Forward? Only with his socialist utopian dreams. Remember when Obama was against raising taxes on anyone in a recession? Or rather, danced around the notion with lip service to settle the masses in '09...
Now back to today...
TheRightScoop: Today Obama began his newest class warfare campaign announcing that he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts but only for the so-called middle class, which amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on anyone making over $250k/yr in the midst of a terribly sluggish economy, which we all know is eventually a tax increase on all Americans.
Ok, that last bit about being "eventually a tax increase on all Americans"...well, Steny Hoyer gave us a glimpse into the post-election reality...
"I think the President initially has it just about right at the $250[K]. I want to say that I'd be prepared to go lower at sometime in the future than that..."
The 'future' meaning 'after we get our guy back in'. And don't let Pelosi or Schumer fool you either...they've already backed off their $1 million mark. And besides, they were only masking what Hoyer's blurting out anyway!
H/T: WashingtonFreeBeacon, Mark Levin
ADDENDUM: Levin elaborates on the shell game related to what Hoyer let slip out on Monday...
...and as Rush just reminded everyone on Wednesday's program, not only are Obama's proposed extension of the Bush tax cuts not 'cuts' at all, they're the current 'rates' (so don't be fooled with the nonsense of cuts), but Obama's tax proposal also accommodates the first $250K of everyone, even those evil rich...so kinda subverts his own angle. However, his class warfare rhetoric will still override this reality for most of the populace. Obama counts on the ill-informed.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Back to 'rich vs poor' in job creation...or stagnation
Reuters: President Barack Obama on Monday called for Congress to extend by a year Bush-era tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000 annually and said letting tax rates rise for higher earners would not hurt small businesses.
"This isn't about taxing job creators, this is about helping job creators," Obama said at the White House, noting that 97 percent of all U.S. small business owners would fall under the $250,000 a year income threshold.
...more platitudes atop more BS stats. He's helping job creators? Barack Obama wouldn't know where to begin. Besides being at odds with his fellow Dems -- who say the Bush tax cuts should be extended to those making up to $1 Million -- I think Victor Davis Hanson has a better gauge on what Obama really wants for job creation...
If one wanted to ensure permanent 8 percent to 9 percent unemployment, one might try the following:
1. Run up serial $1 trillion deficits.
2. Add $5 trillion to the national debt in three and a half years.
3. Impose a 2,400-page, trillion-dollar new federal takeover of health care, with layers of new taxation, much of it falling on the middle class and employers, even as favored concerns are given mass exemptions.
4. Scare employers with constant us/them class warfare rhetoric about a demonized one-percenter class and its undeserved profits; constantly talk about raising new taxes and imposing regulations, ensuring uncertainty and convincing employers of unpredictability in regulation and taxes. You cannot convince a country to go into permanent near-recession, but President Obama is doing his best to try.
5. Appoint a bipartisan committee to study the fiscal crisis and then neglect all its recommendations.
6. Subsidize failed green companies, while denigrating successful gas and oil concerns, as well as putting rich oil-and-gas federal leases off limits.
7. Vastly increase unemployment insurance, disability, and food-stamp constituencies, while promising all sorts of mortgage, credit-card, and student-loan bailouts.
8. Borrow hundreds of billions for stimulus programs that are not shovel ready, but are rather aimed to bail out state budgets, pensions, and unions.
9. Federalize elements of non-profitable private companies, while threatening to shut down profitable plants for supposed union or environmental incorrect behavior.
10. Do not address changing the above policies, but rather blame others for such self-induced stagnation.
Do the above and you can pretty much always ensure something like the present slow-down.
It's not coincidental, folks. This is the blueprint. Hanson concludes, "We are now at an impasse: The nation is shrugging, and will the president try to coax it to start lifting again, or in petulance, add more weight?" I think you know the answer in regards to this man, particularly in his pursuit of an all-powerful government and a subservient people.
Majority says Obama has changed country for the worse
TheHill: Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.
