he conveniently left unlocked for me.
Then, I grabs his wife’s jewelry & a blue ray player and hit the pawn shop.
Now I was able to replace my rotten toof with this one:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3D0o5qD1cco/T0YlUxSQMuI/AAAAAAAAKXg/R0n4LvL-LAo/s1600/gty_gold_tooth_nt_110421_wg.jpg
This is probably good news for Republicans in the long run.
You are correct. Losing subsidies would have cost millions their insurance, and Republicans would have to eat that or pass some kind of temporary if not permanent fix to keep those people insured. It’s a lose-lose situation, but the decision solidifies the reform as law. Since they cannot do anything until 2017 it is likely not going to repealed, ever.
I’ve always been strange, but only correct 99% of the time.
Yeah, once again the GOP gets to have their cake and eat it to. They get to be in opposition to the law, and get those supporters, yet don’t have to provide any sort of alternative, nor be responsible for any fallout from whatever alternative they might have implemented.
In a few years Obamacare will be accepted and appreciated in much the same way Social Security is now. The Democrats who paid the price for the discomfort of ‘change’ in 2010 and 2014, won’t get much credit. However, the GOP won’t get blamed for doing everything they could to stop it.
Kinda like the Family Medical Leave Act. Dems implemented it with ZERO help from the GOP, yet millions of middle class families benefit from it. Many of those same families are not even cognizant of this, and instead trust the Koch brothers to have their best interest at heart by voting Rpublican.
I disagree a little bit. I think that Obamacare will prolong the system as is but at some point in the future it is going to need to be replaced with something far more comprehensive and universal. It is not a great law, but it is not a bad one either.
Time will tell.
You are correct that this decision saved the bacon of all the stupid Republicans running for President. Now that ACA has been upheld, all of them can continue to posture like the Cowardly Lion, secure in the fact that they can bitch about it, but won’t have to deal with the reality of taking health insurance away from millions.
With healthcare and probably gay marriage later this week or next off the plate, there won’t be any reasons left to vote Democrat.
You mean besides the fact Republicans believe they should be allowed to take unlimited anonymous money from people who want them to enact legislation to benefit the donors.
You mean besides the fact the Republicans want to kill Social Security and Medicare, and give that money to defense contractors, and their mega wealthy donors; leaving middle class Americans in poverty when they are too old or too sick to work, and with inadequate health care.
Or besides the fact that Republicans want to kill public education and leave everyone to their own devices to receive an education.
Or perhaps besides the fact Republicans want to cut taxes on the mega wealthy and pay for those cuts by taxing everyone else or cutting vital benefits like Social Security and Medicare.
Or perhaps besides the fact that Republicans want to get us into another unwinnable war.
Or perhaps besides the fact Republicans want to allow their wealthy donors to destroy our environment, so long as they are paid.
Or besides the fact Republicans want to take away the right of minorities to vote.
Or besides the fact Republican leadership led us into the Bush mini-depression and given a chance they will do so again.
Or besides the fact Republicans don’t think women deserve equal pay
Or besides the fact Republicans don’t believe women who are raped can get pregnant.
Or besides the fact Republicans will ignore science, such as global warming, if their donors pay them to do so.
I can bo on and on, but I think most people are beginning to see what is going on in this country.
If Hillary tries to make those arguments, on half of them she’ll look like a fool and on the other half she’ll look like a hypocrite.
Even I would pay Hillary $500,000 to make that speech.
It’s Obamacare no more – It’s now SCOTUSCARE – or Roberts’care, you’re call. I’d love to know what the Obama administration has on John Roberts.
It’s a tax, no a fine, no a tax…
We’re waiting on Gay Marriage – maybe that will shed some light.
That won’t be today, they only released two opinions today.
Don’t wait.Will you marry me?
I’m not comfortable in our relationship. I think we should see other people.
Don’t worry, there’s still love in the air.
Could you imagine a meeting of all the regulars here?
We should have that during the next Carolina-Clemson game.
We’d have to limit it to beer only.
I’m not sure I could handle it on just beer…
No numeric. I’d just be afraid of what would happen if Buzz had too many shots and GT showed up.
They added another release day for tomorrow and Monday. I’m guessing it will be Monday with the AZ congressional redistricting case tomorrow.
Whatever he has on Roberts, it is so bad even Kennedy voted this time! You guys sure are silly!
They are ‘conservatives’ so they probably have some pretty evil stuff on them.
I agree, Colonel! See my comment elsewhere about the future TV (or whatever like technology is “in” at that time) special in the future.
You are so right. You just know those shitty ‘conservatives’ are up to some very decent stuff in their private lives. Probably have a whole file on them to use.
The law is just an inconvenience to those in power…it’s just something that takes a little more time to work around.
Rearrange some semantics, toss is some case law, & voila! The “law” means whatever the PTB wants.
Now, if you’re a little person dealing with an alphabet soup agency…well…it’s whatever they say it is, or if you’re in the justus system then it’s “strictly by the book” if you’re a little person.
