Yet Another Obama Lie
Of course, some folks called it out at the time for the lie it was.
Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.
In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.
While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
When it comes to health care, it may well end up being that Obama lied and people died.
We all know that the bill, as written, will be in effect for only a very short time. People will resent the fact that they didn’t get what they bargained for, and the administration (if it has a second term) will push HARD for single payer. Or, this country will wake up, and all this clatter about repeal will actually get some traction.
I’ve said all along, that I can’t wait to see how the welfare zombies react to the fact that this bill didn’t give them “free” healthcare. I’ve also said all along that this bill will never be deficit neutral, it will begin piling onto the national debt, if not right away, in short time.
As far as the mandates placed upon business owners, I can tell you right now, that myself and many other Wisconsin employers will do EVERYTHING possible to dodge them. George Webbs has already taken evasive action, I know dozens of other employers who are right on the precipice, who are fully prepared to scale back their operations as well.
This healthcare bill, mark my words, will be one of the biggest job killers put through by the administration… In fact I think it stands to be outdone only by “Cap and Trade”.
This country did itself no service through the election of Obama. Preogressivism is insidious, and talking about that fact will get you mocked and ridiculed by their jesters, but its resistance is not futile.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2010 at 0940 hrs
This opens the door wide to allow massive Congressional abuse. Any policy that the regime wishes to enact can simply be phrased as a tax.
Cars that get less than 45mpg are subject to a 60% added value tax. Food with more than 5 grams of fat will include a $12 usage tax. All electrical usage over 300 kilowatt hours per month will be taxed at a rate of 75%.
Almost anything would be open to total control through the use of prohibitive taxation. This is definitely the most dangerous regime in the history of our nation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2010 at 1209 hrs
Progressivism is insidious, and talking about that fact will get you mocked and ridiculed by their jesters, but its resistance is not futile.
I agree. However, following the November Bloodbath the Democrats will be lame ducks almost everywhere; they will have nothing to lose, no matter how they vote and what radical social engineering programs they create. From November until January of 2011 I believe we will see the worst governmental carnage experienced by Americans since the mid 1700’s. The Tea Parties will virtually explode with wrath, looking for a place to make things right again.
I’m guessing, and perhaps even hoping, that at this time next year we will be considering a call for a national Constitutional Convention for the purpose of restricting the powers of the federal government:
1. Term Limits on all federal elective office
2. Restrictions on the scope of Article 5, The “Commerce Clause.”
3. Repeal of the 14th Ammendment regarding children of immigrant parents.These are all things that Congress has never had, nor will ever have the will to do, no matter which party is in power. The people will have to do these things themselves. I hope and pray we here at B&S get to be a part of this process of the restoration of the constitutional basis of our nation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 0745 hrs
Duke, I mostly agree with your points… except for the repeal of any part of the 14th amendment. That opens too many dangerous loop holes. If you parents (or one parent) is a legal immigrant, why should their child’s citizenship be questioned?
It would be far easier to apply hard (and costly) legal pressure to employers who hire illegals, strengthen our border, and eliminate access to all services and benefits for those in the country illegally. That would, for the vast majority, eliminate any reason to travel to the US without permission. We need folks in office who will stand firm on that issue… not Democrats who look to illegals as a voter base (both now, and in the future).
djm had it right. progressivism has become an insidious and dangerous (to our liberty and way of life) presence in the United States. We need to be very wary of those folks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 0801 hrs
Duke, I mostly agree with your points… except for the repeal of any part of the 14th amendment. That opens too many dangerous loop holes. If you parents (or one parent) is a legal immigrant, why should their child’s citizenship be questioned?
If the parents are U.S. citizens their children are already automatically citizens, no matter where the child is born. If two French citizens come here and have a child in a U.S. hospital, why in the world would we grant citizenship to their child? We’re one of only two or three nations in the world that have such a policy.
The 14th Amendment was passed following Reconstruction to insure that the children of former slaves (slaves were thought of as chattel, not citizens) were U.S. citizens. It was never intended to apply to immigration, and everything in the amendment is already implemented in federal and state laws. Unfortunately, like the Commerce Clause (Art. V) the 14th Amendment has been morphed into something that suits the progressive need to societally reengineer our country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 0917 hrs
I do not, under any circumstances, support a constitutional convention.
As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned… I agree wholeheartedly with you Duke.
The intention of the 14th was to grant citizenship to slaves during reconstruction. The drafters of the amendment would never have foreseen the infiltration of our southern border by what was at that time a proud nation, with a strained relationship after the fight for Texas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 0944 hrs
I do not, under any circumstances, support a constitutional convention.
Please tell us why not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1045 hrs
Because the constitution we have is, essentially, perfect.
To open the door to progressive tampering, as would occur under a constitutional convention is asking, no… Demanding a constitutional dictatorship.
Can you honestly think of a better place for the progressive movement to cement their ideals than a constitutional convention.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1052 hrs
Because the constitution we have is, essentially, perfect.
Except, of course, the ability of liberals to use the Commerce Clause to force you to do just about anything - hey, the air you’re breathing came across a state line, right?!
On top of that, if the constitution is perfect why have we (Congress) amended it 22 times?
Can you honestly think of a better place for the progressive movement to cement their ideals than a constitutional convention.
Wouldn’t that depend on how the delegates were being chosen? In an era when the liberals are “scared to death” over the Tea Parties, I strongly suspect the liberals would be in a decided minority at the convention.
Before you get too far down this road of discussion, please remember that any proposed amendment to the constitution MUST be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Remember the congressionally proposed ERA? After seven years the states would not ratify it and it went into the historical dustbin of liberal social engineering.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1102 hrs
On top of that, if the constitution is perfect why have we (Congress) amended it 22 times?
Make that 27.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1104 hrs
I agree that the amendment process is the way to go. (deliberately obtuse)
I think you underestimate the ability of progressives to subvert and control. GWB = Excellent example.
The amendment process is difficult for a reason. As much as I despise progressivism, I am unwilling to take action which abbreviates the rights of any American. I am a libertarian.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1223 hrs
I am invariably looking for revealing selective information like this! You are bookmarked!
Thx.
car accident insurance claimPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1246 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134058
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 04:58 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 101
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 05:09 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).