• 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!

OMB Director Undercuts Legal Case for Obamacare

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,485
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
though, i mean, with the boss himself on both sides of the issue, who can really blame him?
Testifying before Congress this morning, President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court. In a hearing of the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not. But this directly contradicts one of the arguments the Obama administration is making before the Supreme Court in defense of the health care law, which is that the mandate is Constitutional because it's a tax and government has taxing power. This has always been a tricky argument for the Obama administration, because admitting that the mandate is a tax means that Obama violated his pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. In September 2009, Obama told ABC's George Stephanapoulos that the mandate was not a tax. But by the following June, his administration was arguing in court that it was. Now the administration is making both arguments simultaneously. Before Congress, Zients is arguing that it is not a tax. But before the Supreme Court next month, the administration will argue that it is, in fact, a tax....



As I recall, at least one of the Strike Down rulings was on this very issue, with the Judge claiming it had been sold under false pretenses, and you cannot later go back and claim Oh Well Now It's A Tax.
 
Last edited:
Obviously it isn't a tax, but it is equivalent to one. Except that everyone gets an exemption, except for those who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it.

I ever recall hearing Obama describe it as a tax.
 
Obviously it isn't a tax, but it is equivalent to one. Except that everyone gets an exemption, except for those who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it.

I ever recall hearing Obama describe it as a tax.

Ambiguous, please clarify.
 
Typo, sorry. I don't recall ever hearing Obama describe it as a tax. If it was, however, it would not violate his pledge, as it would only fall on those who failed to follow the law.
 
Typo, sorry. I don't recall ever hearing Obama describe it as a tax. If it was, however, it would not violate his pledge, as it would only fall on those who failed to follow the law.

That was not the line that was confusing but whatever. I don’t think BHO ever described it as a tax as the talking heads would be ALL OVER IT considering the link in the OP. I don’t see how this does not violate his pledge. If someone who makes less than $250k/yr doesn’t purchase HC insurance he will be taxed/fined hence raising their taxes.

At issue is whether it is ‘taxed’ or ‘fined’. I believe them pressing for ‘fined’ under the commerce clause will be an overreach. Arguing it to be a ‘tax’, pledge or not, compliant with the 16th amendment would seem to be a stronger argument. Ultimately I don’t feel the protection of BHO’s ‘pledge’ has much rationality as it is typical for a POL to break a pledge. People historically get over it.
 
That was not the line that was confusing but whatever. I don’t think BHO ever described it as a tax as the talking heads would be ALL OVER IT considering the link in the OP. I don’t see how this does not violate his pledge. If someone who makes less than $250k/yr doesn’t purchase HC insurance he will be taxed/fined hence raising their taxes.

At issue is whether it is ‘taxed’ or ‘fined’. I believe them pressing for ‘fined’ under the commerce clause will be an overreach. Arguing it to be a ‘tax’, pledge or not, compliant with the 16th amendment would seem to be a stronger argument. Ultimately I don’t feel the protection of BHO’s ‘pledge’ has much rationality as it is typical for a POL to break a pledge. People historically get over it.

I don't think he was making a pledge that no one would be fined if they violated the tax laws.
 
though, i mean, with the boss himself on both sides of the issue, who can really blame him?



As I recall, at least one of the Strike Down rulings was on this very issue, with the Judge claiming it had been sold under false pretenses, and you cannot later go back and claim Oh Well Now It's A Tax.

As usual, the Beltway Confidential did not let facts get in the way of their story. In point of fact in the brief the White House sent to SCOTUS, they call the penalty a tax: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/77380052-11-Filed.pdf

iN ADDITION TO THOSE INCENTIVES THROUGH TAX AND OTHER SUBSIDIES TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE, ¢ONGRESS ASSIGNED ADVERSE TAX CONSEQUENCES TO THE ALTERNATIVE OF ATTEMPTED SELF-INSURING. CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT, BEGINNING IN 2014, NON-EXEMPTED FEDERAL INCOME TAXPAYERS WHO FAIL TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM LEVEL OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THEMSELVES OR THEIR DEPENDENTS WILL OWE A TAX PENALTY

People who believe the Examiner and especially the Beltway Confidential deserve to be deceived as they are.
 
I don't think he was making a pledge that no one would be fined if they violated the tax laws.

Nice #5 Falsche Prämissen.

Let me try it. I don’t either.
 
Obama is trying to have it both ways, he tells the American people he won't tax them while at the same time telling the supremes he has the power to do this because it's a tax and he can tax. Amazing so many fall for this guys BS.
 
As usual, the Beltway Confidential did not let facts get in the way of their story. In point of fact in the brief the White House sent to SCOTUS, they call the penalty a tax: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/77380052-11-Filed.pdf



People who believe the Examiner and especially the Beltway Confidential deserve to be deceived as they are.

