Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare

Thanks for posting this. I was thinking some of the same thoughts yesterday. Along with forever settling the issue of Congress mandating any purchases another issue that Republicans should hammer home is that Obama, president of Harvard Law School, the man that kept insisting the penalty for non-compliance was not a tax has just had his so-called superior intellect slapped down by the Supreme Court, by having it defined as a tax. (Oops, didn't see that coming...)

Now he has to defend a huge tax increase on the middle class. If the Republicans frame it correctly there are all kinds of attack angles. I can already see the TV commercials:

Twenty-something year old construction worker: "Obama says, health insurance my way or a tax you will pay!"

Thirty year old black woman: "Democrats say they are pro-choice, but I get no choice--I must pay for health insurance one way or the other. Either buy my own--which I don't want--or help subsidize someone else's with Obama's tax."

I kind of like the ring of that--"Obama's Tax". Maybe it can supplant ObamaCare, just call it ObamaTax.

 

Another thing--Obama had a mantra during the 2008 campaign (and after) that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. Only those with incomes over $250,000 would get a tax increase.

He then proceeded to work his tail off to get the health insurance bill passed while America's economy was reeling. It was his number one priority.

Now we've got the signature achievement of his Presidency and it turns out it's a hefty tax increase on the middle class!

 

It has nothing to do with health care!!!!!!

It is the invention of a new form of tax which can be used to destroy pensions and Social Security.

 

The demcrats have already done both...

 

I'd ask you to explain but on second thought, I don't want you to go there.

 

The writer says at the end this was "brilliant." The brilliant thing would have been to shoot this down on constitutional grounds and explain the same thing about states rights, not take a back door approach. In the end this decision will bankrupt the nation and that is not brilliant.

 

As I see it, this ruling gives a road map for similar legislation in the future.

Think it won't happen?

 

If it does it will be labeled a tax from the get-go and be that much harder to pass.

 

What everyone is forgetting is that Democrats will pass any kind of tax they want to if they control both houses and the presidency again. Just like they did last time with Obamacare, in spite of the outcry from the majority of Americans that they didn't want it. These Dems shoved it down our throats anyway.

So, in the future, we could be required to have energy efficient windows for our homes or be TAXED if we don't comply. We could be required to purchase electric cars or be TAXED if we don't comply, and on and on. There is no end.

Our only hope, and it is a slim one, is to take back both branches of government in 2012. Even that is no guarantee now that this Pandora's box has been opened up.

I am still bitter over the incandescent light bulb ban that was introduced by a Republican Congressman. Needless to say, I'm hoarding bulbs....

But anyway, you get my point, think this through. I don't think it was brilliant at all. There was some discussion today that it is thought by some (of course we will never really know) that Roberts was going to vote with the conservative wing but changed his mind just days before he wrote the decision. Was his family threatened or something like that? We will never know...

No, it was not brillilant.

 

The Democrats didn't have a problem getting Obamacare through, despite public opinion.

 

Re: Justice Roberts-

There are rumors...

 

Slippery Slope Fallacy

 

It may be "constitutional" , but Obamacare is based on a mountain of lies and deceit and a corrupted process... passed by 1 vote over the objections of a majority of the American people.

That is the real reason the public hasn't accepted it and never will.

 

You are right, I just googled.

This also explains why obama was so confident the SCOTUS would rule in his favor, even though he (obama) voted against the confirmation of Justice Roberts.

 

She implied a "Slippery Slope"....but it is only "fallacious" if there is absent any reasonable expectation that the following results will occur. She might very well be able to present a perfectly well reasoned inductive argument to establish a probability that her results might occur....Such as, arguments from Political History etc...

From your own link:

She never argued "Must inevitably".....and it is only fallacious if the notion is not supportable with clarifying reasons.

 

Didn't have a problem? Don't you remember all those rancorous town hall meetings in the summer of 2009?

The vote in the House was only 2 votes over the minimum to get it passed. 34 Dems voted against it.