Obamacare Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court

• O-Trap

  

  queencitybuckeye;1213968 wrote:As deemed by the Chief Justice, who was nominated by ...

  Dubbs!
  
  Seriously, sometimes I want to move to Costa Rica.
• tk421

  

  The government argued that it was a tax. Anyway, someone answer this.
  
  This has just set the precedent that Congress can tax the American public to buy or use any product they want, correct? After all, the whole thing was about interstate commerce and not engaging in it. So, what is to stop any Congress from levying a tax on the type of cars we buy, the type of houses we buy, the kind of products we buy, etc?
  
  MPG tax, buy a car under a certain MPG, taxed.
  Green tax, house not certified green, taxed.
  etc, etc.
  
  This is all perfectly legal now, correct? It's not paranoid, it's the legal slippery slope.
• LJ

  

  tk421;1213972 wrote:The government argued that it was a tax. Anyway, someone answer this.
  
  This has just set the precedent that Congress can tax the American public to buy or use any product they want, correct? After all, the whole thing was about interstate commerce and not engaging in it. So, what is to stop any Congress from levying a tax on the type of cars we buy, the type of houses we buy, the kind of products we buy, etc?
  
  MPG tax, buy a car under a certain MPG, taxed.
  Green tax, house not certified green, taxed.
  etc, etc.
  
  This is all perfectly legal now, correct? It's not paranoid, it's the legal slippery slope.

  Uh, bro
  
  http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/index.htm
• tk421

  

  my point is that the government can make you buy whatever product they want through taxation now. Need to move some more Government Motors cars, how about those government green companies? etc. You don't think Congress is going to use this huge precedent it has just been given?
• tk421

  

  Another issues I just thought of, since this is officially a tax, are all those exemptions handed out going to be repealed? I was unaware that certain segments *cough* democratic allies *cough* could be exempted from taxation?
• QuakerOats

  O-Trap;1213928 wrote:The swing vote coming from an appointee of GWB's ... though I think most of the Republican party is "liberal" by historical definition, anyway, so I suppose I can agree.

  
  I meant the radical liberals in congress forcing it through ....... not the supremes, although the 4 of them played their part perfectly as well.
• QuakerOats

  And by the way, this tax represents the largest tax hike in world history. Just what the economy needs.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...
• QuakerOats

  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/
  
  
  
  
  oh what a tangled web we weave when we first set out to deceive ......
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;1214000 wrote:And by the way, this tax represents the largest tax hike in world history. Just what the economy needs.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...

  What? Are you insane?
• I Wear Pants

  tk421;1213983 wrote:my point is that the government can make you buy whatever product they want through taxation now. Need to move some more Government Motors cars, how about those government green companies? etc. You don't think Congress is going to use this huge precedent it has just been given?

  Maybe, maybe not. But your example of a tax or fee for having a car that gets shitty mileage or has awful emissions doesn't really bother me that much.
  
  We force companies to buy goods and services to reduce their pollution and other things like that as well.
• QuakerOats

  I thought you were well read.
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;1214034 wrote:I thought you were well read.

  Yes, anyone who disagrees with you can't be well read.
  
  Are you 12 years old or something? Quit getting so butthurt everytime someone disagrees with you. You're as bad as isadore in that regard.
• tk421

  

  I Wear Pants;1214033 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. But your example of a tax or fee for having a car that gets shitty mileage or has awful emissions doesn't really bother me that much.
  
  We force companies to buy goods and services to reduce their pollution and other things like that as well.

  Yes, but now Congress has a blank check to pick out any segment of the population that isn't doing what they want and levy a tax on them. Would you be okay with a line on your 1040 that asks if you own any firearms? If so, add X amount to your tax bill. Perfectly legal now.
• QuakerOats

  This is not at all about me, as much as you would like it to be, apparently. This is about liberty, free market capitalism, and the massive assault both are under, every day, by the obama regime. If you think that we are simply going to sit back and accept this assault, and the theft of our rights, then you are sadly mistaken.
• RedRider1

  

  Had this swung the other way...Roberts would have been called every name in the book, including a racist with an axe to grind from back when the Prez. chastised the SCOTUS at the SOTU a few years ago.
  
