'The private sector is doing just fine....'

[coachdb18]

So, the private sector is just super duper... according to you know who. So how is the public sector doing? Well, they must be struggling terribly, seems the federally employed Friedburg's new $2M home was being built with the garage in the wrong place, so they've had it torn down to start over! Now these are people who need our tax dollars, and are obviously under the most severe of distress!

http://gma.yahoo.com/home-built-torn-down-start-over-161604874--abc-news-house-and-home.html

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The employment numbers come out Friday. Economists predict maybe 70K new jobs for June (250K are needed) and a dip in the official unemployment rate, using ObamaMath.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Quiet down, honey.

 

[Sean]

Third or fourth thread by the RWCJ using exactly the same words. I think the collective has a stuck needle.

 

[coachdb18]

'I'll not increase your taxes, not one dime...' - Obama

'It's a tax' - John Roberts

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

'I'll not increase your taxes, not one dime...' - Obama

'It's a tax' - John Roberts

Without having to pay for free ER services and subsidizing insurance and medical fraud your taxes are going to go down.

Schmuck.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

'It's a tax' - John Roberts

Actually:

FORBES

"In the opening paragraphs of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, he clarifies that the law specifically does not involve a tax. If it did, Roberts clarifies, the Court would have had no choice but to reject the case for lack of jurisdiction as a tax case cannot be brought until someone is actually forced to pay the tax. This is, as we know, not the case.

The fact that the Court found that the mandate was constitutional under the taxing authority granted Congress by the Constitution is an entirely different matter. This finding does not reduce the individual mandate to the status of a tax—it merely says that as the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance will fall to the Internal Revenue Service for collection, it was something Congress could provide for under its Constitutional authority.

While I grant you that this gets a bit into the weeds, the effort that is being made by the GOP to use the Court’s basis for decision as a weapon fails on its face and is completely disingenuous."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...n-middle-class-its-a-lie-designed-to-mislead/

 

[NeverEndingMe]

So, the private sector is just super duper... according to you know who. So how is the public sector doing? Well, they must be struggling terribly, seems the federally employed Friedburg's new $2M home was being built with the garage in the wrong place, so they've had it torn down to start over! Now these are people who need our tax dollars, and are obviously under the most severe of distress!

http://gma.yahoo.com/home-built-torn-down-start-over-161604874--abc-news-house-and-home.html

years ago people wanted to be Doctors as they made good money
years ago people wanted to be in Technology as they made good money
years ago people wanted to be a lawyer as they made good money

today, people want to be in obama government as business is super good

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

years ago people wanted to be Doctors as they made good money
years ago people wanted to be in Technology as they made good money
years ago people wanted to be a lawyer as they made good money

today, people want to be in obama government as business is super good

Best joke ever.

It's so jokey.

And junk.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Best joke ever.

It's so jokey.

And junk.

you don't agree that obama has turned the federal government into the new Enron?

obama and his regime is full of corruption and greed (just look at how much money GSA has blown on special trips and that's only one dept)

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

you don't agree that obama has turned the federal government into the new Enron?

obama and his regime is full of corruption and greed (just look at how much money GSA has blown on special trips and that's only one dept)

Jesus.

Does it hurt being you? It's got a hurt a little. Somewhere. Feel around.

 

[fuckwaffle]

Without having to pay for free ER services and subsidizing insurance and medical fraud your taxes are going to go down.

Schmuck.

Hahahahahahaha. You do know that any tax imposed on a corporation is a tax on those that purchase that product? Sure your "taxes" may go down a smige, but expect a rise in prices equal to any tax imposed on any company or sector mentioned in ACA.

 

[TexasWife25]

Hahahahahahaha. You do know that any tax imposed on a corporation is a tax on those that purchase that product? Sure your "taxes" may go down a smige, but expect a rise in prices equal to any tax imposed on any company or sector mentioned in ACA.

Maybe we should end corporate taxes altogether and just raise taxes on the business owners.

 

[cjh]

Hahahahahahaha. You do know that any tax imposed on a corporation is a tax on those that purchase that product? Sure your "taxes" may go down a smige, but expect a rise in prices equal to any tax imposed on any company or sector mentioned in ACA.

depends on the price elasticity of demand.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The whole debate involves an entitlement the nation cant pay for, regardless of the controlling legal authority. It aint gonna happen, cuz their aint enough money hid under every mattress in the whole USA.

In 10 years the same parasites is gonna have healthcare, and you aint: Politicians, convicts, Mexicans, and Niggaz.

 

[coachdb18]

Actually:

FORBES

"In the opening paragraphs of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, he clarifies that the law specifically does not involve a tax. If it did, Roberts clarifies, the Court would have had no choice but to reject the case for lack of jurisdiction as a tax case cannot be brought until someone is actually forced to pay the tax. This is, as we know, not the case.

The fact that the Court found that the mandate was constitutional under the taxing authority granted Congress by the Constitution is an entirely different matter. This finding does not reduce the individual mandate to the status of a tax—it merely says that as the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance will fall to the Internal Revenue Service for collection, it was something Congress could provide for under its Constitutional authority.