You use Huffpo as a source and deride people for being willingly deceived? That's like using WND for a birther claim.
 
You use Huffpo as a source and deride people for being willingly deceived? That's like using WND for a birther claim.

The only people who complain about HuffPo are hackish republicans and conservatives and WND well ... I wouldn't be surprised if you yourself cited it when it helped you. Your comparison is invalid.
 
Last edited:
The only people who complain about HuffPo are hackish republicans and conservatives and WND well ... I wouldn't be surprised if you yourself cited it when it helped you. Your comparison is invalid.

Huh, it's just us "hackish conservatives" that see huffpo as biased. You got me. I guess that's /thread for you, no need to come back.

Of course, Huffpo's bias is well established... from Huffpo's bloggers for example:

HuffPo provides a powerful platform for pro-labor and progressive messages. Doesn’t that outweigh wrongdoing on the part of its parent company?
Statement from the Newspaper Guild | HPUB - Huffington Post Union of Bloggers

Then of course, there is the old standby of Wikipedia:
The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report.
The Huffington Post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we have the Huffpo bloggers admitting their pushing progressive drivvel, and huffpo's own creation as a left wing site as proof it's biased...

But no, that's just crazy right wing talk eh?
 
Huh, it's just us "hackish conservatives" that see huffpo as biased. You got me. I guess that's /thread for you, no need to come back.

Of course, Huffpo's bias is well established... from Huffpo's bloggers for example:

Did you read what I said? I said the only people who complain about HuffPo are hacking conservatives. Whether they have bias or not is irrelevant, every news source has some bias. Good luck finding one that doesn't. Learn to understand what you're reading, it'll do you some good.


Then of course, there is the old standby of Wikipedia:

The Huffington Post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we have the Huffpo bloggers admitting their pushing progressive drivvel, and huffpo's own creation as a left wing site as proof it's biased...

Still unable to understand what you read I see?

But no, that's just crazy right wing talk eh?

No. It's your inability to read. You're still complaining about HuffPo without showing a single bit of evidence that their statements are incorrect in any way shape or form.
 
The only people who complain about HuffPo are hackish republicans and conservatives and WND well ...

That's not true. Huffpo is as bad as mediamatters, or WND/Townhall.
 
if the law is deemed unconstitutional, medicare isn't. open it up to everyone. that's closer to the single payer system that would have been the better choice.

it's a bit funny to me that so many supporters of our current system are rooting for this law to get tossed out in court. in reality, that mandate is your last chance to keep our illogical employer-based healthcare system. without it, those who would have been covered will have to go to medicare or medicaid, because they're not profitable to cover.

as a supporter of a modern, first world system, my opinion is if they toss the mandate, maybe that will bring us a step closer to a real solution.
 
That's not true. Huffpo is as bad as mediamatters, or WND/Townhall.

Only it isn't. HuffPo doesn't embrace backyard conspiracy theories or promote them as truth. If you disagree I welcome you to bring up a few examples. Maybe you could bring up Huffington arguing that it was Bush that blew up the towers? How about them claiming Cheney had evidence of 9/11 before it happened? Maybe you could show us Huffington claiming the plane that hit the Pentagon was a missile? I'll wait.
 
Only it isn't. HuffPo doesn't embrace backyard conspiracy theories or promote them as truth. If you disagree I welcome you to bring up a few examples. Maybe you could bring up Huffington arguing that it was Bush that blew up the towers? How about them claiming Cheney had evidence of 9/11 before it happened? Maybe you could show us Huffington claiming the plane that hit the Pentagon was a missile? I'll wait.
No, huffpo's worse, they push BS and call it news.
 
You use Huffpo as a source and deride people for being willingly deceived? That's like using WND for a birther claim.

No, I used the ****ing brief sent to SCOTUS, that happened to be hosted at Huffpo(was the first place I found the whole document). This is why you should read before you post...
 
Only whiners who can't refute an article complain solely about its source.

At least the poster of the article didn't refute his own argument with his own link
 
Only whiners who can't refute an article complain solely about its source.

At least the poster of the article didn't refute his own argument with his own link

Admittedly though, the article was from Gateway Pundit, the same source that claimed to find the list of democratic socialist caucus members in congress, but just copy/pasted a list of democratic house members. Gateway Pundit is slightly less trustworthy than WND.
 
No, huffpo's worse, they push BS and call it news.

So you can't bring up a single example of HuffPo endorsing a lunatic conspiracy theories? You remember the time you tried to pass off a WND article on the Obama-Odinga connection and then got so destroyed you just kept reiterating the same line over and over again? Glad to hear you're still unable to substantiate your weak claims. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom