[elvis-lives]

This past summer Rush went on a 30 minute rant about how Obama thought he got away with telling people there were no tax increases in the bill but, according to Rush, the mandate was a tax increase. I was pounding the dash board because if that is Obama’s argument, then he wins.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

What everyone was saying at the time was that Obama wanted it to be a tax, and the Democrats wanted it to be a tax, but in order to get enough votes they had to write it into law as a mandate to purchase.

It wouldn't be the first time that politicians use one argument to get something passed into law, and the exact opposite when they interpret it.

But maybe this one time we can hold them to their initial word.

The bigger issue is that, even if it were a tax, what is the constitutional justification? Lots of bad things have happened to people because tax law changes can be retroactive, i.e. there can be expost facto changes to taxes.

This has been ruled constitutional, but I don't see how.

[traderrob6]

Pardon my ignorance but why does it bolster the Obama case (argument) if it “IS” a tax.