“The law”…lol
I think that Ebola has gone to your brain…
The law is an ass and Chief Justice Roberts is the sphincter.
And you “suh” are the BIGGEST SPHINCTER of all. If you are so-called colonel as you imply, then what benefits do get from the government?
Right now I get a pay check when I go to battle assembly (a stupid name for what most of us still call weekend drill) – that is about it.
What type of health insurance, Col.?
BCBS. I have used TRICARE but stroke a check every month now in preparation for retiring from the reserves.
Let’s see. When I do battle. Hmmm a lobbyist? BCBS. Hmmm you are in good health, no pre-existing conditions and self employed. This sounds like the hell with the little guy and/or poor. I’m fine, that’s all that counts. You are quite a guy. Oh you must be a good christian as well!!!!!!!!
I teach history and recruit for the chicken coop. My knees are gone, I have a family history of high blood pressure and cancer – I am responsible for dealing with those issues. I’m a devout Christian, mission trips, disaster recovery program and more men’s ministry projects than I care to remember. I support several charities and a missionary it two as well as my local church – not bragging just establishing the beliefs and actions. I have these strange ideas that lead me to believe that I don’t need or want gubamint involved in every aspect of my life, something about personal responsibility.
Does personal responsibility extend to corporate handouts and reduced taxes due to campaign contributions and well paid lobbyists? Does personal responsibility extend to no-bid Defense contracts with grossly inflated pricing?
Corporate handout = if you do business where and how we want you to we’ll cut you some slack
Reduced taxes = incentives to do business where and how we want you to
No bid contracts = we don’t have time to screw with the mess we’ve created in government procurement so here’s some money, we hope you’ll do what we wanted
I am no fan of any of the above and have stated so on many occasions – I am a little curious what any of it has with to do with this debate?
You are boring and liar; however you did establish on this post that you are a bullshitter. Please continue working the government system, as it is apparent that you lead an incredibly unproductive life and contribute bumpkus to this society.
I’m sorry, what have I lied about?
Do you love when people say that? Liar!!! Like they a) know shit, b) you give a crap.
I really love the crickets that chirp when you an for an example…
You’re too valuable not to enter the private sector and enjoy the “caddy – lack” plans we have. And here’s to being around the suck the crap out of Medicare.
Hear, Hear!!!!
What form of gov’t healthcare do you to use?
I have none at the moment.
Pull up those boot straps. Don’t be so irresponsible.
I had forgotten, the O-6 type did post he was concerned about the Ebola outbreak didn’t he?
Oh well, now ain’t the time or place to pile on…………………..
Nearly everyone was paranoid including,Fits.It stuck out as an example of people giving in rather than thinking.Conspiracies help weak minded people cope.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5p7A-T7D-sg.
Sing along with me
“… don’t touch others’ poop and pee, stay Ebola free…”
Fucking AWESOME!!!!
When you start quoting Scalia seriously you should probably take a step back
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf page 47
Didn’t know I was quoting him, I’ve been at a recruiting event all morning. Just had time to read the decisions, haven’t read the dissent yet.
Its pretty good, the line I was referring to:
“Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
Just had a chance to look at it, scathing.
Hey ASSHOLE was a recruiting event for the CSA or the KKK?
That was just rude and unwarranted. Learn to disagree civilly and lose the caps key. I don’t agree with the Colonel, but your comment is infantile.
Well of course, look where we’re commenting!
Thanks for the defense but we are at Fitsnews after all.
Well. Just look at your pal “the colonel” comment??????? Oh my goodness gracious, he used a naughty word as well!!!!! Tah-tah and have a good day. Your’s very truly and Bon jour . Monsieur Farkel
What naughty word did I use? Schmuck? Schmuck or shmuck in American English is a pejorative meaning one who is stupid or foolish. In Yiddish, it refers to the penis. I’ll let you decide which one you are.
Hey colonel you know that I’m the later and you can suck on it!!!!!!!
The later what? Oh, you mean you’re the ???????
It was for schmucks but we don’t have room for you, we’ve reached our quota today.
As I said you where at a CSA or KKK recruiting event. As they are really schmucks and you are the HEAD SCHMUCK? A pompous one at that.
There might be 100 members of the klan in the whole state. I’m at a university recruiting event trying to convince young skulls full of mush to not turn out as liberals.
Just 100 members in the klan??? Hell there are 19 hate groups alone in South Carolina, pal. More “fuzzy math” and bull shit from “the colonel”. Get it right my friend get it right.
There may be “19 hate groups” in South Carolina butt the Klan does not now nor never has had a big presence in the state.
Isn’t there also an aptitude test?
KKK?
TOATGBS
No “The Colonel” it’s THE LAW. Get over your narrow minded conservative point of views. This “LAW” helps people get medical insurance, just as Medicare and Social helps people like you maintain a better life?
The America haters are out in full force today. What do they have on Roberts? Is he off his medicine again? Is he insane? Nope, he just knows it is the law!
