Mandate UPHELD!

cawacko said:
I'll admit I'm confused. I haven't read every post before this so this may have been discussed until everyone is blue in the face so I apologize for being late to the game. How does it work if the mandate is upheld on the tax law but this isn't a new tax yet you pay a tax if you don't insurance? Am I missing something there?
Click to expand...
No. Not missing anything you're following the convoluted nonsensicle Robert's Opinion, where the mandate - is thrown out as an extension of the Commerce Clause.
Roberts went on to say, "because a penlaty is paid to the IRS, it is a tax bill, even though it originated as a non tax bill."

Completely clear ( if you like muddied waters) / In effect though this now allows the Fed's to bypass hyperextension of the Commerce Clause ( a good thing), but allows paasage of bills not originated in the House ( as enumerated in the Constitution) -to morph into tax bills.

I'm sure that makes complete sense, and is Constitutionaly well grounded ( like a helium balloon -that floats and expands at Congressional will).

Roberts just put a stake thru the 10th "
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Click to expand...
-bypassing it, by using so called ( in this case) "powers of taxation"
 
Last edited:
General Buck Turgidson said:
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what can and cannot be included in reconciliation bills.
Click to expand...
welll i just laid out my case - you tell me how a budget bill (reconcilliation), NOT originating in the House (as enumerated), can become tax law (payment to the IRS)That's about as "fundamental" as it gets, BUCK.
 
annata said:
WHAT???
I dunno. we'll be paying "penaty taxes" to the IRS - your question is to vague for a complete response.
Click to expand...
You seem to be concerned about a supposed tax that will be imposed. (Of course, that's nonsense)

You prefer UHC. What exactly do you think that would do to taxes in this country.

Hint....look at income taxes in countries with socialized medicine.
 
annata said:
A reconciliation bill is a bill containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution

Reconciliation provisions must meet the strict requirements of the Senate’s Byrd rule, which prohibits a reconciliation bill from containing any provisions that do not affect the revenues or outlays of the federal government, and from containing “recommendations with respect to” the Social Security program. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/03/19/the-health-care-reform-reconciliation-bill/

Byrd Rule
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1.if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;2.if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3.if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4.if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5.if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; and
6.if it recommends changes in Social Security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where do tax bills originated?:.All finance bills must originate in the House of Representativesre: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_do_tax_bills_originated#ixzz1z6vLAF5m

In sum the AFHC law is a tax bill that did not originate thru the House, it was "reconcilled" between the Chambers, after fillibustering as a "budget bill. so it did NOT Orignate in the House, as it was not a tax bill-it was a budget bill -until today it did become a tax bill(comment in blus is mine)At issue is a process called budget reconciliation. By writing Obama's health care plan as a budget bill, Democrats can prevent a Republican filibuster in the Senate and advance the bill with a simple majority instead of the 60-vote supermajority they no longer have.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124009985
Click to expand...
Yes, or No? Did Bush ram through his tax cuts via BR?
 
annata said:
welll i just laid out my case - you tell me how a budget bill (reconcilliation), NOT originating in the House (as enumerated), can become tax law (payment to the IRS)That's about as "fundamental" as it gets, BUCK.
Click to expand...


The reconciliation bill imposing the tax (the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) originated in the House. So . . .
 
Althea said:
You seem to be concerned about a supposed tax that will be imposed. (Of course, that's nonsense)

You prefer UHC. What exactly do you think that would do to taxes in this country.

Hint....look at income taxes in countries with socialized medicine.
Click to expand...
Roberts WROTE because its payable to the IRS, it'considered a tax.
Did you even bother to follow the decison? Honestly you're stuck on stupid today -i gave you detailed answers about HOW a reconcilliation bill became a tax law ( thru Robert's SAYING a tax payable to the IRS. *not a supposed tax* your words) .

I prefer a constitionaly sound law -i'm kind of old fashioned, not Bushlike "the Constitution is just a piece of paper".
Medicare for all was , and is the only answer - SPay.

Why don't you read up a bit and ask me something not so occluded in simplistic phrases. You're my friend, but you can't just dangle a line and expect a serious respsonse. Go do a Democratic(partisian) dance, and come back when you want to engage in serious debate. I gotta work, have a good one.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The reconciliation bill imposing the tax (the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) originated in the House. So . . .
Click to expand...
no , it originated, and was STOPPED in the Senate by filibuster. It could not pass for POTUS signature.So - and please try to follow -the 2 Houses "reconcilled" the differences - thus, not originating in a straight line in the House. In effect it was a budget bill -right?
Which is allowd by reconcilliation.


Now Roberts leans on the tax provison, bypassing the Commerce Clause ( which was the basis for the mandate), so it's not an extension of Congress power to tax and regulate( Commerce Clause) - until Roberts again returns to the ENUMERATED POWERS OF TAXATION.

So what do we have?? a tax bill that orignated thru reconcilliation,,and since reconcilliation is only allowed for budget (i.e. NOT TAX)..do you follow???
 
Althea said:
Yes, or No? Did Bush ram through his tax cuts via BR?
Click to expand...
WTF does that have to do with passing a taxation bill?
as Roberts now has changed the mandate to a tax bill, rather then a budget bill.

When you want to get serious, and not "yes or no" you know where to find me. I'd expound -look at the Byrd rule -see if you can figure it out. i gotta go.
 
annata said:
no , it originated, and was STOPPED in the Senate by filibuster. It could not pass for POTUS signature.So - and please try to follow -the 2 Houses "reconcilled" the differences - thus, not originating in a straight line in the House. In effect it was a budget bill -right?
Which is allowd by reconcilliation.

Now Roberts leans on the tax provison, bypassing the Commerce Clause ( which was the basis for the mandate), so it's not an extension of Congress power to tax and regulate( Commerce Clause) - until Roberts again returns to the ENUMERATED POWERS OF TAXATION.

So what do we have?? a tax bill that orignated thru reconcilliation,,and since reconcilliation is only allowed for budget (i.e. NOT TAX)..do you follow???
Click to expand...


But there were two separate bills, not one bill with reconciled differences. The reconciliation bill was a House bill. It contained the tax and rand was an appropriate vehicles for passing the tax measure.
 
i'm amazed how many people do not see the danger of this precedent. this gives the government unlimited power to force you to purchase something.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
But there were two separate bills, not one bill with reconciled differences. The reconciliation bill was a House bill. It contained the tax and rand was an appropriate vehicles for passing the tax measure.
Click to expand...
OK. sorry -been awhile on the proceedure

there was no "tax" in any bill, the mandate was specifically designed to be and extension of the Commerce Clause. Do you ever recal hearing
"tax" and "mandate", in the same bill.? No.There was a" penalty" not a tax. It was not a taxation bill, so reconcilliation wasn't the proper useage.
Only budget bills are amendable to reconcilliation.


Everything hung on the mandate as a function of the commerce clause - nothing in the law says the penalty is a tax.
Until today when Roberts equates the mandate's penalty with a tax. Thus turning it into a taxation law, with is not compatable with reconcilliation.
 
Yurt said:
i'm amazed how many people do not see the danger of this precedent. this gives the government unlimited power to force you to purchase something.
Click to expand...


No it does not, I would agree with you if the law said being uninsured is punishable by prison. That is not the rule, you can chose to be uninsured and not be in violation of the law. You will simply owe a tax.
 
Yurt said:
i'm amazed how many people do not see the danger of this precedent. this gives the government unlimited power to force you to purchase something.
Click to expand...
not so sure if that's still the case....it was under the mandate as a function of the Commerce Clause, now( who knows) the mandate is struck down, so that doesn't apply. what we've wound up with is a tax law, that wasn't sold/designed as a tax law.

*head spining topsy turvy*. Just fergit it. Forget the Constitution, Proceedures, and"mandates", all we have is another tax.
The Dem's were politically scared to sell it that way(no-one want new taxes) -Roberts did their political rescue by judicial slight of hand.
 
annata said:
not so sure if that's still the case....it was under the mandate as a function of the Commerce Clause, now( who knows) the mandate is struck down, so that doesn't apply. what we've wound up with is a tax law, that wasn't sold/designed as a tax law.

*head spining topsy turvy*. Just fergit it. Forget the Constitution, Proceedures, and"mandates", all we have is another tax.
The Dem's were politically scared to sell it that way(no-one want new taxes) -Roberts did their political rescue by judicial slight of hand.
Click to expand...

imo, the government can now force you to purchase anything, and if you don't, force you to pay a tax instead. i use the word force, because there is a penalty if you don't purchase something. granted, you can choose not to purchase and pay the penalty tax, however, that is still coercion.
 
Jarod said:
No it does not, I would agree with you if the law said being uninsured is punishable by prison. That is not the rule, you can chose to be uninsured and not be in violation of the law. You will simply owe a tax.
Click to expand...

and if you don't pay the tax jarod? what happens? you can go to prison.

next
 
annata said:
OK. sorry -been awhile on the proceedure

there was no "tax" in any bill, the mandate was specifically designed to be and extension of the Commerce Clause. Do you ever recal hearing
"tax" and "mandate", in the same bill.? No.There was a" penalty" not a tax. It was not a taxation bill, so reconcilliation wasn't the proper useage.
Only budget bills are amendable to reconcilliation.


Everything hung on the mandate as a function of the commerce clause - nothing in the law says the penalty is a tax.
Until today when Roberts equates the mandate's penalty with a tax. Thus turning it into a taxation law, with is not compatable with reconcilliation.
Click to expand...


Roberts didn't equate the penalty with a tax or turn the penalty into a tax. Robert's opinion says that it was always a tax, regardless of what Congress called it.

And tax laws are compatible with reconciliation. You're just wrong there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top