Obama refutes Roberts: It's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Grandluxe, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. White House: Sorry, Roberts, Obamacare mandate is a penalty, not a tax

    By Olivier Knox
    June 29, 2012

    The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. But if it is a tax, blame Mitt Romney, spokesman Jay Carney suggested.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...te-penalty-tax/story?id=16679772#.T-4libVSQUw

    What a joke!
     
  2. Obama's "Lewinsky"

    It's not sex, it's not a tax.
     
  3. wjk

    wjk


    "A memo published by White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe advises allies to mislead when they discuss the recent Supreme Court decision on the individual mandate, saying they should call it a penalty when it is in fact a tax."


    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-memo-urges-allies-mislead-obamacare-tax
     
  4. Whatever the rationale for obamacare is irrelevant.


    more socialism =more poverty
     
  5. pspr

    pspr

    Then: It's not constitutional, it's not constitutional, it's not constitutional.
     
  6. I like Volokh Conspiracy contributor and George Mason law professor David Berstein’s suggestion to Republicans:

    I’d schedule a new vote in the House on the individual mandate, but replace the “penalty language” with language specifically acknowledging that the “penalty” is actually a tax. If the Democrats vote “aye,” they’ve acknowledged breaking the Obama pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. If the Democrats–specifically those who already voted for the mandate–vote “nay”, what becomes of the tax argument in future litigation? Seems to me that Roberts was only able to argue that the mandate is a tax because no one [officially, by Congressional vote] specifically said it wasn’t. At least it would look very peculiar that the Court upheld the law on a theory that Congressional supporters of the law refuse to adopt. (And if they vote “nay” on the theory that the Senate won’t vote for repeal anyway, it looks bad for the president that he can’t get members of his own party to publicly support his “signature” piece of legislation).