Adjudication on what they say they meant versus what they wrote isn’t following the law.
I looked at the draft which said $9958@mk4
…
http://www.GlobalworkworldBlue/blog/cold...
I hope I live long enough to collect some Medicare benefits. I used to manage the appeals program for Medicare.
Once we are reduced to 2-3 insurance providers well see how this all works out.
Will never happen and you know it. Just curious, why the inane handle “the colonel”? Reading between the lines “suh”, it’s apparent you are living off the so-called “test” from someone?
Why the handle? Well, I am one to start with but I’ve been called “the colonel” since I was a PFC. I have a tendency to take over in the absence of leadership or the presence of poor leadership. I hope to retire from the reserves in December, I was supposed to retire in June but the Army dissuaded me of the notion that I had an option.
Not sure what you mean by “the test of someone”…
Not sure what you mean by “the test of someone”…
——–
it sounds like a thing, but not one I’ve ever heard of
Sorry “suh” typo should had been “teet”!! Soooo you are in the reserves? Ah ha this explains everything. You “worked” the system to your own benefit and push paper and pencils around. Nice deal “the colonel” nice deal. Re-afirms your conservative position and being such a hypocrite. You talk about big government? Look at the fact that we have way to many colonels in active and inactive service. Get a life pal, get a life.
He is part of big gov’t. What a joke.
On a not so cloudy day, the Colonel could be seen outside his bunker, admiring his defender’s before him. A joke is not so funny to any troops he commanded. I wasn’t there, but I feel it in his posted comments.
The only troops he’s ever commanded where keys on a Smith Corona. But your feeling is right on.
Hey Fred, did you ever notice how all your kids look a lot like your neighbor, Ferd Berfel?
Hey tom thanks for the complement.
Your stroking your own ego so much must get tiresome.
He asked – I told, no stroking involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69fPof-ZTnU
It never gets old for me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69fPof-ZTnU
Say everybody – have you heard
If you’re in the game, then the stroke’s the word
Don’t take no rhythm, don’t take no style
Got a thirst for killin’ – grab your vial…
Put your right hand out – give a firm handshake
Talk to me about that one big break
Spread your ear-pollution both far and wide
Keep your contributions by your side
Stroke me, stroke me
Could be a winner boy, you move quite well
Stroke me, stroke me
Say you’re a winner, but man, you’re just a sinner now
Put your left foot out – keep it all in place
Work your way right into my face
First you try to bed me – you make my backbone slide
When you find you bled me, skip on by
Stroke me, stroke me
Give me the business all night long
Stroke me, stroke me
Say you’re a winner, but man, you’re just a sinner now
Better listen now – it ain’t no joke
Let your conscience fail ya – just do the stroke
Don’tcha take no chances – keep your eye on top
Do your fancy dances – you can’t stop
Stroke me, baby – stroke me all night long
Stroke me, baby – like my back ain’t got a bone
Could be a winner boy, you move quite well
Say you’re a winner, but man, you’re just a sinner now
That’s about all we have in the private sector – BCBS, Human, UnitedHealthcare.
Another gov’t mooch. Taking my tax dollars.
I’m enjoying my Obamaraise, Obamacar, Obamavaction and Obamacare.
Poopy old conservatives are just a bonus.
Probably some pretty sick stuff. He is a ‘conservative’, after all.
Colonel, you nailed it, either someone has something on Roberts or someone is secretly depositing a pile of money for his use.
That must be the right-wing talking point of the day, about what they might have on Roberts. Are they putting that crap out on FOX today?
Poor people still get health care, Republicans are really mad about this.
Why aren’t we covering all the sick in Africa?
Republicans complain about foreign aid too.
Africans can get on the ACA?
If they are naturalized citizens, sure, have at it. Don’t put words in my mouth though.
“Don’t put words in my mouth though.”
I didn’t. I asked Vinny why we aren’t covering all the sick in Africa. You jumped in and brought up a different topic that had no relation to my question….and you still haven’t answered it.
If we go by Vinny’s principle that people still need healthcare, why aren’t we covering those in Africa?
Because we are only providing coverage for our poor people, dumb ass. Not for the poor of other countries. This is a government benefit for citizens and legal resident aliens. Now if we are trying to follow the teachings of Christ, you have a good point.
“Because we are only providing coverage for our poor people, dumb ass.”
” Now if we are trying to follow the teachings of Christ, you have a good point.”
Good to know that I’m a dumb ass that can make a good point and that you think the government isn’t following the teachings of Christ.
Conservatives love the old testament, but hate most of the teachings of Christ. Too much stuff in there about poor people, helping the sick, and giving away your money to the poor. .
Well, I’m not really sure what “conservatives” believe, since it seems to change fairly routinely.
But, there’s several crossover points between Jesus and the Old Testament. For example, even Jesus said “Thou shall not steal.”
I can see you are not much of a church goer. “Thou shalt not steal” is in the book of Exodus, Very Old Testament. 2000 ti 3000 years before the birth of Christ. If you are one of those people who says taxes are stealing, in regard to taxes Christ said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” You see Christ was concerned with your soul, not how rich you are on earth. “it is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
So you deny that Jesus said “Thou shalt not steal”?
