No wonder he never bothered reading the new Arizona illegal aliens law before smearing it.

The higher taxes will be on income over $250,000. The average person will not pay any higher income taxes to pay for the healthcare reform. Even if you earn $275,000 a year only the $25,000 above $250,000 will be taxed at a higher rate and that increase is only about 3.5% higher than it is already. This was repeatedly pointed out at all the town hall meetings held prior to the legislation being passed but the right wingers (read Republicans) convieniently ignored this information and ...

blah, blah, blah. Getting your info from those Townhall meetings is pointless. The legislation changed so often leading up to the final vote that Nancy and the rest even admitted to having not read it.

IMO, good or bad, it has passed. So let's see what comes of it before making permature judgements.

blah blah blah Please enlighten me on how pointing out how the proponents said they were going to pay for the bill has anything to do with making a premature judgement. Seems you're the one making judgements, but thanks for your brilliant and helpful contribution to the discussion.

And thanks for your contribution of out-of-date left & right wing talking points.

Hmmmmm. Now this is an interesting development. It seems the Obama juggernaut is now claiming the health care bill requirement that everybody show proof of insurance is really a "tax" after all. Yet Obama said it wasn't a "tax". So who is lying now? Obama or his pet rabbit, Holder?

This is becoming funnier and funnier.

______________________________________________________

Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: July 16, 2010

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.

Article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1&ref=politics

The other issue is that the IRS isn't in the business of enforcing social mandates. It is in the business of enforcing taxation legislation. Bottom line though, if there weren't so many retarded right wingers in the USA insisting that the corrupt health insurance industry be preserved, Obama wouldn't have had to construct this Rube Goldberg scheme to begin with. We could have, we SHOULD have, had a REAL universal health care system.

This post must be a joke right? Obama is nothing more than a puppet like Bush for the Wall Street Elite. Same shit different pile. I like the guy but that doesn't mean he makes a good President.

This post must be a joke right? Obama is nothing more than a puppet like Bush for the Wall Street Elite. Same shit different pile. I like the guy but that doesn't mean he makes a good President.

Let's get real. The American people are a cranky-arsed baby-like people who expect the moon for nothing. What human being COULD be a good president trying to govern such an immature mass of cretins?

The system is beautifully broken from the git go

This post must be a joke right? Obama is nothing more than a puppet like Bush for the Wall Street Elite. Same shit different pile. I like the guy but that doesn't mean he makes a good President.

Let's get real. The American people are a cranky-arsed baby-like people who expect the moon for nothing. What human being COULD be a good president trying to govern such an immature mass of cretins?

Certainly not the guy there now. He has accomplished the impossible - he has made the Bush Admin seem competent. Maybe by the end of his first (and last) term, he will even make Jimmy Carter look good. Obama is so bad, and Congress is so bad, maybe we really should scrap our whole political system and start over. Is it too late to apolgize to the Queen of England? Think she'll take us back?

Obama is NOTHING like Carter. Carter got nothing done. What Obama has done, like it or not, is of massive historic implications. Right wingers had better come up with a better argument than linking Obama to Carter if they hope to stop the INEVITABILITY of an Obama second term. I rate Obama's chances for a second term at 90 percent.

Obama is NOTHING like Carter. Carter got nothing done. What Obama has done, like it or not, is of massive historic implications. Right wingers had better come up with a better argument than linking Obama to Carter if they hope to stop the INEVITABILITY of an Obama second term. I rate Obama's chances for a second term at 90 percent.

Historical all right, like the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

For an Obama supporter to whine about linking to a past president, that's just freakin' hilarious. 1.5 years into his term (and 3.5 years of Dem control of Congress) and he still can't go one week without blaming Bush for something. I GUARANTEE in the Presidential Debates in 2012 Obama will still be blaming Bush - well, that is if Obama is even in the debates. Because there is one more person he also makes look good - HILLARY. She is now the model of moderation in comparison. She'll challenge Obama in '12 and could be the Democratic nominee for President. Heck, Obama even has me sold on her now.

This post must be a joke right? Obama is nothing more than a puppet like Bush for the Wall Street Elite. Same shit different pile. I like the guy but that doesn't mean he makes a good President.

seconded!

I believe that Obama should be singled out for his bravery and commitment to reject austerity.

