Author Topic: Can the President still say that the mandate is not a "tax"?? (Read 1908 times)

Freeper · « **on:** July 01, 2012, 11:45:51 AM »

Quote

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?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002887331

Of course he can say it, Kentuck, he has a long history of lying anyway, so what's one more lie?

miskie · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2012, 12:23:04 PM »

Every now and then a DUmmy surprises me - this time it's Kentuck, who seems to have been hit over the head with the clue bat and seems to understand something important about the SCOTUS decision... http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002887331

Quote from: kentuck

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?

Lots of dawning realization and unending denial at the thread linked above..

miskie · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2012, 12:41:59 PM »

Primitive is so far in denial land that he posts a definition for A Pyrrhic victory, and then misinterprets it..

Quote from: treestar

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.

Quote
A Pyrrhic victory (/ËˆpÉªrÉªk/) 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).

DUmbass - as you posted above, A Pyrrhic victory is when the cost of victory outweighs the benefit of the same victory. If Obama's now SCOTUS-certified tax increase causes Obama and other Democrats to lose in November, and Obamacare gets overturned before it begins in 2014 anyway, what did they win ?

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.

Kyle Ricky · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2012, 12:49:09 PM »

Quote from: miskie on July 01, 2012, 12:41:59 PM

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.

Their willful ignorance, and stupidity, runs rampant.

Ballygrl · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2012, 01:06:24 PM »

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?

Freeper · « **Reply #5 on:** July 01, 2012, 01:09:03 PM »

Quote from: Ballygrl on July 01, 2012, 01:06:24 PM

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.

Ballygrl · « **Reply #6 on:** July 01, 2012, 01:15:55 PM »

Quote from: Freeper on July 01, 2012, 01:09:03 PM

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.

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.

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.

GOP Congress · « **Reply #7 on:** July 01, 2012, 01:39:27 PM »

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

Quote

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.

EagleKeeper · « **Reply #8 on:** July 01, 2012, 01:42:36 PM »

Quote from: GOP Congress on July 01, 2012, 01:39:27 PM

Hughee, you get the Chris Matthews Tingle Award for greatest conservative talking point from a goofball-wing source.

He made my list about a week ago.

Danglars · « **Reply #9 on:** July 01, 2012, 01:46:58 PM »

Been reading this DUmmie thread. So now they're all too ready to throw their new darling Roberts overboard, by claiming that only he called it a tax. But that ignores Verrilli's argument for just that interpretation.

sybilll · « **Reply #10 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:00:18 PM »

Quote from: Ballygrl on July 01, 2012, 01:15:55 PM

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.

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.

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.

Kyle Ricky · « **Reply #11 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:10:50 PM »

Quote from: GOP Congress on July 01, 2012, 01:39:27 PM

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 Manlove with, Obama, he will stick up for him as much as he can.

Danglars · « **Reply #12 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:13:23 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Ricky on July 01, 2012, 02:10:50 PM

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.

Kyle Ricky · « **Reply #13 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:17:30 PM »

Quote from: Danglars on July 01, 2012, 02:13:23 PM

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.

Yeah, 5 minutes of how great Obama is, and 55 minutes of how bad Fox News is.

Bad Dog · « **Reply #14 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:41:06 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Ricky on July 01, 2012, 02:10:50 PM

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.

Kyle Ricky · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:45:04 PM »

Quote from: Bad Dog on July 01, 2012, 02:41:06 PM

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.

Bad Dog · « **Reply #16 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:57:01 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Ricky on July 01, 2012, 02:45:04 PM

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.

MSNBC's numbers suck & remember FOX's numbers don't. Most liberals are so vain and condescending they just piss off the Masses.

miskie · « **Reply #17 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:59:55 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Ricky on July 01, 2012, 02:45:04 PM

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.

That may be true, but obviously the message doesn't resonate if one looks at MSDNC's numbers. Liberals also freely admit their disdain for socializing with anyone to the right of Clinton- So, I'd say in the end that liberals spend most of their time preaching to the choir.

Delmar · « **Reply #18 on:** July 01, 2012, 03:05:49 PM »

Quote

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.

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.

BlueStateSaint · « **Reply #19 on:** July 01, 2012, 03:08:49 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Ricky on July 01, 2012, 02:45:04 PM

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.

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.

miskie · « **Reply #20 on:** July 01, 2012, 03:14:59 PM »

Quote from: Delmar on July 01, 2012, 03:05:49 PM

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.

Hey DUmmies -

Here is the article that goes with the chart - http://news.yahoo.com/rick-perrys-texas-vs-mitt-romneys-massachusetts-health-155747841.html - it was a head-to-head comparison of Healthcare costs in Perry's Texas, Vs. 'Romneycare' and the national average. As can be seen, it didn't work, health-care in the commonwealth now costs more than the national average, and since Obamacare is essentially a clone of the Massachusetts plan, how can anyone conclude the end result is lower costs ?

After seeing the results of the experiment, Romney's position evolved.

Obamacare doesn't work as advertised. Case closed.

EagleKeeper · « **Reply #21 on:** July 01, 2012, 10:35:40 PM »

That thread is quite frustrating to read.

You can lead a horse to water, but after that you are on your own.

They are working so hard to be able to claim for the lightworker that it's not a tax when his own lawyer said that it is.

I don't think that it is going to work out for them but I guess they need to try.

Danglars · « **Reply #22 on:** July 02, 2012, 07:20:00 AM »

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.

SSG Snuggle Bunny · « **Reply #23 on:** July 02, 2012, 07:42:07 AM »

Quote from: Kyle Ricky on July 01, 2012, 02:45:04 PM

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.

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

Quote from: Danglars on July 02, 2012, 07:20:00 AM

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.

The Roberts ruling, as hideous as it is, kills the Commerce Clause protection for ObamaCoup thus reinforcing federalist arguments.

Danglars · « **Reply #24 on:** July 02, 2012, 08:05:49 AM »

Quote from: SGT Snuggle Bunny on July 02, 2012, 07:42:07 AM

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.

I'm in the sorta-kinda camp on that myself, SB; I see his point, but even so it would still mean he considered a mandate ok for a state to impose as good policy, and would also mean that he didn't consider this overbearing government intrusion at the state level, even if allowed to the states and not the feds. So if he keep on with that he's still revealing that, at least at one time, he DID subscribe to the philosophy that the force of government at some level was reasonable to apply to compel people to buy a product, or be penalized. If he keeps pushing the federalist argument he will have to admit that. I'm not on the Romney campaign, but my 2 cents is it would be a good idea to abandon the point that the states can do things that the federal government cannot. Just because the state can do it doesn't mean conservatives and independents more conservatively minded would consider that a state should do it.

It's also a complicated point for the least-common-denominator likely voter to understand, relative to "I'm your only chance of repeal."

News:

Author Topic: Can the President still say that the mandate is not a "tax"?? (Read 1908 times)