Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 95

Thread: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

  1. #21
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    No, the mandate is you have to purchase insurance or you pay a tax. That is the mandate.
    ....yes, that's precisely what I said. You either purchase insurance or pay $695. Are you even reading these posts?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    I think the point is that Obama lied. And not just lied, but ridiculed and called everyone a fear mongering extremist for saying the bill would impose new taxes. Now Obama has changed his rhetoric and labeling in order to help him out in court. The point is that those very "fear mongering extremists" were vindicated by Obama's lie. Anyone who believed him were just played. What else is he playing people on? The stimulus? Immigration? This is just another Obama lie, but also vindication for those Obama and the media attacked as being extreme and wanting to lie in order to scare people.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #23
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    No, the mandate is you have to purchase insurance or you pay a tax. That is the mandate.
    Don't waste too much time on Duece, he's not worth the effort. He'll spend three pages on the word IF, should you let him. He's going to hang his hat on the $695, and a few sad folks here will rally with him, the rest can read the article, and see Obama and Co. are arguing their right to force the choice between a Tax and Insurance isn't really that, it's a Coisntitutional Power to Tax and people just decide which tax they want to pay.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #24
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    ....yes, that's precisely what I said. You either purchase insurance or pay $695. Are you even reading these posts?
    No, you said that the mandate was the $695 tax not the you must buy insurance or pay the tax. Either way, it's just semantics anyway. I understand your position.

  5. #25
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Don't waste too much time on Duece, he's not worth the effort. He'll spend three pages on the word IF, should you let him. He's going to hang his hat on the $695, and a few sad folks here will rally with him, the rest can read the article, and see Obama and Co. are arguing their right to force the choice between a Tax and Insurance isn't really that, it's a Coisntitutional Power to Tax and people just decide which tax they want to pay.
    You two were the ones arguing that the $695 tax penalty and the mandate were somehow separate things. Well, actually, that was just you. The Patriot was telling me I was wrong and then saying exactly the same thing I was saying. Oi, reading comprehension.

    I never said there wasn't a mandate and I never said there wasn't a tax. In fact, I said precisely the opposite in the very first post I put in this thread. Why did it take you three pages to understand this?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #26
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You two were the ones arguing that the $695 tax penalty and the mandate were somehow separate things. Well, actually, that was just you. The Patriot was telling me I was wrong and then saying exactly the same thing I was saying. Oi, reading comprehension.

    I never said there wasn't a mandate and I never said there wasn't a tax. In fact, I said precisely the opposite in the very first post I put in this thread. Why did it take you three pages to understand this?
    I view it as the mandate being forced to buy insurance with the tax as being the penalty for failure to comply.

  7. #27
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    I view it as the mandate being forced to buy insurance with the tax as being the penalty for failure to comply.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce, IN THE VERY FIRST RESPONSE TO THIS THREAD View Post

    But yes, there's a $695 tax penalty for not carrying insurance.
    Read, people. For ****'s sake.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You two were the ones arguing that the $695 tax penalty and the mandate were somehow separate things. Well, actually, that was just you. The Patriot was telling me I was wrong and then saying exactly the same thing I was saying. Oi, reading comprehension.

    I never said there wasn't a mandate and I never said there wasn't a tax. In fact, I said precisely the opposite in the very first post I put in this thread. Why did it take you three pages to understand this?
    Because we're talking to you, and you twist what you say with each post, and back track, and side track,a nd alter, and deny, and obsfucate, and then claim you were right all along. We merely amuse you by pretending we actually CARE about your position on the issue, read somewhere that was good for your recovery and we're being charitable folks.

    Also, you are full of ****, as usual. Your FIRST STATEMENT:

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    But yes, there's a $695 tax penalty for not carrying insurance. Is this a surprise to you? Did you not pay any attention at all during the last 18 months?
    You are here, arguing that the OP Article is discussing the Mandated Tax Penalty for Non-Compliance. Which is so far from the truth as to be nothing more then proof you are incapable of admitting Obama is a liar, even when we have the proverbial 8x10 Glossy, as we do here. Obama and Co. are claiming the MANDATE, is Constitutional, because it's really a TAX.

    Which when Obama was confronted with that VERY SAME logic prior to passage, rejected that term in the "strongest way".

    So you want to keep pretending you haven't been pwned from the very get go because your poor attempt to change the discussion failed... so be it. I have the nail, the hammer, and have now sealed you in your coffin. The ball is in your court.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You mean uninsured people will have to start paying for some of the health care they receive in the emergency room? Dang. That's terrible.

    I'm also not sure I'd describe $695/year for the uninsured as "big" or "fat" or "everyone."

    But yes, there's a $695 tax penalty for not carrying insurance. Is this a surprise to you? Did you not pay any attention at all during the last 18 months?
    Of course we all paid attention... it's nothing to do with the 695$, you were a RACIST back then. It wasn't because the bill doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, it's racism... Obama and his cronies laughed all the way to the bank when americans allowed him to sign that into law... I heard the video of one of the congressmen telling Obama after the fact "this is a big f***ing deal". Now you know why.

    Oh, I bet everyone forgot that Bush's tax cuts are done this year...

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    No, the MANDATED cost, is a TAX. Learn to read articles.
    That's how Obama pulled his double-speak : It's not a tax. I'm super-serious......................... unless you opt out.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Well I suppose you have a point... oh wait, no, no you have no point at all.

    A TAX, cannot force an Average American CITIZEN to purchase a PRODUCT OR SERVICE he may or may not wish to purchase. Freedom, Liberty Trump any thing some worthless "progressive" legal group wants to claim. Obama's so far left he thinks this makes sense, and only those that far left with him would accept such nonsense a mere tax.

    That's the failing of the entire affair. We are "Forced" to purchase a service, whether we WANT IT OR NOT, just to live in this country. That, is not acceptable, and will be struck down by the courts.
    One would hope so, if they vote in that Keagan dude that wrote books as a thesis about how awesome communism is, it might get decided that it's actually a GOOD idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    Its not a product or service it promotes the general welfare of people in the country. Forcing people to purchase insurance lowers the cost of insurance for everyone. Forcing people to pay for insurance and have free check ups prevents many emergency room visits that put a strain on the healthcare industry and raises the prices of insurance for people.

    You're not going to beat Obama at his own game. Constitutional law is his domain.
    It also allows it to be decided that you're not 'qualified' (or whatever term they would use), or a 'drain on resources or something' and decide that granny doesn't get a hip replacement because she's already lived a long life and the time would be better spent on someone who has alot of productive years remaining.

    So, you're qualified to get your diagnosis, but you have to pay for the treatment yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    You don't understand at all. They already showed that such a concept was constituional with social security, in which they took a small portion of your pay check away each time until you retired. They've already shown that it will hold up in court. The article is showing that Obama found has already found a legal solution on the anticipation that the mandate would be challenged as unconstitutional.
    HOWEVER, social security is a bit of an 'opt-in'... you can always get contract work off the books, that's the only reason it's constitutional is because you must 'opt-in' to such things.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I think the point is that Obama lied. And not just lied, but ridiculed and called everyone a fear mongering extremist for saying the bill would impose new taxes. Now Obama has changed his rhetoric and labeling in order to help him out in court. The point is that those very "fear mongering extremists" were vindicated by Obama's lie. Anyone who believed him were just played. What else is he playing people on? The stimulus? Immigration? This is just another Obama lie, but also vindication for those Obama and the media attacked as being extreme and wanting to lie in order to scare people.
    So true... but you forgot racists... if you oppose the bill it's because you don't like brown people.

    It's gotten worse, have you seen the video of congressmen stark?? He literally equates people looking to stop the flow of illegal immigrants as racist murderers.
    Last edited by BmanMcfly; 07-18-10 at 01:42 AM.

  10. #30
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    Re: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Because we're talking to you, and you twist what you say with each post, and back track, and side track,a nd alter, and deny, and obsfucate, and then claim you were right all along. We merely amuse you by pretending we actually CARE about your position on the issue, read somewhere that was good for your recovery and we're being charitable folks.

    Also, you are full of ****, as usual. Your FIRST STATEMENT:



    You are here, arguing that the OP Article is discussing the Mandated Tax Penalty for Non-Compliance. Which is so far from the truth as to be nothing more then proof you are incapable of admitting Obama is a liar, even when we have the proverbial 8x10 Glossy, as we do here. Obama and Co. are claiming the MANDATE, is Constitutional, because it's really a TAX.

    Which when Obama was confronted with that VERY SAME logic prior to passage, rejected that term in the "strongest way".

    So you want to keep pretending you haven't been pwned from the very get go because your poor attempt to change the discussion failed... so be it. I have the nail, the hammer, and have now sealed you in your coffin. The ball is in your court.
    I did not make any claims about the contents of the article in the OP. Nor did I even mention Obama's name anywhere in the thread. I mentioned that, yes, there was a tax penalty, because that fact seemed somehow new information to you. Then you derailed the entire discussion trying to explain to me how the "$695 tax penalty for not having insurance" was somehow separate from the mandate. That has been the limit of my participation in this thread. Had you asked me my opinion on Obama's statement, I would have agreed with you that he is incorrect.

    So far, you've proven Obama to be wrong. You're right. Obama's calling this "not a tax" is a really bizarre definition of the word tax. One I do not share.

    I was not wrong, because I was aware from the start that there was always a tax penalty in the bill. I was aware of it since before HR3200 even popped up on OpenCongress. I was also aware of the reasoning behind the tax and find it to be acceptable.

    Any other claims of mine that you'd like to fabricate?
    Or maybe you'd like to just admit that you didn't understand that what I mentioned is the mandate you were referring to, and that this derail started by your freaking out about it?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •