In response to:

Supreme Court Hypocrisies

Trublu Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 1:00 PM
To gjloggins: Under Justice Roberts tax analysis the power of the Federal Government is unlimited as long as they call its exercise a tax. Under Obamacare the government is taxing the individual for not doing something. Sales taxes are imposed on persons participating in commerce, income and capital gains taxes imposed upon earners. This is a tax for sitting out and doing nothing. According to Robert’s view, the government can fine, penalize or tax under the taxing clause an individual for not eating his broccoli to borrow an example. If citizens can be taxed for doing nothing, what can’t the government require of them? Roberts reasoning or lack thereof runs contrary to the principle of limited government.
Illbay Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 3:00 PM
You pay extra taxes for not having children. And for not buying certain kinds of goods and services at a particular time, or for a particular use.

This horse left the barn decades ago.
Trublu Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 3:58 PM
Apples and Oranges! If I don’t have a child or buy a house I don’t get a tax credit or deduction. If Obamacare was designed to give tax breaks to those who purchase health insurance while leaving those alone who did not then fine but such is not the case. I can chose to invest in tax exempt bonds to receive a tax break that other investors who chose otherwise do not. Under Obamacare I have no real choice. Don’t buy insurance then pay the tax, fine, penalty, whatever ling floats your boat. Don’t pay the tax, fine, penalty, then go to jail! Surely you can see the difference between that and not receiving a deduction or credit. It is the difference of a pat on the head vs. a gun to the head.
michigander4 Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 8:50 AM
Trublu, I can't help but wonder what will happen when tens of millions of people simply refuse to pay this tax. There aren't enough jails. I mean this is tantamount to taxing the air we breath. I'm serious about this... I think the feds have set themselves up for a tax revolt, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Boston Tea Party.
johninohio Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 12:14 PM
Trublu wrote “If I don’t have a child or buy a house I don’t get a tax credit or deduction. If Obamacare was designed to give tax breaks to those who purchase health insurance while leaving those alone who did not then fine but such is not the case.“

But the IRS doesn’t leave you alone. You still have to pay your taxes. If you don’t have children or buy a house, you still have to pay your taxes in full. If you tried to hold back the difference (the amount of your “penalty” for not having children or buying a house) the IRS will come after you.
Trublu Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 1:01 PM
Those conservative hoping for repeal of Obamacare had better prepare themselves for another disappointment. The temporary Excise Tax on phone bills has been reauthorized, reduced, increased and partially repealed since 1914. Repeal of legislation is unfortunately a rare event. Asking government officials to give up power or revenue is about as easy as asking them to be required to contribute to their own 401Ks.
Until last week, Chief Justice John Roberts was vilified as the leader of a conservative judicial cabal poised to destroy the Obama presidency by overturning the federal takeover of health care. But with his unexpected affirmation, Roberts suddenly was lauded as the new Earl Warren -- an "evolving" conservative who at last saw the logic of liberal big government.

Among our elites -- journalists, pundits and academics -- liberal Supreme Court justices are always deemed "open-minded," even as they are expected to vote in absolute lockstep liberal fashion. In contrast, a conservative justice is written off as reactionary or...