I think he quoted the ten commandments once, but that does not conflict with my early points. The statement is of Old Testament origin. That said Christ clearly did not equate taxes and stealing. He said a lot more about helping the sick and the poor.
For that matter Old Testament Jews did not equate taxes and stealing. Jews were originally a Theocracy, ruled by priests. Tithing to the temple was mandatory. The original flat tax, 10% of gross earnings. The priest used that money to support themselves, the temple and to, help the sick and poor.
Well, it’s good you don’t deny that Jesus did indeed say “Thou shall not steal” given that you are a church goer.
So let me ask another question, did government actually successfully tax Jesus?
The Bible does not say. To my knowledge Jesus owned noting of value to be taxed, and earned no income. However, his earthly father was successfully taxed, that is why he was in Bethlehem in the first place.
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.”.
“The Bible does not say.”
Actually, it does say, from wiki:
“In the Gospel account, in Capernaum the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax ask Peter whether Jesus pays the tax, and he replies that he does. When Peter returns to where they are staying, Jesus speaks of the matter, asking his opinion: “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own children or from others?” Peter answers, “from others,” and Jesus replies: “Then the children are exempt. But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
Which is Matthew 17 btw.
I seriously think you should re-evaluate what you Jesus thought about taxes.
The irony of you thinking it acceptable that government could tax Jesus is close to blasphemous in and of itself, but that you would ignore such a clear indication above of what Jesus though about taxes makes it seem that you reject rationality.
Not only does God clearly cast a poor light on government in the Old Testament, but Jesus is clearly saying that Believers are the children of God and should not be taxed, but so to “not give offense” he “conjures” the money out of a fishes mouth.
That would be the equivalent of using a printing press in your basement to pay your tax. Making you(and Jesus) both a counterfeiter and tax dodger in the eyes of the “law”.
Sorry, I don’t buy that. I think instead is the equivalent of telling a thief you have no money even though you have some wadded into your sock instead of in your wallet.
I said: “Thou shalt not steal.”
I also said: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Why would I advocate theft if I spoke against theft? Because taxes are not theft!
“Why would I advocate theft if I spoke against theft? Because taxes are not theft!”
Not really. He advocating the paying of taxes because he knew that if not done, it would be met with violence. That’s not the same thing as “advocating”.
In fact, given that he cited the OT, let’s look at another perspective on “taxes”:
“Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7And the Lordtold him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16Your male and female servants and the best of your cattlec and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.18When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
Notice the word the Bible uses over and over again, “TAKE”
He will TAKE this, and that, etc.
Definition of “take”(google):
dispossess someone of (something); steal or illicitly remove.
“someone must have sneaked in here and taken it”
synonyms:steal, remove, appropriate, make off with, pilfer, purloin;
antonyms:give back, restore
Notice the word “steal”….
“He advocating the paying of taxes because he knew that if not done, it would be met with violence.”
Ok, I think I’ve read enough to know I’m wasting my time with ya.
Sure you are.
I believe people in China and North Korea need free speech. Why aren’t we covering their right to say what they want without government retaliation?
Also, Africans are getting covered, for free, when we send them nutritional and medical aid. No regulations, no mandates, no taxes, no laws, I thought a libertarian would find that more agreeable as at least the government is minimally involved in that solution.
“Why aren’t we covering their right to say what they want without government retaliation?”
That’s a good question, right in line with mine. Can you tell us why we aren’t going to bat for them too?
“Also, Africans are getting covered, for free, when we send them nutritional and medical aid.”
Who is “we”? Who specifically are you referring to?
Because to go to bat for Chinese and North Korean dissenters is to go to war with those countries.
We in this instance is the taxpayers at large, since we are talking about government financed foreign aid. That is coupled by those of us who donate to charities that offer aid as well. Both are ultimately free for the African people, they pay nothing, they have no worry of our government mandating or regulating them for taking it.
“We in this instance is the taxpayers at large, since we are talking about government financed foreign aid. That is coupled by those of us who donate to charities that offer aid as well.”
Well, you conflated two major things there:
1. Taxes are not voluntary
2. Those who donate to charity are doing it voluntarily
That’s a major problem with your argument, but aside from that, let’s continue:
“Because to go to bat for Chinese and North Korean dissenters is to go to war with those countries.”
So are you saying the costs are too great?
“they have no worry of our government mandating or regulating them for taking it.”
Focusing on the gifts they get from our government, isn’t there always the possiblity of gov’t mandating/regulating them for getting said “gifts”? Isn’t there even a history of said action?
Yes, the costs are too great to enforce our laws and our constitutional rights around the globe. That does not invalidate our laws or our rights within our own borders.
You know, it’s odd. The costs are too great for that…yet the continued indebtedness of the country seems to have little effect on both Democrats & Republicans when it comes to their personal pet projects associated with war & welfare.
