kentuck (62,013 posts)
Can the President still say that the mandate is not a "tax"??
After the Supreme Court decision, where the Chief Justice made the winning argument for the Administration, the President won the case because Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress had the authority to tax and voted to uphold the Healthcare Act.
However, it is a two-edged sword. The President won his battle before the Supreme Court but only on the condition that it is a tax. From that perspective, the Republicans could declare a political victory, since they get to run against Obama's huge "tax increase".
So, was it really a victory for President Obama and the Democrats? The Democrats still do not want to call it a "tax" but if the Chief Justice had not ruled the way he did, the entire bill could have gone under?
At the most, it is a Pyrrhic victory. The Democrats have to accept that it was a tax increase and fight on those grounds, or the Republicans will pummel them with the "big-spending liberal" charge. From this perspective, which Party won the Supreme Court decision?
Can the President still say that the mandate is not a "tax"??
After the Supreme Court decision, where the Chief Justice made the winning argument for the Administration, the President won the case because Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress had the authority to tax and voted to uphold the Healthcare Act.
However, it is a two-edged sword. The President won his battle before the Supreme Court but only on the condition that it is a tax. From that perspective, the Republicans could declare a political victory, since they get to run against Obama's huge "tax increase".
So, was it really a victory for President Obama and the Democrats? The Democrats still do not want to call it a "tax" but if the Chief Justice had not ruled the way he did, the entire bill could have gone under?
At the most, it is a Pyrrhic victory. The Democrats have to accept that it was a tax increase and fight on those grounds, or the Republicans will pummel them with the "big-spending liberal" charge. From this perspective, which Party won the Supreme Court decision?
41. There are many issues to campaign on The Obama campaign is capable of positive spin on the health care plan.
Rs would say Obama is raising taxes anyway. They say that every four years.QuoteA Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat. Someone who wins a "Pyrrhic victory" has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll and/or the detrimental consequences negates any sense of achievement or profit. There is, therefore, no reason to celebrate.
Contents
1 Origin
2 Examples
3 See also
4 References
How anyone can say the law being upheld is a pyrrhic victory is beyond all. So it would have been better to have it knocked down? The average voter sees a "winner" here and that is better than the Rs being able to say there is a tax hike under a Democrat (something they would have said anyway).
That's the point in Kentuck's post, you thick-headed goon. When even He 'gets it', yet you don't, there must be something very wrong with your ability to comprehend anything.
The Obama Administration argued it was a tax when it looked like they were losing the case in front of the Court, so how can they back off that now?
Haven't you been paying attention the last 4 years? 0bama will say the sky is green on Monday, by Friday he claims the sky has always been blue, and he swears he never said it was green on Monday, and if he did the media took him out of context, and you're a racist for doubting him.
hughee99 (8,494 posts)
I know this has been discussed for some time now, but if a penalty for not complying with a federal mandate is a "tax" and not a "fine", then does that mean any similar "fine" is really a "tax" and agencies (like the EPA, for example) that determine and impose those fines are setting "tax" policy without a congressional vote?
I haven't seen anyone talk about this yet and was curious if it had been addressed already.
Hughee, you get the Chris Matthews Tingle Award for greatest conservative talking point from a goofball-wing source.
All Romney has to do is run a side by side ad that shows Obama saying it's not a tax, then showing his Solicitor General arguing in front of the Court that it was a tax, and the Court deciding it was a tax.Reince Preibus siad just that on Greta. He is going to pound this issue hard. No doubt Crossroads will be on board, and AFP has pledged $9million in TV ad time specifically for this. They will not only hit the mandate is a tax issue, but also the 20 other taxes, totalling $6Billion.
BTW, it's a beautiful thing when the left gets it, and yes, kentuck gets it and he's right to be concerned about how this plays out. :-)
Not the same thread, but here is another gem. I have to admit: For the FIRST TIME I can EVER remember, a DUmmie has come up with a BRILLIANT conservative talking point that even Levin and Limbaugh hadn't come up with.
Here is the link to the post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=156792
Hughee, you get the Chris Matthews Tingle Award for greatest conservative talking point from a goofball-wing source.
