Mandate UPHELD!

interestingly, i was correct in my arguments about the CC, roberts said exactly what i said months ago. however, i never envisioned them upholding the act under the penalty/tax provision.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
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.
Click to expand...

tax laws are compatible only by reconcillation of a budget matter, not passing a new (unexisting) tax.
The Bush tax cuts, cut EXISTING(income) taxes, now we have a NEW tax, passed by reconcilliation. i'm trying to reaseach this in betwen taking work calls.
seems to be what ive found so far.

LMAO. Congress doesn't call it a tax, Robert's does, so now we have a new tax. Again no new tax (programs) by reconcilliation.
But since it ws always a tax (by Roberts interpretaton......:fogey:...you got no problem with this Orwellian speak?

Or is the "outcome" all you care about?
 
Yurt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. when all is said and done is yet another expansion of Fed'l powers. This time by a new tax.

I was hoping it would be struck down so we could get rid of the corporatist crapola, and move toward Medicare for all ( SPay).
Now it looks like it won't ever happen, and we got us a brand new tax. I wonder just how many taxes the Fed's have at their disposal?

Income Taxes
Subtitle B—Estate and Gift Taxes
Subtitle C—Employment Taxes
Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Excise Taxes
Subtitle E—Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
Click to expand...

for simplicity sakes, we wn't go into state and local taxes.
 
annata said:
tax laws are compatible only by reconcillation of a budget matter, not passing a new (unexisting) tax.
The Bush tax cuts, cut EXISTING(income) taxes, now we have a NEW tax, passed by reconcilliation. i'm trying to reaseach this in betwen taking work calls.
seems to be what ive found so far.

LMAO. Congress doesn't call it a tax, Robert's does, so now we have a new tax. Again no new tax (programs) by reconcilliation.
But since it ws always a tax (by Roberts interpretaton......:fogey:...you got no problem with this Orwellian speak?

Or is the "outcome" all you care about?
Click to expand...


It was always a tax, regardless of what Congress called it. I think I'm on record as arguing that point.

And where do you get the idea you can't have "new" taxes via reconciliation? I've never heard that argument before.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
It was always a tax, regardless of what Congress called it. I think I'm on record as arguing that point.

And where do you get the idea you can't have "new" taxes via reconciliation? I've never heard that argument before.
Click to expand...
Because a new tax has to originate thru the House. This is a new tax.
Article 1 Secton 7
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top