In fact he has successfully increased next years projected deficit more than Europe has committed to reduce theirs. He has also made a commitment to keep the budget above at least 3% of GDP for the next 10 years. Finally he has made a commitment that the deficit will always exceed interest payments on Government debt so that taxpayers are at no point inconvenienced or asked to service debts accumulated over the next 10 years.

Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

Finally he has made a commitment that the deficit will always exceed interest payments on Government debt so that taxpayers are at no point inconvenienced or asked to service debts accumulated over the next 10 years.

:lol:

Funny & sad but true

Finally he has made a commitment that the deficit will always exceed interest payments on Government debt so that taxpayers are at no point inconvenienced or asked to service debts accumulated over the next 10 years.

:lol:

Funny & sad but true

Actually I do think it is going to be the key factor determining Obama's re-election. I have no idea whether austerity or profligacy is good economics at the moment but my feeling is that it is very bad politics.

I think Cameron's austerity helped him win and has helped his popularity so far. I even think Merkel has managed to sell it.

I think Obama is going to run into a brick wall. If you take 2008 and 2009 and add the deficits up until 2020 you can workout that Obama plans to add to the US Government's (i.e. the US peoples) debt roughly the same amount as the entire outstanding mortgages in the US at the beginning of the financial crisis. Essentially, I think people have already moved towards austerity and they dont want the Government to pile up debt on their behalf simply because they have stopped piling it up themselves. (Not that I really know what Americans think.)

But I reckon Obama has to change tack and start 'selling austerity' to win in 2012 - which I bet he would be good at. And at present he is going into election year with a 4% growth target and a US$500bn reduction in the fiscal deficit. He certainly wont achieve both.

More about how Americans, particularly right wing Palin poopie Americans are such incredibly hypocritical BABIES.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071903687.html

Obama has been installed to collapse the American economy. Bye bye American pie

More about how Americans, particularly right wing Palin poopie Americans are such incredibly hypocritical BABIES.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071903687.html

Actually I have often said that the Tea Party was hijacked by Palin et al'

This paragraph early on in the linked article shows it clearly...As it is not the intent of the original Tea Party

If you don't live in this country all of the time, and I don't, here is what you notice when you come home: Americans -- with their lawsuit culture, their safety obsession and, above all, their addiction to government spending programs -- demand more from their government than just about anybody else in the world.

Truth is from those that actually live there....We want less...

We want less government spending obviously

We want less BS spending on our supposed behalf & then call it defense spending when in fact it is offense spending

We want less intrusion into our constitutional rights under the same guise & more.

We want less of the whole bloated BS called government.

Since when should the average federal worker earn 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector? That IS where it stands now.

What we would actually like to see is the elected officials following the Constitution they all took oaths to uphold.

They could start with a simple slogan like......

No taxation without representation....

coincidentally coined in Boston

More about how Americans, particularly right wing Palin poopie Americans are such incredibly hypocritical BABIES.

http://www.washingto...0071903687.html

It's one thing coming from those on the lecture circuit, it's another coming from the POTUS. He is for repealing "don't ask, don't tell" but thinks that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. My bet is that the gay community will forgive him - much in the same way the Spainish gay pride paraders support Hamas.

What choice do gays have? The democrats or the republicans who are overtly anti-gay and use hatred of gays to win elections. Next ...

What choice do gays have? The democrats or the republicans who are overtly anti-gay and use hatred of gays to win elections. Next ...

You can't blame the Republicans for the ban on gay marriage in the 2008 election. Exit polling shows that it was the high turn out of blacks and Hispanics - who voted overwhelmingly for Obama - also voted against gay marriage. Sorry, didn't mean to let hard facts get in the way of your hatred. You're like those ignorant people who are against gay adoption because it will turn the children gay. They'll believe something silly without any proof just because it fits their prejudiced way of thinking.

What choice do gays have? The democrats or the republicans who are overtly anti-gay and use hatred of gays to win elections. Next ...

You can't blame the Republicans for the ban on gay marriage in the 2008 election. Exit polling shows that it was the high turn out of blacks and Hispanics - who voted overwhelmingly for Obama - also voted against gay marriage. Sorry, didn't mean to let hard facts get in the way of your hatred. You're like those ignorant people who are against gay adoption because it will turn the children gay. They'll believe something silly without any proof just because it fits their prejudiced way of thinking.

If you don't know the history of how the republicans have blatantly used the hatred of gays to fire up their ignorant right wing base over decades npw, do yourself a favor, and don't bother to comment on things you know nothing about.