Like I said: MSNBC will believe the crap and spread the lies till the cows come home. You can guarantee that if Obama was a Republican, MSNBC would be first in line insisting that it is a tax. But since Chris Matthews is having a Bromance, and is in Man-love with, Obama, he will stick up for him as much as he can.
I suspect Obamamedia spin/talking point will be 3 seconds of saying that it doesn't matter which it is, fine or tax, and then they'll move on to 5 minutes of how wonderful this evil is.
Like I said: MSNBC will believe the crap and spread the lies till the cows come home. You can guarantee that if Obama was a Republican, MSNBC would be first in line insisting that it is a tax. But since Chris Matthews is having a Bromance, and is in Manlove with, Obama, he will stick up for him as much as he can.
That would be really scary if anybody was watching MSNBC.
You would be surprised with how many liberals watch the station. That is their political bible network. They believe everything that comes out of that station, and parrot it to the masses.
You would be surprised with how many liberals watch the station. That is their political bible network. They believe everything that comes out of that station, and parrot it to the masses.
Volaris (649 posts)
64. I'm going to find that link and save it to my phone...
Last edited Sun Jul 1, 2012, 03:53 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
And EVERY TIME one of my idiot 'bagger relatives opens their mouth about Obamacare, they are going to be forced to watch the REPUBLICAN candidate for President explain how Mass. (and now America) adopted a Republican solution to an issue near and dear to the hearts of liberals.
This might not be the knife that wins The President re-election, but it IS the knife that causes the R-MNY-BOT (version 2.0) to lose it.
**** em.
You would be surprised with how many liberals watch the station. That is their political bible network. They believe everything that comes out of that station, and parrot it to the masses.
Volaris,
1. If somebody from Mass. didn't like Romney care they were free to move to one of the 56 other states.
B. Romney evolved and matured.
Volaris, what's with the violent knife hate rhetoric? It's you that's losing it.
You would be surprised with how many liberals watch the station. That is their political bible network. They believe everything that comes out of that station, and parrot it to the masses.
Let them run with that "Romney did it too" talking point all they like. It's silly. Romney has said he'll sign repeal and that means he's the only hope of repeal (not to mention hobbling this tyrannical takeover even before repeal), and that's a very simple point for people to understand, and all that need be said in answer.
Better still: Romney has been making a federalist case why it is OK for MA but not for the US...and I actually sort, kinda agree with him.
My wife's sister and her husband used to parrot the MSDNC talking points, then I started to call them on it repeatedly. For some reason, they don't talk politics around me anymore. :naughty: :whistling:
Just the opposite.
They watch it because everything else contradicts what they WANT to believe.
Which also explains MESSLSDs low numbers: normal people watch and say, "This does not resemble anything I see." and then switch off
Better still: Romney has been making a federalist case why it is OK for MA but not for the US...and I actually sort, kinda agree with him.
The Roberts ruling, as hideous as it is, kills the Commerce Clause protection for ObamaCoup thus reinforcing federalist arguments.
The more and more I think about what Justice Roberts did, the more I believe that he did it to hang Obama.
I think so, as well. He knew that whichever side won this batttle, the other side would use it to fund-raise on a massive scale. He may have figured that the Obamessiah's record wouldn't necessarily overcome whatever massive fundraising that they (the Obamessiah's campaign) could have done, so he may have figured, "Let's throw this one to him, and maybe the conservative base will raise enough money to throw his ass out in November." So, Romney wins the election--and is able to replace Ginsberg with, say, Janice Rogers Brown. Now, there's five conservatives on the bench (I'm counting Kennedy as one for this). Then the Republicans in the House and Senate decide that Kagan has violated Federal statutes about recusing herself from the Obamatax decision, and impeach her (which they could do, if they get to 60 Senators, which is entirely possible), and convict in the Senate, thus throwing her off the SCOTUS. Then, Rick Santorum is nominated to fill the slot--or Pam Bondi (AG of FL). Voila! Conservative SCOTUS, no matter what Roberts decides!
Fact checking ? What's that ?
The more and more I think about what Justice Roberts did, the more I believe that he did it to hang Obama.
:racist: