Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: teg_76
As Roberts said, elections have consequences. Do you really think a tax that no one wants, on NATIONAL health care that no one wants is going to stand? WHY the doom and gloom. This tax is joke. The dem’s are refusing to call it a tax but rather a penalty, something Roberts said was illegal. It's going to die by the will of the people and not the Court and that is a very good thing.
9 posted on 06/30/2012 10:21:20 AM PDT by BornToBeAmerican (Things aren't as good as they should be and its Obama's fault, the resident said)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BornToBeAmerican

You are exactly right - on this bill. The doom and gloom on my part is because of the precedent that has been set here. The Feds can mandate we do anything they want and penalize us if we don’t comply. There is no limit to this sort of nonsense.


24 posted on 06/30/2012 12:43:35 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: BornToBeAmerican

This tax is not a joke. It is a ground breaking precedent.If Chief Justice Roberts thought the mandate was OK under the government’s taxing power he should have said so and told them to go back and rewrite it as tax law. But no..in a classic case of judicial activism, he rewrote the law himself. In the process he opened the door to unlimited taxes levied as punitive measures or in an attempt to coerce certain behaviors. One example that comes to mind is a “Natural Disaster Insurance”. The federal government spends billions of dollars every year on disaster relief in the wake of fires, floods, earthquakes,hurricaines, tornados, etc. Just think of the money they could save if every property owner was forced to buy “National Disaster Insurance” to cover any damage from such events. If an owner declined to participate in the program, he could simply be punished with a tax disguised as a fine. The insurance companies could even be directed to pay a portion of any claims to the government to help pay for cleanups that aren’t covered by an owners policy. Surely no one could object to such a policy; after all, it is all in the interest of the “greater good” of all Americans and follows the precedent laid down by Roberts.


25 posted on 06/30/2012 12:53:15 PM PDT by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson