How is this new law going to affect those who are unemployed and have no source of income, not even unemployment? How are they going to pay a fine if they have no source of income?

There needs to be a Constitutional amendment that disallows the use of taxation for the purposes of encouraging behavior that would be a violation of the Constitution if they tried to force the behavior directly.

If they cannot Constitutionally force you to buy health insurance, they should not be allowed to tax you for not buying health insurance.

If they cannot Constitutionally force you to join a gym, they should not be allowed to tax you for not joining a gym.

If they cannot Constitutionally force you to eat broccoli, they should not be allowed to tax you for not eating broccoli.

And on and on and on... it would be a pretty simple amendment to make. But I strongly suspect that neither party wants to do that. They like the power they have over us by being able to control our wallets.

"So if you don't join a gym, you have to pay a tax."

That is a serious question. Here's one of the first google hits when I took a look. This from a liberal blogger at washington post, even.

"Barry Friedman, a New York University law professor who wrote a brief supporting Obamacare, argued that by affirming the ability to regulate with taxing power, the decision created a precedent for future regulation along these lines. “They can’t make you eat broccoli, but they can tax you for not eating it,” Friedman joked, by way of summarizing the meaning of the decision."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/broccoli-tyranny-lives/2012/06/28/gJQAwxRQ9V_blog.html

Serious question. Since making this thing a tax is the key to it being "Constitutional", does that mean the federal government can do any old thing they want now, and just call it a tax?

Example, could the government decide that people need to exercise at a gym in order to be less of a health burden to the system. So if you don't join a gym, you have to pay a tax.

This is something that needs to be changed in the Constitution if that is the case. The process for levying a tax needs to be tightened up to prevent this sort of bad behavior on the part of politicians.

I do wish there were some way we could get a genius like Thrall Voljin hooked up with Obama then we would have all our problems solved ? Hardy har har

unc70,

I know someone going to Davidson who pays 14k after their financial aid package.

NCSU? 14k

Davidson normally costs 52k. So it goes to show you that Public Education may not be the cheapest option depending on your grades etc.

UNC? 20k I understand right now. That's not cushy off campus housing either...

NC Constitution regarding higher education;

"The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense."

jeffjohnson123,

How did Obama "lose" on the Arizona case? SCOTUS struck it down almost entirely. The one part it didn't was already SCOTUS law, and even then they felt the need to warn against profiling.

How can striking down 3/4ths of Arizona's statute be a "lose" for Obama? I'm confused by that characterization. Seems like quite the "win" to me.

"His LOSS on the immigration bill in Arizona has motivated him to manipulate federal support and open a hotline to help illegals in Arizona"

You mean the loss where 3 out of 4 points were shot down by SCotUS, and the 4th point has no real teeth anymore? that loss? ROFL!

I guess this 'win' for Obama is making him even more brazen. His LOSS on the immigration bill in Arizona has motivated him to manipulate federal support and open a hotline to help illegals in Arizona. He is subversively underminining our democratic process. ODictator cares nothing for America or its history.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
<prev	next>

sort order: oldest first | newest first