I Am Literally Sick Over This Obamacare Travesty

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | June 29, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[gzzimlich]

Thank goodness. I was worried El Rushbo was going to come down on the side of those pretending Roberts had some sort of sneaky beaky “conservative” motive for this utter disgrace.

[sand88]

Roberts might just end up looking like the smartest one of the bunch by the time all of this is over. And now it’s in our hands. If we want Obamacare to disappear, we need to get him out of the White House and get control of the Senate. That done, Obamacare is as good as dead and the Dems can’t do anything about the things they gave away to Roberts for his vote.

Pardon my French but CK is FOS. I listened to Mark Levin yesterday. He carefully went through the ruling and its implications.

Mark is a brilliant Constitution scholar. Mark said that the damage done by Roberts will take decades to reverse. Mark stated there is no silver-lining.

Roberts was not trying to do good and be crafty. No. Roberts was willingly and knowingly helping increase State Power. Roberts is an evil man. May he live the rest of his disgusting life regretting his decision.

I wish him a miserable life for the misery he will help unleash across our Republic.

[scram2]

I don’t know if they have the guts or not, time will tell.

All I know is this site is filled with the biggest bunch of hand wringing crybabies I have yet to see on a political forum. It’s all gloom and doom as if the medias report of an Obama victory is anything but bullshit hype for the moonbat base.

Someone care to explain to me how this is a “win” for Ostupid? If I do something which is not wanted by 60% of those responsible for me keeping my job and it is instead approved and allowed to stand by those who have nothing to do with me keeping my job how do I win anything? In the sense his (unpopular) law was upheld it is a victory for him in the short term, I guess but it is also a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war.

It’s up to Romney and Rep to get out the message far and wide as to the cost to the average citizen over the next 2-3 years and if they can do that they can win and if they win I see no reason why Romney cannot give out waivers as easily as Obama did. In this case Romney said he would issue waivers to everyone in America. If we take the Senate and WH my understanding is it will only take a simple majority in each House to unwind the funding mechanism. No money no law.

But as you said, if we haven’t the guts then we deserve what we get.

[boxlunch]

It’s not ObamaCare, it’s how the taxing power has been expanded.

Don’t maintain your weight or exercise? Pay a tax.

Don’t want to take certain courses in college? Pay a tax.

Don’t want to have just one child and help “save the planet”? Pay a tax.

Don’t want to (fill-in-the-blank). Pay a tax.

Don’t want to live your life the way the government wants you to? Pay a tax.

The federal government now has the authority to use its taxing power to coerce its citizens to live their lives according to the government’s vision.

I would have rather had it justified under the commerce clause than this expansion of the taxing power. This is dangerous—not many people have realized just how dangerous.

---

Their goal is to make us slaves and tax us for any godless, crazy, evil thing they want to push on us if we don’t agree with it. The ultimate Dhimmi tax except it’s for liberal evil causes.

We just watched The Patriot last night. July 4th and the Declaration will have special meaning for us this year. If they cancel or rig the election...

[DannyTN]

On the mandate I'm having a hard time drawing the line between the mandate and other tax incentives. It feels like it's crossed a line. But exactly what line?

What's the difference between this and say a tax credit for energy efficient home improvement?

Isn't a tax for failing to engage in commerce, exactly the same as a tax credit for engaging in commerce? The only difference being terminology and the alleged nominal tax rate?

Example: Lets say I make $10,000 and my tax rate is 20% so I pay $2,000. But there is a tax credit if I buy energy efficient windows of $400. So if I buy the windows I pay $1600 in taxes, and if I don't I pay $2000 in taxes.

Now reverse that and say there is a penalty for failing to buy energy efficient windows of $400. Let's also lower the nominal tax rate to 16% to more easily see they are the same. If I don't buy the windows I pay $1600+$400 penalty = $2000. And if I do buy the windows I only pay $1600.

So effectively a penalty for not engaging in commerce is exactly the same as a tax credit for engaging in commerce.

There are minor differences.

• If you aren't going to adjust the nominal tax rate, you'd much rather have a tax credit than a tax penalty. Because the penalty represents a tax increase to the nominal rate, whereas a tax credit is a decrease to the nominal rate.
• This is affecting everybody except those who have little or no income, whereas most tax credits are more limited in scope. But think of child tax credits, they are pretty wide spread. Nobody gets upset about those.
• Congress sold this as a penalty not as a tax increase.