It’s like a giant running study on cognitive dissonance.
Actually Legal Resident Aliens are also eligible. But then, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Flip, oh Flip. Where are you? Didn’t you say Obamacare was going Down – LMAO, HA!!! Oh Tango, Wango Tango, donde esta? Didn’t you say Obamacare was finished in June? Where are you guys. You so tough talking!!!!! Hurray for you. Immigration reform is next.
One day, 50-100 or so years in the future, the videos and audio evidence that Justice Roberts et al were diddling little boys, little girls, goats, poultry, or whatever, as gathered by the NSA and turned over to Obama Administration operatives to be used as leverage, will be de-classified and released. A future incarnation of History Channel or Government’s Greatest Evil Acts will air a special on this.
Well, he is a ‘conservative’ so the chances of him doing those things are pretty great.
The law of the land wins again.
I’m not on ACA, but have always said they need to fix whatever does not work. Repeal will simply never happen. Nor, obviously, will the Supremes ever strike it down.
Stickler called it the other day, 6-3.
Thanks for the props.
Hey, Will, do you and your staff buy insurance on the exchange?
Or, are your wife and children on Medicaid?
Add the 13% who think Obamacare is NOT liberal enough to the 43.6% who just approve of it and you come up with 56+% majority who approve of Obamacare.
They’re on the Don’t Get Sick plan.
If that doesn’t work, the Die Quickly plan is the GOP back up plan.
Not anymore.
A+
I bet they get it on the exchange. But he shouldn’t answer – it’s not of anyone’s business.
Oh, yes.
If he attacks something that he takes advantage of, it is EVERYBODY’S business.
You forget, Haley didn’t expand medicaid through the ACA, so our state is behind compared to others.
“Willfully ignoring the letter of the law…” Isn’t that up to the Supreme Court to decide?
One way it will increase revenue is it will temporarily raise the ratings of right-wingnut talk radio and its sponsors for a week or two……………………
It will give me some satisfaction that some its rabid fans will have the worst case of hemorrhoids since Clinton best the impeachment rap back in the 90’s!!!!!!!!
******Ain’t nothing more amusing than a pissed off right wingnut spouting off*******
This makes my day (along with shooting rats and killing buck flies)!!!!!!!!!
They will get a lot of listeners today, me included, to hear their meltdowns!
Indeed. lol
Most of the dipshits whining this morning are on some form of gov’t subsides healthcare. Too stupid for irony.
Tough week for the right wing. And the SCOTUS may soon uphold gay marriage.
health care for the poor
legal marijuana
no war with Iran
racist flag
gay marriage
abortion rights
where will it all end?
18 Trillion and climbing.
bomb bomb bomb
bomb bomb Iran
Thanks for motivation max. Republicans haven’t had a good bombing hard on for a while.
we’re only 18 trillion in debt, I figured… what the hell, let’s throw another log on the fire.
And new round for everybody. Make mine a Dos XXx
Put SS back on the books and take another look…$18 Trill is phony accounting…the number is much, MUCH higher if the government had to stick to GAAP for business and use accrual.
They can never raise rates past 5 or 6% now….they simply can’t do it…don’t have the cash flow. They’ve painted themselves into a box they can never escape.
This law is not increasing the deficit. See
http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/06/23/cbo-repealing-obamacare-would-make-the-deficit-soar/
Don’t you bring your dirty facts in here!
“If you repeal ObamaCare, you also repeal its cost-containing features as well as the taxes that were passed to finance it.”
Notice the word “taxes”.
“The CBO report does remind us that ObamaCare is not a free lunch. According to its analysis, ObamaCare will reduce the national GDP by 0.7 percent by the start of the next decade”
Let us also remember, aside from their mixed report, that this is the same organization that continually restates it’s findings…
So we should trust Fox News, Beck, Rush, the Tea Party, etc. etc. Because all the right wingers just know it does, because well because Obama is a Kenyan Muslim.
“So we should trust Fox News, Beck, Rush, the Tea Party, etc. etc. ”
Dude….I quoted the article you cited….not any of the above…lol
No you said the CBO numbers could not be trusted. We have to get the numbers from someone. All the doom and gloom numbers come from the people i suggested.
“No you said the CBO numbers could not be trusted.”
You bitched about these conservative outlets when I presented quotes to your linked article…lol
The GDP is a made up number I thought. Anywho it is money well spent if it means millions being able to see a doctor instead of dying in their home or getting taken to the cleaners for going to the ER.
“The GDP is a made up number I thought.”
It is, it’s a BS number. You are correct.
That’s one reason why the whole CBO report itself is suspect, but there are many.
I just figured I’d point out the little quotes in the report that James somehow thought validated his world view.
I don’t think anyone is under the assumption that it will not cost money. Most of us who are for health care reform acknowledge it will cost money, we just think it is worth the cost because the human cost of ignoring the problem is far more taxing.
