No, it seems that a something is a lie only when you feel like it is a lie.
Let's look at it:Right. Not to derail the thread but if George Zimmerman had said it, it would as gospel to our less speedy friend.
Let's look at it:
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Oops! Turns out it is a lie after all
Nope.
If you don't buy it, will you be taxed? If so, then Obama lied as long as your income is under $250KAnd he is right, is he not? If you buy health insurance you will have to pay NO additional tax. The choice is up to you. DO you want to buy insurance or pay a tax? No one can make that choice but you.
That seems a bit disingenuous on your part, Touma.And he is right, is he not? If you buy health insurance you will have to pay NO additional tax. The choice is up to you. DO you want to buy insurance or pay a tax? No one can make that choice but you.
If you don't buy it, will you be taxed? If so, then Obama lied as long as your income is under $250K
That seems a bit disingenuous on your part, Touma.
It's thousands of dollars more for many families ... a direct contradiction with Obama's statement. Just FACT.
I'm understanding the decision to mean that the actual purchase of healthcare insurance is a tax itself.That seems a bit disingenuous on your part, Touma.
It's thousands of dollars more for many families ... a direct contradiction with Obama's statement. Just FACT.
I'm understanding the decision to mean that the actual purchase of healthcare insurance is a tax itself.
Your world maybe. Since this is the first mention of it being a tax on this forum, it makes it a goalpost shuffle. It's OK though mate, I understand you are in pain.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7643816/#post601146151. whether this is a penalty or a tax (Constitutionally the Federal Government can only tax, but if this is a tax then according to the Anti-Injunction Act comes into play--the court cannot act until the injury when a person is has to pay the fine.)
I guess she was busy moving the goal posts months before huh?Yeah, right. Obama first told us that it was not a tax--it was a penalty. (He promised not to tax anyone making less than 250,000 then 200,000 then 170,000--oh I don't know what he calls the middle class now.) Then when he realized that the Constitution only gives permission for the federal government to tax, he told the courts it was a tax. (Really enjoyed that one Supreme noting that it's argued to be a tax, and then the next day a penalty--and asked "which is it?")
She supports Obamacare.. wonder why she's moving the goalposts?They are not forced to pay for insurance; they could choose to pay the penalty instead.
Gosh another post from months ago! HOWARETHEYDOINGTHAT?!Beginning in 2014, the federal government will impose new fines on citizens and legal residents who do not obtain government-approved insurance. Those without insurance will pay a tax that is the greater of a flat fee, or a percentage of family income. The flat fee will be phased in over several years. In 2014, the penalty will be $95 per adult in an uninsured household, increasing to $325 in 2015, then to $695 in 2016, after which it will increase annually in line with consumer inflation.
There's what word again! I thought it was a TAX?! What do these people from months ago know that people whose world is only CF don't?!"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."
From MARCH?! How are they doing this?! This has to be a moving of the goal posts from the past!Yesterday was about whether the Supreme court could decide the case or not (whether or not the penalty is a tax.)
http://www.christianforums.com/t7452330/#post54369571(who actually caught the Solicitor General in a lie--repeatedly calling a penalty a tax) and mustn't forget Justice Ginsberg (and her unfortunate admission)?
From 2010! How are they going back in time and moving the goalposts?!andate requiring purchase of Obamacare-approved health insurance or payment of a penalty fine. As Fox News has pointed out, for instance, the Amish are excused from the mandate:
Another 2010 post.... Has anyone seen the Doctor?Medicare is being cut and the government is arguing in court that the penalty we will all have to pay if we don't have this insurance is really a tax, plus we have all that Stimulus money to pay for (I think our children will be taxed this time.)
A blue police box maybe?8 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
If Romney plays this right, Obama is doomed as far as reelection goes.
Like the Supreme Court legal experts?They used to anyway. We'll see how this plays out as the legal experts study the decision.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?