While I grant you that this gets a bit into the weeds, the effort that is being made by the GOP to use the Court’s basis for decision as a weapon fails on its face and is completely disingenuous."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...n-middle-class-its-a-lie-designed-to-mislead/

As a commerce clause mandate as argued before the court, it was found unconstitutional. As a tax, Roberts found the ability of Congress to tax unlimited.

It's a TAX!

No matter what the rationale is for all the supposed benefits it brings, the only reason Roberts gave as a legal reason for it to stand was the taxing authority of Congress, and nothing else. It's a very confusing ruling, which is why many of the news releases got it wrong when first releasing the news of the decision.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

As a commerce clause mandate as argued before the court, it was found unconstitutional. As a tax, Roberts found the ability of Congress to tax unlimited.

It's a TAX!

No matter what the rationale is for all the supposed benefits it brings, the only reason Roberts gave as a legal reason for it to stand was the taxing authority of Congress, and nothing else. It's a very confusing ruling, which is why many of the news releases got it wrong when first releasing the news of the decision.

You didn't read the Forbes article, did you?

 

[coachdb18]

You didn't read the Forbes article, did you?

I chose to read the Supreme Court's own words in the actual decision, it's a little more 'informative'. There are way too many offerings of spin, to include Forbes.

 

[cjh]

I chose to read the Supreme Court's own words in the actual decision, it's a little more 'informative'. There are way too many offerings of spin, to include Forbes.

-1

Characters.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Yeah, I'm going with Forbes over you on this one, Vet.

Coach, I sense you're unwilling to give up a talking point. I no longer argue with the echo chamber. Thanks for the dance, though.

 

[coachdb18]

For those who wish to be truly informed about what the 'ObamaCare' tax decision ACTUALLY said, it's formally referred to as:

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL.v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/the-supreme-courts-obamacare-decision-full-text/259102/

It's 193 pages in length, and I would advise everyone to read it for themselves, not just requote the press opinions and blog spins. It's not that hard to read... the pertinent part, from the opinion summary, reads as follows:

2. CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTSconcluded in Part IIIA that the indi-vidual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congresss power under theCommerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 1630.(a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulateCommerce. Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power toregulatecommerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be reg-ulated. This Courts precedent reflects this understanding: As ex-pansive as this Courts cases construing the scope of the commerce
3Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012)Syllabuspower have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching ac-tivity.
E.g., United States
v.Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individ-ual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activi-ty. It instead compels individuals tobecomeactive in commerce bypurchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affectsinterstate commerce.Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulateindividuals preciselybecausethey are doing nothing would open anew and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Con-gress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do notdo. The Framers knew the difference between doing something anddoing nothing. They gave Congress the power toregulatecommerce,not tocompelit. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the prin-ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sus-tained under Congresss power to regulate Commerce. Pp. 1627.(b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Nec-essary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Acts other reforms. Each of this Courts prior cases upholding lawsunder that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, andin service to, a granted power.
E.g., United States
v.Comstock, 560U. S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress withthe extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the ex-ercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scopethose who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individualmandate is necessary to the Affordable Care Acts other reforms,such an expansion of federal power is not a proper means for mak-ing those reforms effective. Pp. 2730.3. CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTSconcluded in Part IIIB that the individ-ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who donot have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasonsexplained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Governments alternative ar-gument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congresss powerto lay and collect Taxes. Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the man-date as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Be-cause every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,
Hooper
v.California, 155U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is fairly possible to inter-
4 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENTBUSINESSv.SEBELIUS Syllabus pret the mandate as imposing such a tax,
Crowell
v. Benson, 285U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 3132.4. CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTSdelivered the opinion of the Court withrespect to Part IIIC, concluding that the individual mandate may beupheld as within Congresss power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33 44.(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the hared responsibilitypayment as a penalty, not a tax. That label is fatal to the appli-cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, controlwhether an exaction is within Congresss power to tax. In answeringthat constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-stance and application.
United States
v.Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,294. Pp. 3335.(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. Thepayment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal-ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely bythe IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf.
Baileyv. DrexelFurniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 3637. None of this is to say that pay-ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. Butthe mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un-lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attachesnegative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyondrequiring a payment to the IRS. And Congresss choice of language stating that individuals shall obtain insurance or pay a penalty does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. Itmay also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur-ance. See
New York
v.United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169174.Pp. 3540.(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportionto the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like acapitation or other direct tax under this Courts precedents. It there-fore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population. Pp. 4041.

 

[Morwen]

.....

 

[coachdb18]

Yeah, I'm going with Forbes over you on this one, Vet.

Coach, I sense you're unwilling to give up a talking point. I no longer argue with the echo chamber. Thanks for the dance, though.

If I were wanting more information on the Manhattan Project, I'd likely read the works of Openheimer and his team, as well as the memoirs of Col Groves for the military aspects. I doubt I'd want to take the position of getting my best information from Popular Mechanics.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Maybe we should end corporate taxes altogether and just raise taxes on the business owners.

we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world!

also, friends of obama aka GM pay ZERO in income tax