Part of those taxes are for lucrative businesses like the medical device industry. I don’t feel bad for highly profitable industries having to sacrifice a portion of their profits for the greater good, far better than asking millions of people to die at home for the lesser “good” if you can even call it that.
“I don’t think anyone is under the assumption that it will not cost money.”
Well, James appeared to be.
Ending taxation won’t cost *any* money.
It will probably cost the same as BEFORE we had income tax.
Actually, there would be no civilization – therefore no money.
Just like the lack of civilization in the US prior to 1913 and again 1861, etc. et al
“anarchy”- the horrors!
would you mind explaining that?
no income tax…..
I’m talking “tax”
My point being that when the US government didn’t have 91% of it’s available revenue(income tax) civilization didn’t end.
When you hold your breath, you don’t die right away. It takes a little while.. and just as you go unconscious, you gasp for breath, and start breathing again.
No air, no life.
140 years or so of dying eh? There was dying growth for the first 90?
lol…I love you in a non-gay way Max. We are, what we are.
140 years without any tax?
“income tax”
I’m talking “tax”
So let’s step back for a moment, are you saying that you would be ok with no income tax for the population and revenue for government being scaled back by 91% would be acceptable in your view?
A preserver of “civilization” as you put it?
The idea of tax is to support the infrastructure of civilization. It should be levied intelligently.
Ok, so paint a picture for me what “intelligent” is to you? What is the tax structure as run by the state of Max?
Ok, so paint a picture for me what “intelligent” is to you? What is the tax structure as run by the state of Max
———
I like the way the fondling fathers set it up – an electorate made up of people acutely aware of their own self-interests, electing officials to represent them who carry the will of their constituency to the process of lawmaking, and appropriations – with appropriate oversight and efficient implementation of same.
…don’t you believe in the Constitution?
“…don’t you believe in the Constitution?”
No.
“an electorate made up of people acutely aware of their own
self-interests, electing officials to represent them who carry the will
of their constituency to the process of lawmaking, and appropriations”
I don’t see how white, property owning citizens reflect the will of their “constituency”, aside from me not being sure that you actually answered my question.
Until we are able to fulfill those requirements, I don’t see how we can “move to the next step” or any other step.
Think of it as a test of our intelligence…. and we are failing.
The “requirements” you reference seem a bit vague to me.
Maybe the problem is not some set of arbitrary requirements…maybe the problem is a foundational principle that is missing.
The intelligence of the public?
That would be one.
Now, if you’ll look back up the thread to the original condescension, you’ll see that’s what I’m saying.
” look back up the thread to the original condescension”
lol…Maaaaxxxx….which condescension? It’s a theme.
:)
oh… yeah… I meant the one where I claimed we couldn’t even crawl… so running is out of the question.
lol…ok then.
I’d like to start with the whole “voluntary relationship” thing, as you know…but even that looks pretty hopeless in the context of Joe Sixpack.
You have to admit though, if you think humans aren’t crawling it doesn’t seem to make sense doing what’s been done for around 10,000 years now…it’s the definition of madness cliche.
You have to admit though, if you think humans aren’t crawling it doesn’t seem to make sense doing what’s been done for around 10,000 years now…it’s the definition of madness cliche.
——-
whistling in the graveyard.
Yep.
same organization that continually restates it’s findings…
——-
if only science was like that…
wait…
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Knowledge is created by a process involving observation and scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.
General theories can only be justified by the finite number of observations humans can make. Which means that theories cannot be known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only.
You got some kind of replacement for science that I missed in the popular literature, baby?
There is no need for a “replacement” for science, the question you should be asking is WHY the CBO changes its numbers.
Science. Numbers change to match new information.
Politics. Numbers change to match highest bidder.
You won’t get any disagreement via that statement from me…in fact I think it reinforces my own. I think the CBO is subject to whoever at any moment occupies the executive branch.
I think the CBO is subject to whoever at any moment occupies the executive branch.
——-
your evidence?
Common sense? I know this may not be good enough. I’ll respond later.
Common sense?
——-
Aha! I knew I was onto something!
So please don’t shower me with the cries of “Foul!” or “Breitbart!” or “Conservative!”, nor make me scour for more examples….
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/03/19/is-the-cbo-engaged-in-partisan-manipulation-of-data/
Foul
Breitbart!
Conservative!
Motherfacter!
It is not unprecedented for a “conservative” judicial appointee to become more pro-government as he becomes institutionalized under a black robe and lifetime appointment. This happened to Warren, Burgher, Souter, Kennedy, and now Roberts. The illogic of “if the law is bad, stupid, doesn’t work, makes the problem worse, then Congress couldn’t possibly have intended it,” flies in the face of established precedent and common sense. But clearly Congress and the President have a friend in John Roberts – he is smart enough and willing to re-write the laws they screw up. This is the third tier of tyranny, and is pretty impressive to watch it work. It’s a brave new world, folks.
Government subsidies drive up costs every time. It’s basic economics. The politicians know this. But they think you don’t.
They only way to fight this bullshit is to vote for far right candidates like Cruz and/or perhaps Rand Paul, and hope over time that they can effect change. While history suggests otherwise (no government ever grows more free – it grows into a tyranny and then self destructs as it feeds on its subjects until it has nothing left to eat…)
Those closer to the middle (like Graham, Bush, perhaps Rubio) have drank the Kool aide, have a vested interest in the SQ, fear change, and will not bring it about. They say they will, but they won’t.
“You live to serve this ship. Row well and live, 41.”
Taaaango? Fliiiip? Ef-Ce?????? Pooooogoooooo? Where are you? You’re late for your ass kicking…………
I imagine they are tying up a 1-800 number somewhere.
Bad law passed by bad people for bad purposes upheld by weasels.
Let ’em die. The law of good people, for good purposes, and carried out by the virtuous.
“I’m going to steal from you because my grandpa needs heart surgery.”
“God says it’s ok.”
Taxes aren’t theft.
Cool. Then we should be able to make them voluntary and there won’t be any problems.
Remove all the penalties and tell people they aren’t required.
No, because people like you would not pay your fair share. Taxes are the price of civilization.
He isn’t respecting the property rights of governments.
There’s nothing the government “has” it didn’t take from someone else.
Even further, let us not forget that some people say it’s “we”…so collectively speaking by their own argument I can’t disrespect my own “property right”…..pardon me whilst I Tango: LMAO!
You’re right, the government did steal land from Native Americans, but I don’t see a lot of people saying we should give it back to them. That also means “we” have a hand in holding stolen property. Hello, fellow thief!
If we had killed all the Injuns, we wouldn’t have this terrible need to pay them back. I’ll bet the South regrets not killing all the blacks in the confederacy before surrendering.
So now I’m advocating or genocide eh?
I wish I had one single match for this army of strawmen.
I’m just offering a suggestion to relieve the non-existent pain of white guilt for institutionalizing racism, not suggesting that you’d go for it.
…and the regret I’m talking about isn’t your regret, but the regret of those still fuming about the existence of uppity blacks whose grandparents dared not raise his eyes in the presence of a white man.
Lol…..ok
I guess you couldn’t see the sarcasm in that last point, could you?
tit… uh.. for tat.
Ha! Funny.
So if I don’t want to pay, and someone takes my money, it’s not theft…it’s something else.
If it were left up to me I would not charge people like you one penny in tax, I would put a fence up between your house and my roads and charge whatever the market would bear for access to my roads, my water, my police force, my fire department, my power gird, air ports, etc..etc.
Defintion of tax(google):
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
synonyms:duty, tariff, excise, customs, dues; More
antonyms:rebate
2.
a strain or heavy demand.
“a heavy tax on the reader’s attention”
synonyms:burden, load, weight, demand, strain, pressure, stress, drain,imposition
lol….I found “a strain or heavy demand” particularly funny.
Precisely,which is why I said I would not compel you to use my roads, my police force, my power grid, etc. i would just ask you to pay what I thought fair for you access to my stuff. Of course, this would be a totally free market arrangement. I would have no limits on what I could charge.
You would be free to try to build your own roads, as long as they don’t cross mine.
Maybe you should just look at your tax bill as a user fee.
“Of course, this would be a totally free market arrangement. I would have no limits on what I could charge.”
This demonstrates a lack of understanding in regard to how the free market works.
The moment “you”(which is your projection of you as gov’t one would assume) relinquishes monopoly control of the roads, police, etc. is the moment that market dynamics enter the picture.
If you are truly looking for answers instead of defending your worldview, you can understand how things might work by reading works done on the subject matter, like “The Privatization of Roads & Highways” by PhD Walter Block, which not only chronicles the history of roads(both private & government), but explores how such a system worked in the past and can work in the future.
Go completely off the grid with your rugged individualism, or better yet, go find a country where pesky government and taxation do not exist!
somalia
Somalia has warlords, which apparently is government. Of course warlords exist there because there is no government to enforce its sovereignty and wipe the warlords out. Turns out paying your taxes and having a government has its advantages, one being that a bunch of guys better armed than you don’t get to coerce you through violence.
civilization – love it, live it.
“Turns out paying your taxes and having a government has its advantages, one being that a bunch of guys better armed than you don’t get to coerce you through violence.”
Not a big news reader eh? Current events a little depressing?
You can’t refute the logic. You can only throw red herrings into it when you lose.
The word “majority” has become some kind of curseword.
Only when someone is on the wrong end of it.
someone is always on the wrong end of it.
You picked that up did you?
:)
Who says guys like him want to be civilized?
I do. They want the benefits of civilization but none of its burdens. The government should pay for what benefits them and nothing more.
No, he doesn’t want civilization. He wants a free market unburdened by regulation. Those shitty regulations led China to confiscate meat being sold that was frozen since the 1970s. Civilized society stops people from harming others for profit. Uncivilized markets don’t care if they sell you a product that kills you. They could have labeled that 40 year old meat as vintage and sold it at a higher price.
Yes but the invisible hand of the market would punish them. Those customers would have died and they would have no more customers. So as you see the market is self regulating, the guilty are punished..
That’s another idiotic assumption. Corporations here buy stuff made in dilapidated factories overseas, ones that have zero safety regulations, and when a disaster happens thousands of people die. People in America hardly get outraged, what little outrage happens is dismissed through a bit of hand waiving by the corporations. “They were subcontracted without our knowledge, we will do better.” But they don’t do better. It continues again and again.
The only way to stop it is to have a team of people dedicated to not letting it happen, but people don’t work for free, and they need to have some authority to actually stop these people. That all comes from government.
Sorry I forgot to use the sarcasm font..
Oh I know, you’re fine.
You should know, though, libertarians have it all figured out for us, they have thought long and hard about this, more than people who actually run things in the world. It’s all so simple, really it is, we are just too simple to understand their greatness.
The idea that corps want to harm their customers is so laughable that I don’t even have to refute it.
“Remove all the penalties and tell people they aren’t required.”
Can I stop paying my bills and still keep my house, electricity, internet, health insurance, car? No penalties, payments aren’t required, right?
Of course you can, then you stop receiving their service…and *bonus*, they won’t put you in jail for rejecting them.
If you don’t leave your apartment or house after you stop paying, you won’t be arrested for trespassing? Sweet!
I’m glad the government works the same way!
So, just so I can start getting the numbers together, if we let you stop paying taxes, how much will you pay for access to our roads? Surely you cannot object to our charging you as much as we think you will pay.
They are our roads, not his. Why ask him what he should pay? He’s asking for a voluntary system. We decide whatever we want to charge him and if he doesn’t pay, we defend our roads with force to keep trespassers at bay.
I say we start the price at $2,000 a month or 1,000 miles, whichever comes first. Of course we reserve the right to jack it up whenever we feel like, as we are the property owners.
You should run for president – making federal infrastructure pay as you go would get you top spot in the Republican clown car.
You are missing the point. That was not what he or I proposed. Our proposal was that people like Troubleboy who do not want to pay taxes, should be give them the option of paying no taxes but paying whatever the market would bear for access to the taxpayers, property and services.
I’m just laughing at this notion that property owners have a right to kick your ass off their land if you stop paying them for being there, but government doesn’t. Service providers have every right to cut off services and kick your ass in court if you try stealing it, but government doesn’t. I’m still not doing this justice, because a lot of these guys think whipping out your gun and killing someone for trespassing or stealing is a valid option. If you don’t pay your taxes, they just lock you in a cell.
Living here under our rules or moving elsewhere is also voluntary.
You’re the one missing the point!
You could cash in on this idea… write a book.
I think $2000 a month is cheap. I would want to see the size of his house before I decided the price for access. You need all the relevant factors in deciding what the market will bear.
Well, the answer to that is “it’s never enough”, as evidenced locally by the SCDOT.
I thought that’s what the privately rich say.
Your wife called. She says to tell you she’s going to eat lean.
This had 1500+ likes at NYT:
It’s a stain on the Supreme Court’s reputation that they took up this contrived case at all. And the way in which the court took it up was unusual. I have employer based insurance, which enjoys a large federal subsidy (everyone with employer based insurance gets a subsidy because the tax law allows premiums to be paid with pretax income) and I am glad my fellow citizens will continue to get subsidies in anti-Obamacare states. Next fight is for Medicare expansion nationwide in red states. The unfairness of people with higher incomes getting subsidies and a group of working poor that earns less than them falling into a gap should burn our collective conscience. The fact that 2 brothers worth $80 billion are at the forefront of fighting against health care coverage for these folks should be a scandal. Thousands of people per year will die earlier than they should because they don’t get medical care early enough. If we can spend a trillion dollars because 3000 people died on 9/11, it should be a no brainer to save Americans at home for far less.
(he obviously means Medicaid, not Medicare in line 6)
Guaranteed GOP win in 2016
We’ll see…
This has 1000+ likes:
The Republicans should thank the Court for this decision, for it came very close to the GOP’s getting what they wished for – which would have exposed them for their obstructionist failure to consider the consequences of blind obstinacy.
Now let us please stop these childish and non-representative attempts by the Republican Congress to eschew everything Obama and get down to the business of FIXING what is wrong with Affordable Care Act. Let’s start with a single payer system, which is what the majority of people in this nation have wanted all along.
Get specific: do you predict the White House, the Senate or the House? What are putting on the line? Your sterling reputation as a prognosticator?
Upvote bot?
“Reader Picks”
How many articles is FitsNews going to run by whiney Republicans who are butt-hurt that SCOTUS didn’t buy their stupid argument?
Sorry I cannot link to the post in the last day or two where I laid down my marker that ACA would be upheld in King v. Burwell in a 6-3 decision, but did I call it, or not?
Listening to Hannity. He’s having an hour long meltdown. The decision was decidedly unconstitutional and wrong. And Sean should know, being a college drop out and expert on Constitutional law and all.