I think the real issues are:

• There are things in Obamacare that are constitutional, but that we don't like, so we were hoping the mandate would save us.
• Congress had to literally threaten and bribe their own members to do this to us. So it's not your typical legislation drawn up by a representative congress.
• Congress wasn't even allowed to read it before passing it, a breach of trust that automatically should and does cast suspicion both on the legislation and those that voted for it.

Roberts kicked this back to the voters and said "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

• It is in fact, their role to protect us from the consequences of our political choices if those choices choose to exceed the constitutional limits. It's why there were checks and balances. It's why a court exists.
• Roberts could have protected us from this legislation by simply relying on the clear assertion that this was not a tax.
• On the other hand, had he treated it consistently as a tax, we would have had to wait until 2014, for the court to rule.

Which brings up another point. Laws like the one that says the court can't consider the constitutionality of a tax until its paid, ought themselves to be unconsitutional.

• Clearly people suffer harm from such impending taxes. They ought to have standing.

[TennTuxedo]

"Roberts slammed the door shut on coercive use of the Commerce Clause (whicn could be defended with a Senate filibuster) and forced that ObamaCare and all similar tactics rely on tax law. This is significant because repeal of taxes can *never* be filibustered. When repeal passes the House on the 11th, there *will* be an up-or-down vote in the Senate—it *cannot* be filibustered. So in that sense, Roberts was right—every time the Dems try something underhanded like this, we’ll now always have a fair chance to take it out on their hides—they won’t be able to rely on Senators from a few blue states. They wanted to be able to have NY, NJ, CA, et. al. be able to thwart the will of everyone else, but now that avenue is closed to them."

The U.S. House of representatives will introduce a bill to repeal ObamaCare on July 11th, which will likely pass.

Then the ObamaCare Repeal Bill be be brought over to the U.S. Senate, where it must be voted up or down in public for all to see.

If U.S. Senators vote for it's passage, they will be handing their opponents an election year gift issue and a sledge hammer for their opponents to beat themselves over the head with.

[New Jersey Realist]

Listening to Romney’s tedid, hesitant response to this travesty yesterday reaffirms what I have always believed. he is not the man to lead the charge.

Are you kidding? there is no one else, this guy has the nomination locked up and is our ONLY choice. If it doesn't work out then it isn't the will of God. There is a greater purpose, isn't there? Aren't Christians supposed to let God work things out? If we can't put our faith in God, then what is left? If it's bad news then we have to suck it up, right? Be still.

[Kaslin]

To be honest, I am not mad at Chief Justice Roberts. I am disappointed that he let himself get intimidated.

I have said for month that we need to get the Senate back, besides keeping the House, and give that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave eviction notice on November 6 for January 20, 20, 2013

[Digger]

That about says it all and I think it’s high time people read the Decleration of independence again this July 4th, especially the second paragraph “whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it” which just may take a civil war to do. This government is no longer on the road to tyranny, tyranny is HERE!

I'm so surprised that others never saw this on election night. I knew it was over then. Not that I'm happy but nothing has or will shock me of what this banana republic will do. The only avenue left is a second civil war & the lazy, give me, sheeple won't fight. We are totally screwed.

[Kaslin]

To be honest, I am not mad at Chief Justice Roberts. I am disappointed that he let himself get intimidated.

I have said for month that we need to get the Senate back, besides keeping the House, and give that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave eviction notice on November 6 for January 20, 20, 2013

[Mamzelle]

What is the dirt on Roberts? Clearly he is amoral and an idiot. That means there’s dirt. Maybe we can dig it up and impeach him.

[NotTallTex]

I disagree. There is nothing preventing them from still using the Commerce Clause in the future. Now, they have two weapons, stealth taxes and the Commerce Clause. Roberts just opened up a new can of worms.

[Jess79]

Aside from the lack of choice and government coersion involved, your math only works if you lower the nominal rate as you did in your 2nd example. The govenment is not going to lower the nominal rate when they assess the tax. In your second example, if you don’t buy the windows, you will still pay 20% or $2000 on your income + $400 penalty on top of it. If you do buy the windows, you pay $2000.