  But now he's enlightened.
  
  Too funny.
• cruiser_96

  

  I Wear Pants;1214036 wrote:...
  
  You're as bad as isadore in that regard.

  Now you are just being downright mean.
  
  
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1214046 wrote:This is not at all about me, as much as you would like it to be, apparently. This is about liberty, free market capitalism, and the massive assault both are under, every day, by the obama regime. If you think that we are simply going to sit back and accept this assault, and the theft of our rights, then you are sadly mistaken.

  Dude, listen to yourself.
  
  Over the top language does nothing but drown out reasonable dialogue for actual solutions.
  
  Assault on liberty? Jesus man. You sound like that crazy caller on AM Sports radio that just talks in over the top language and black and white.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  RedRider1;1214060 wrote:Had this swung the other way...Roberts would have been called every name in the book, including a racist with an axe to grind from back when the Prez. chastised the SCOTUS at the SOTU a few years ago.
  
  But now he's enlightened.
  
  Too funny.

  Agreed, and man, that is awful.
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1214069 wrote:Dude, listen to yourself.
  

  
  I'm not "dude". And apparently you are not listening, nor watching, as every year more and more of your liberties and freedoms are being taken, or eroded, on an incremental basis, sometimes not discernable (but in this instance, quite easily recognizable), but nevertheless falling by the wayside. When you have been around as long as some of us, it is easier to see and understand perhaps, but if you think this latest power grab by the radical left is not important enough to fight for its reversal, then that is too bad. Good luck.
• WebFire

  ptown_trojans_1;1214069 wrote:Dude, listen to yourself.
  
  Over the top language does nothing but drown out reasonable dialogue for actual solutions.
  
  Assault on liberty? Jesus man. You sound like that crazy caller on AM Sports radio that just talks in over the top language and black and white.

  It's really not something that should be taken lightly.
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1214045 wrote:Yes, but now Congress has a blank check to pick out any segment of the population that isn't doing what they want and levy a tax on them. Would you be okay with a line on your 1040 that asks if you own any firearms? If so, add X amount to your tax bill. Perfectly legal now.

  Congress had very broad powers to tax and spend way before this case. The founding fathers thought it a bright idea to tax whiskey and it led to a rebellion. If it would have been ruled a tax in lower courts there never would have been any doubt. The tax code is already riddled with special tax preferences.
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;1214094 wrote:The founding fathers thought it a bright idea to tax whiskey and it led to a rebellion.

  Honestly ... not the worst idea. Kinda wish it would have happened shortly after 1913, as well.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  "The Supreme Court has abandoned us," Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said.
  
  Perry's comment's brought teh lulz. That statement doesn't even make sense, he's just saying inflammatory words in hopes of riling people up and getting his name in the paper.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1214077 wrote:I'm not "dude". And apparently you are not listening, nor watching, as every year more and more of your liberties and freedoms are being taken, or eroded, on an incremental basis, sometimes not discernable (but in this instance, quite easily recognizable), but nevertheless falling by the wayside. When you have been around as long as some of us, it is easier to see and understand perhaps, but if you think this latest power grab by the radical left is not important enough to fight for its reversal, then that is too bad. Good luck.

  It is important to remember that you would have said no such things if a republican passed this bill. This bill was the intellectual property of conservatism for decades and its a reasonable market oriented approach.
  
  We can know for sure that quakeroats was not concerned about eroding liberty when republicans were exploding the welfare/entitlement state and the police state.
• O-Trap

  

  Commander of Awesome;1214101 wrote:Perry's comment's brought teh lulz. That statement doesn't even make sense, he's just saying inflammatory words in hopes of riling people up and getting his name in the paper.

  While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, I agree with you, here.
  
  What's funny is, Perry is weeping over the financial burden on "us" (as if that many people in the middle class can identify with the guy) here, but he wouldn't have hesitated to write a big, fat blank check for the military to use to invade Iran.