What choice do gays have? The democrats or the republicans who are overtly anti-gay and use hatred of gays to win elections. Next ...

You can't blame the Republicans for the ban on gay marriage in the 2008 election. Exit polling shows that it was the high turn out of blacks and Hispanics - who voted overwhelmingly for Obama - also voted against gay marriage. Sorry, didn't mean to let hard facts get in the way of your hatred. You're like those ignorant people who are against gay adoption because it will turn the children gay. They'll believe something silly without any proof just because it fits their prejudiced way of thinking.

If you don't know the history of how the republicans have blatantly used the hatred of gays to fire up their ignorant right wing base over decades npw, do yourself a favor, and don't bother to comment on things you know nothing about.

You want to talk HISTORY? OK, Democrats were pro-slavery. They loved nothing better than owning blacks and forcing them to work in their fields. They broke up families, whipped and tortured those who tried to run away and raped their women. (Btw - it was Republican Abe Lincoln who freed the slaves). Too far back for you? OK, during the lifetimes of most of the posters here, the Democrats were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many prominent Dems including Al Gore's father and the recently deceased Robert "The Conscience of the Senate" Byrd fought it. In fact Byrd went on for 14 hours trying to filibuster it. Before that, he was a Kleagle of the KKK and not only recruited members but assuredly lynched black people and burned crosses in their yards.

OK, your turn.

Yes, WAY too far back. I am certainly aware of that history, but it is history. Next ... If you are trying to argue that modern republicans are better for modern blacks, Latinos, and gays than modern republicans, you know you are wrong, and so does everyone else.

Yes, WAY too far back. I am certainly aware of that history, but it is history.

So, when the official line of the Democrat Party is to enslave blacks and lynch them, then it is just history. But when in the past some right wing nutter said something hateful in the past about gays to get people to vote a particular way then it is more than just history. Um, ok.

Next ... If you are trying to argue that modern republicans are better for modern blacks, Latinos, and gays than modern republicans, you know you are wrong, and so does everyone else.

You were the one who said how historically Republicans hated gays as a sign of how bad they are. Did the Reps have an official policy on that like the Dems towards blacks? Or are making some nut TV preacher the official spokesman for all Republicans? I guess since you have no examples - at least nothing as serious as the Dem examples I produced - now you want to morph it over to modern Republicans. Fine. Admit you were wrong to accuse Reps historically and then you can educate me on official Rep party positions that show hatred toward gays. Just remember that Obama and some other Dems are against gay marriage and that the Dems hold super-majoroties in Congress so "don't ask, don't tell" can be abolished tomorrow IF the Dems want.

Of course, we aren't getting all we want as quickly as we want under Obama. No group is. Yes, his position on gay marriage is unfortunate, but he is not actively HOSTILE to gays. Republicans are and have been for DECADES now.

More recently, 2008, McCain/Palin platform

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages†licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

Of course, we aren't getting all we want as quickly as we want under Obama. No group is. Yes, his position on gay marriage is unfortunate, but he is not actively HOSTILE to gays. Republicans are and have been for DECADES now.

More recently, 2008, McCain/Palin platform

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages†licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

Actions speak louder than words and the Democrat's inaction on this issue is a deafening silence. They agree with the Republicans but have made the political calculation that they don't need to say or do anything, just bame the powerless Republicans. You are a good example that they made the right move.

No, their positions are NOT exactly the same and to assert that just loses any tiny sliver of credibility that you might have had. Goodbye, this is tedious.

No, their positions are NOT exactly the same and to assert that just loses any tiny sliver of credibility that you might have had. Goodbye, this is tedious.

OK, they aren't EXACTLY the same. The end result is the same though. Isn't that convenient?

What credibility do you have? You come on here, make accusations, when someone calls you on it you pick up your toys and go home. You are probably so used to "debating" people with the same opinion of yourself that you have no idea what to do when someone asks for proof.

Here's a summary for those who are too smart to read through the whole thread...

You: Republicans hate gays.

Me: Got any proof?

You: Well, historically they do and that's enough for me.

Me: Historically? You mean like the Democrats were pro-slavery and tried to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

You: Oh, well, that history doesn't count. Modern Republicans are bad.

Me: OK, show me the Republican anti-gay policy and not just some nut TV preacher.

You: McCain and Palin don't like gay marriage!

Me: Yeah, well, neither does Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress.

You: That's not exactly the same, I'm going home!!