A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.
The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall.
It found 68 percent of likely voters — regardless of whether they approve or disapprove of Obama — believe the president has substantially transformed the country since his 2009 inauguration.
The feeling that Obama has changed the country for the worse is strongest among Republicans, at 91 percent, compared to 71 percent of Democrats who support Obama’s brand of change.
Strikingly, 1-in-5 Democrats say they feel Obama has changed the United States for the worse.
So...why are some polls showing that Obama still has an edge in swing states? Something's not adding up, and this is why polls are always a coin toss. But even with the fuzzy math, perhaps this is why conservatives were screaming for a stronger candidate. Just a thought...
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Happy 4th of July, America!
And with all the tumult and impediments to Liberty that we find ourselves facing these days, it is of vital importance that we remind ourselves exactly why we declared our INDEPENDENCE in the first place. Thus, we reflect on the most profound declaration of Liberty in human history...
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
We salute all of those who've sacrificed everything in the pursuit of this maximum profession of Liberty. May ALL of America strive to find its way back to these ideals......and may we all be willing to add our names to its sacred pledge.
Now, a prayer for our country...
ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of thy favour and glad to do thy will. Bless our land with honourable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those to whom in thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that, through obedience to thy law, we may show forth thy praise among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in thee to fail; all which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
ADDENDUM: This is also worth adding...and remembering...
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Rush's pearls of wisdom
Thought it'd be beneficial to compile some salient points Rush has made throughout yesterday & today's broadcasts:
"We wouldn’t be anywhere near where we are if all three branches were devoted to defending the Constitution as they swear under oath to do, we wouldn’t be here. So now we are basically in a campaign for the survival of the United States of America as founded."
There is no silver lining in the Obamacare ruling.
Rush tells the GOP to stop wasting it's time...
...and provides some advice for Romney: 'This election is a referendum on Barack Obama.'
Source: DailyRushbo
"We wouldn’t be anywhere near where we are if all three branches were devoted to defending the Constitution as they swear under oath to do, we wouldn’t be here. So now we are basically in a campaign for the survival of the United States of America as founded."
There is no silver lining in the Obamacare ruling.
Rush tells the GOP to stop wasting it's time...
...and provides some advice for Romney: 'This election is a referendum on Barack Obama.'
Source: DailyRushbo
Workers on Federal 'Disability' Exceed NYC population
Call it a deficiency, whether of desparation or corruption. File this along with food stamps, and this is what three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration's economy has led to...
CNSNews: A record of 8,733,461 workers took federal disability insurance payments in June 2012, according to the Social Security Administration. That was up from 8,707,185 in May.
It also exceeds the entire population of New York City, which according to the Census Bureau's latest estimate hit 8,244,910 in July 2011.
There has been a dramatic shrinkage in the United States over the past 20 years in the number of workers actually employed and earning paychecks per worker who is not employed and is taking federal disability insurance payments.
What a recovery! I just have to wonder if these recipients even know, or care, that they're taking from the Social Security rolls...nah, what am I saying.
Everything these guys promote...doesn't remake America, it further destroys it.
It also exceeds the entire population of New York City, which according to the Census Bureau's latest estimate hit 8,244,910 in July 2011.
There has been a dramatic shrinkage in the United States over the past 20 years in the number of workers actually employed and earning paychecks per worker who is not employed and is taking federal disability insurance payments.
What a recovery! I just have to wonder if these recipients even know, or care, that they're taking from the Social Security rolls...nah, what am I saying.
Everything these guys promote...doesn't remake America, it further destroys it.
Dragging them in the right direction
...and that's the consistent problem with establishment RINOs.
This morning you may have heard a capitulating perspective from Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell that makes conservatives wonder why he's the leader of the Republican Senators and how we can get a better, more energized fighter in his place. Here's the line that's being repeated in the media...file this under 'what not to say', Mitch:
"If you thought it was a good idea for the federal government to go in this direction, I'd say the odds are still on your side, because it's a lot harder to undo something than it is to stop it in the first place."
(via WHAS11)
Instead, it's the later comments that he should emphatically state with a smidgen of emotion, if possible (i.e., 'what to say')...
"I don't think there's any bigger issue in the fall election, except for the general state of the economy, in which this has contributed to making so poor. [The] Chief Justice has made it clear that it's a tax. That's the last word; it's a tax. That's appropriate for the Senate to consider with 51 votes."
There's the parliamentary procedures we're looking for, Mitch. If they can use them to ram bad legislation down our throats, surely the GOP can use those same procedures to stop it when they regain power.
When asked if the Republicans really want to run on a platform of "taking something away that President Obama has secured," McConnell quickly responded, "Sure. We're gonna take away the half-a-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, take away $500 billion in new taxes. We'll be happy to take that away."
Where was this McConnell, or at least his language, in that town hall? Just give us some fight, man. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
This latest partial capitulation follows yesterday's notification from the Romney camp that they really had no plans to hammer the administration on the Obamacare-turned-Obamatax issue, per Chief Justice Roberts' decision. Sigh. We, conservatives, knew fighting against this mandate would be Romney's weakness. Makes one feel kinda like Ben Howe's piece over at RedState after describing his earlier warnings about a Romney nomination:
And now Romney receives his first test on this. Obamacare is declared a tax, and the Romney camp seems to be cowering away.
I’m willing to give them some time on this one before I give up on their messaging. I’d like to see Obama trapped by their tactic or perhaps see a video that can adequately present the issue in a way that the masses can accept.
Until then I can’t put this in a win category. After Thursday’s SCOTUS decision, many of us took solace in the fact that Obama would have to defend his tax record. Despite the positive spin that the Romney camp is putting out, they seem to have destroyed the only glimmer of optimism we were able to pull out of that judicial tragedy.
Perhaps the Romney camp should just try something like this:
Look, I recognize that we shouldn't get caught up in the 'tax-or-penalty' semantics (as Levin says, "call it a tax, call it a penalty, call it a cucumber!"). Nor should the pre-capitulation start before the fight's even begun, as with McConnell's mixed messages. And I know we face the stark realities that Rush is expressing right now on the air, "Obamacare is the law of the land. There is no silver lining. The Constitution has been turned on its head." So now we must figure out how to move beyond this great loss of Liberty for the time being to work diligently towards informing more voters of the detriments of this massive entitlement, in both the scope of government overreach and the havoc that's about to be unleashed on our society. Then we must work to defeat this march towards tyranny at the ballot box before its full implementation. That is the way to halt it...reversing it only comes afterwards. I just pray that these early incongruencies among the GOP leadership find some focus to help us defeat this president and his statist objectives. We shouldn't have to drag the GOP in the right direction to realize this.
"If you thought it was a good idea for the federal government to go in this direction, I'd say the odds are still on your side, because it's a lot harder to undo something than it is to stop it in the first place."
(via WHAS11)
Instead, it's the later comments that he should emphatically state with a smidgen of emotion, if possible (i.e., 'what to say')...
"I don't think there's any bigger issue in the fall election, except for the general state of the economy, in which this has contributed to making so poor. [The] Chief Justice has made it clear that it's a tax. That's the last word; it's a tax. That's appropriate for the Senate to consider with 51 votes."
There's the parliamentary procedures we're looking for, Mitch. If they can use them to ram bad legislation down our throats, surely the GOP can use those same procedures to stop it when they regain power.
When asked if the Republicans really want to run on a platform of "taking something away that President Obama has secured," McConnell quickly responded, "Sure. We're gonna take away the half-a-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, take away $500 billion in new taxes. We'll be happy to take that away."
Where was this McConnell, or at least his language, in that town hall? Just give us some fight, man. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
And now Romney receives his first test on this. Obamacare is declared a tax, and the Romney camp seems to be cowering away.
I’m willing to give them some time on this one before I give up on their messaging. I’d like to see Obama trapped by their tactic or perhaps see a video that can adequately present the issue in a way that the masses can accept.
Until then I can’t put this in a win category. After Thursday’s SCOTUS decision, many of us took solace in the fact that Obama would have to defend his tax record. Despite the positive spin that the Romney camp is putting out, they seem to have destroyed the only glimmer of optimism we were able to pull out of that judicial tragedy.
Perhaps the Romney camp should just try something like this:
Look, I recognize that we shouldn't get caught up in the 'tax-or-penalty' semantics (as Levin says, "call it a tax, call it a penalty, call it a cucumber!"). Nor should the pre-capitulation start before the fight's even begun, as with McConnell's mixed messages. And I know we face the stark realities that Rush is expressing right now on the air, "Obamacare is the law of the land. There is no silver lining. The Constitution has been turned on its head." So now we must figure out how to move beyond this great loss of Liberty for the time being to work diligently towards informing more voters of the detriments of this massive entitlement, in both the scope of government overreach and the havoc that's about to be unleashed on our society. Then we must work to defeat this march towards tyranny at the ballot box before its full implementation. That is the way to halt it...reversing it only comes afterwards. I just pray that these early incongruencies among the GOP leadership find some focus to help us defeat this president and his statist objectives. We shouldn't have to drag the GOP in the right direction to realize this.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Obamacon who helped enact assault-weapons ban, ran Fast & Furious
CNSNews: Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama's transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.
So, will Mr. Burke provide a convenient scapegoat for Holder and the administration or will he blow the whistle on this corrupt regime? Well, with the dedication so many of these true believers display, chances are he'll remain lockstep with the contemptable one.
These people will do anything for control...even walking guns to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the death of one border-patrol agent and countless Mexican citizens, just to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Pelosi: “No, it's a penalty. No, it's a penalty.”
We all heard Carney on behalf of the administration come out on Friday with this cockamamie excuse why Obamacare, which was ruled a tax by Roberts, is not actually a 'tax', it's a 'penalty':
"It's a penalty because you have a choice," Carney said. "You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right? You have a choice to buy -- if you can afford health insurance. … So if you don't buy it, and you can afford it, it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America's taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room. So your choice is to purchase healthcare reform or a penalty will be administered."
Choice? And these guys are going to talk about responsibility? That's rich. Well, Nance doubled down this weekend on the Democrat selling point as well...
HotAir: Democrats had a little trouble with their messaging yesterday in the wake of what should have been a big victory for them last week at the Supreme Court. Instead, the legal victory has given way to a huge political headache, and perhaps even a linguistic headache as well. How can Democrats argue that ObamaCare isn’t a huge tax when the Supreme Court decision that upheld it clearly states that it’s only constitutional as a huge tax? Nancy Pelosi tried arguing that it’s not a tax but a penalty when challenged by David Gregory on Meet the Press, but even she couldn’t spit that one out cleanly.
You're a free rider, Nance! Seriously, is anybody actually buying Nancy's BS?
Ed Morrissey concludes quite correctly:
"Of course the mandate is a tax, and neither Gregory nor Chris Wallace with Jack Lew actually get to the heart of the problem. Both of them limit the tax question to just the penalty, but the mandate requires taxpayers to spend a significant amount of money in a very narrow way. They must buy health insurance from private providers — and not just any insurance or a plan that best meets their own specific needs, but a one-size-fits-all plan — or pay a penalty to the IRS. That’s a tax either way; the only difference is who collects it. It’s the first federal tax applied in general to the public (as opposed to an excise tax on certain sales transactions that could be avoided by not participating in that kind of trade, for instance) that has to be paid to a private entity rather than government. Either way, though, the government forces taxpayers to spend that money just on the basis of their existence, and that’s clearly a tax even if you never have to pay the penalty to the IRS."
And with this new tax comes "nearly 4000" new IRS agents who are "slated for enforcement." