• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Plainly it isn't a stupid argument as it's one that's been made by some of the smartest lawyers and economists in the world. I would be inclined to think that it's stupid to write off the argument with no analysis whatsoever.

Certainly tax experts understand the argument:

Its not that simple. Politically, its a disaster. Obama would have to have raised everyone's taxes first, as they are mostly paid in advance.
Then credit it back.

However, ultimately HC can be done at the national level if and when they can sell the people on such as single payer, and just add it to the budget. I am not recommending that, but such is a plan, and at least one of the plaintiff's attorney used this argument, that being that the government had other mechanisms by which to fund HC so as to cover those who did not have it. That there were other solutions available to any peceived problem with HC coverage, and it was merely up to COngress and the President to agree on one.

The solution Obama chose is a big mess. And its unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Appeal to authority?

Holy ****, how many times do I have to point out that appealing to authority is perfeclty legitimate as long as the person cited really is a credible authority on the topic. Why do you think our justice system relies so heavily on expert witness testimony? Isn't that just "appeal to authority"? :roll:

And the grand irony of you making a false "appeal to authority" argument and ending up with an ad hominem triple play.

So for the hundredth time, if someone is getting a tax incentive that you aren't getting, then you are being penalized. I mean, it's really not all that asbtract of a concept. Can you really not wrap your head around it? Where do you think the money to pay for that hybrid credit comes from? Is it free money?

Health reform repeal: Fixing the mandate | The Economist
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Another economist's view:

I think CBO is correct: for federal budget purposes, the penalty on the uninsured would indeed be a tax, since it reflects the exercise of the government’s sovereign power.
However, and this may surprise you, I also think the President has an important point which he tried, with only limited success, to articulate. I would describe it as follows: A well-meaning government levies taxes for two different reasons:
  • First, it levies taxes to finance the government. National defense, the court system, the social safety net, etc. all require financing. Taxes allow the government to provide those services.
  • Second, taxes are a tool to discourage behavior that is harmful to others. For example, a government may levy a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide if it worries about potential damage from climate change. In economics-speak, that’s using a tax to internalize an externality. Such taxes are often known as Pigouvian taxes – a concept made famous by Greg Mankiw’s Pigou Club which advocates for greater use of them.
From a budget / government sovereignty perspective, Pigouvian taxes are indeed taxes. The government is using its power to collect money from people and companies that engage in the taxed activity. But revenues are not the primary purpose of the policy. Instead, the goal is to solve another problem such as pollution.
The President is viewing the tax on the uninsured as a Pigouvian tax. And he’s right, at least up to a point. If an individual can afford insurance but chooses to go without it, that person may impose significant costs on other people. Why? Because they will still get health care if, for example, they are in an auto accident. Those costs will then be paid by others (e.g., by the hospital). In that sense, the uninsured individual imposes an externality on others.
And that externality only gets larger if insurance companies are forbidden to exclude new beneficiaries because of pre-existing conditions. If that regulation goes into effect (as proposed in the health bills now pending in Congress), then an uninsured person can potentially impose substantial costs on everyone else by waiting until they have an expensive chronic disease before they purchase insurance. Because they can’t be charged more for waiting to getting coverage, they would be able to pass a substantial cost burden onto other people.
The purpose of a tax on the uninsured is to prevent such cost-shifting. The tax is thus a policy tool, not primarily a way to raise new revenue. That’s the distinction that the President was trying to articulate. And it’s an important one.

When is a Tax Not a Tax? « Donald Marron

Be sure to read the rest of the article for the Obama bashing parts. :)
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Not all tax penalties involve benefit to someone else just as not all tax credits benefit everyone. Take the children's tax credit. If I don't have children I just do not participate. Those who have children get a tax credit those who don't, won't get one, but I am not being charged more because I don't have children. I am not being penalized, I'm just not participating in the tax credit.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Not all tax penalties involve benefit to someone else just as not all tax credits benefit everyone. Take the children's tax credit. If I don't have children I just do not participate. Those who have children get a tax credit those who don't, won't get one, but I am not being charged more because I don't have children. I am not being penalized, I'm just not participating in the tax credit.

Okay, y'all are going to make my head explode here. YOU ARE BEING PENALIZED if you don't get the child tax credit because you are therefore paying a larger percentage of the tax burden then you would otherwise be paying. Conservatives often complain because about 47% of Americans aren't paying any federal taxes. Why do you think that is? In significant part it's because of the child tax credit, which was raised to $1,000 per child under Bush. Your taxes have to be higher and/or the services government provides have to be smaller to pay for those tax credits that you aren't getting.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Okay, y'all are going to make my head explode here. YOU ARE BEING PENALIZED if you don't get the child tax credit because you are therefore paying a larger percentage of the tax burden then you would otherwise be paying. Conservatives often complain because about 47% of Americans aren't paying any federal taxes. Why do you think that is? In significant part it's because of the child tax credit, which was raised to $1,000 per child under Bush. Your taxes have to be higher and/or the services government provides have to be smaller to pay for those tax credits that you aren't getting.

Which taxes?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Holy ****, how many times do I have to point out that appealing to authority is perfeclty legitimate as long as the person cited really is a credible authority on the topic.

Yes, you have pointed to Obama as a 'credible authority' as well. His statements about a topic he is an 'authority' on, lead one to believe otherwise. I'll add an 'authority' spouting off partisan talking points has not credibility.

So for the hundredth time,

Make it a thousand times, it does not make it true. Look, it's been explained to you, and now your continual instance on sticking to your flawed partisan argument bores me.

The tax level is not being raised on everyone, in order to give an 'incentive', as you have suggested.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

My understanding is the baseline is without children. It's not a penalty it's a credit.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Just my opinion - for those who are arguing about the distinction between a penalty and a credit, the distinction in my mind is largely artificial - they are two sides of the same coin. In terms of cost, whether a penalty or a credit is applied, you're always better off being "credited" or "not penalized."
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Essentially, President Obama is saying it should be upheld because it is popular, not because it is legally/Constitutionally correct.

Wow. Just... wow!


Why are these remarks 'unprecedented' only when a black democratic President says them?? -- The right has been screaming 'judicial activism' for years....

Come on, righties, try to be a little self-aware of your own hypocrisy...
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

No, it's not. If I get a deduction for installing solar panels, but I choose not to install solar panels. I have bought nothing. I owe nothing to the government for not installing them. If I buy a Chevy Volt and receive a tax deduction, but if I choose not to buy a car at all, I have bought nothing and I owe nothing to the government.

The Tax Deduction can apply to the first $10,000 earned, for instance. The Medical Insurance tax rate could be 25% for the first $10,000 earned, with a deduction against the tax due, with a deduction for any monies spent on health insurance purchased by yourself or your employer. If you, or your employer, spend $2500 or more for health insurance, then you get the full deduction, and do not owe any of the 25% tax for Medical care. If you don't have health insurance, then you pay a Medical Insurance Tax of $2500.00 on the first $10,000.00 earned.



//
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Just my opinion - for those who are arguing about the distinction between a penalty and a credit, the distinction in my mind is largely artificial - they are two sides of the same coin. In terms of cost, whether a penalty or a credit is applied, you're always better off being "credited" or "not penalized."

Except in this case of Ubamacare which from what I have heard, it is cheaper to pay the penalty...LOL
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Why are these remarks 'unprecedented' only when a black democratic President says them?? -- The right has been screaming 'judicial activism' for years....

Come on, righties, try to be a little self-aware of your own hypocrisy...


This isn't judicial activism. Roe vs Wade is an example of judicial activism.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Actually they will bill you afterwards, Unless of course you have given false identification. and this applies ONLY to emergency rooms. You got long term care problems it doesn't help. You need a non emergency surgery, SOL etc. It does not compare.

That "emergency only" care adds 25% to YOUR HC premiums. Your ok with the responsible people having to pay extra but the deadbeats gaming the system can't be charged a dime. That is very generous of you. Stupid but generous.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

That "emergency only" care adds 25% to YOUR HC premiums. Your ok with the responsible people having to pay extra but the deadbeats gaming the system can't be charged a dime. That is very generous of you. Stupid but generous.


Who pays for the Emergency walk in care required by Feral law now?


//
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Just my opinion - for those who are arguing about the distinction between a penalty and a credit, the distinction in my mind is largely artificial - they are two sides of the same coin. In terms of cost, whether a penalty or a credit is applied, you're always better off being "credited" or "not penalized."

So you are better off popping out a few kids to get a tax credit? Interesting logic, considering the cost of a child is far more than any tax credit could hope to be.

That "emergency only" care adds 25% to YOUR HC premiums. Your ok with the responsible people having to pay extra but the deadbeats gaming the system can't be charged a dime. That is very generous of you. Stupid but generous.

So under obamacare those that can not afford health care will have it 'taken care of' for them. Which means somebody else is paying for them. How exactly is that any different than what we have now? Hard working people paying for slackers.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

That "emergency only" care adds 25% to YOUR HC premiums. Your ok with the responsible people having to pay extra but the deadbeats gaming the system can't be charged a dime. That is very generous of you. Stupid but generous.

Ubamacare doesn't change that fact. Tell me how our government is going to force the homeless, the severely poor to purchase heathcare in this country? My premiums have already doubled since Ubamacare. If I was already paying for those who use emergency care without paying, why did my premiums double???
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Ubamacare doesn't change that fact. Tell me how our government is going to force the homeless, the severely poor to purchase heathcare in this country? My premiums have already doubled since Ubamacare. If I was already paying for those who use emergency care without paying, why did my premiums double???

Really doubled? You are really going to be screwed in 2 yrs when it actually goes into effect then....

Ubama?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Really doubled? You are really going to be screwed in 2 yrs when it actually goes into effect then....

Ubama?

So will yours unless you're a freeloader.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

"Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?"​


Oh the outrage!!!1111!!!!


I'd like to see evidence of outrage from the same outraged people when Gingrich proposed that as president he would send US Marshalls or the Capital Police over to arrest judges whose rulings he disagreed with.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

So will yours unless you're a freeloader.

No, I pay for mine...just wondering why mine has barely gone up the last few years...you're gonna get screwed twice!...I can see why you're so angry!
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

No, I pay for mine...just wondering why mine has barely gone up the last few years...you're gonna get screwed twice!...I can see why you're so angry!

I pay for mine too. If I was a freeloader they wouldn't have gone up now would they? They went from about 357 a month to 600+. A lot of companies when up quite a bit, because they are all ramping up for Ubamacare when it kicks in.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

"Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?"​


Oh the outrage!!!1111!!!!


I'd like to see evidence of outrage from the same outraged people when Gingrich proposed that as president he would send US Marshalls or the Capital Police over to arrest judges whose rulings he disagreed with.


Link please.
 
Back
Top Bottom