The really dangerous part of this is the precedent it sets. We can now be taxed for doing nothing. The communists will find all sorts of nefarious applications for that.

[NotTallTex]

My guess is that Roberts and other judicial traitors become more and more concerned about their reputations in the eyes of the liberal law school, intellectual elite. Like G. Bush, they want to be liked. That is the only explanation I can think of to make a judge go against his/her own principles. Either that or someone/something is threatening them.

[Marathoner]

We have become godless and corrupt, and God is going to allow our nation to be destroyed from within because of it. It is heartbreaking!!!!!

Indeed it is. I have feared this ever since the abortion holocost was unleashed by Roe v Wade. I don't see how God can ignore that.

[Cyber Liberty]

You know what makes me sick? This hate the sin, hate the sinner even more attitude around here WRT Roberts. I swear I’ve seen some of these same kind of comments coming from the lowlifes at DU.

[DannyTN]

"your math only works if you lower the nominal rate as you did in your 2nd example."

True it's a tax increase. But had congress raised rates and then offered a tax credit, would we still have claimed the mandate was unconstitutional?

The really dangerous part of this is the precedent it sets. We can now be taxed for doing nothing. The communists will find all sorts of nefarious applications for that.

But it's strictly a precedent of perception. We already were being taxed for doing nothing, every time there is a tax credit that we didn't take advantage of.

This one is more severe since in a few years the tax is supposed to be more than the cost of the insurance. In that regard it's different.

I guess I was looking for a legal reason why the mandate should be unconstitutional. So far, all I've got is that congress labeled it a penalty and that healthcare isn't an enumerated power.

Roberts limited the commerce clause, but Romneycare which is identical would have sailed past that concern, because Romney labeled his as tax credits from the start. Thus, the supposed limit on the commerce clause is not really a limit. Since all they have to do is structure an tax credit and adjust rates to accomplish exactly the same thing.

[mkmensinger]

If the Obamacare mandate is a tax, then doesn’t that invalidate the HHS mandate against churches, since they are tax exempt?

[Defiant]

He knows the Republicans will not repeal it, he knows.

I would suggest he "fears" the Republicans will not repeal it. That's my fear, too, but I also know that we will be putting tremendous pressure on them to do it, after we give them the Senate and the White Hut. Right?

[Stealth Ninja]

The states won their Supreme Court case. They do not have to abide by the law and add 50 million new people into their healthcare system, which would easily bankrupt a fair amount of them; nor can they be punished and lose their current gov Medicare funds, which Obamacare tried to steal from them via blackball extortion. So the 28 states that sued won, are already announcing no thanks, we can’t afford your bill and are not participating. Real soon, tens of millions of Obama voters in those states (half the country) will find out their “victory” is they have not obtained free healthcare, nor free insurance. All that has happened is they have been taxed by Obama...and if they don’t pay up their IRS refunds will be seized.

The individual mandate was tossed. If upheld and the bill allowed to stand, it would have been impossible to rescind. Obamacare passed using reconciliation. Now declared a tax, it only takes 51 votes using reconciliation to abolish the whole bill. Seeing as this single issue is what catapulted rep voters to the 2010 voting booth, (giving the dems the largest mid-term landslide in 78 years), this decision, combined with a lousy economy guarantees a blowout rep victory. Upon winning a rep majority senate, the bill will be repealed with 51+ votes early next year. All attempts to write a new one will be filibustered by dems. In the end, nothing changed other than a huge power shift in Washington, and the states will not go bankrupt via ballooning healthcare costs.

The losers? Tens of millions of working families will now lose their company healthcare. Avg healthcare cost is $12,800 per employee to companies. The Obamacare fine is $2,000 if you do not provide healthcare to employees. Countless companies in bad financial situations will use this opportunity to drop healthcare...for tens of millions of employees and their families. And for those families it will cost them far more the replace, without the company group rate. To these unfortunate Obamacare victims, they just had their take home pay cut by 25-35%, putting many in dire financial straits. In a short six months, people will realize the net result of this decision is fewer people now have healthcare, and Obama voters got taxed for nothing.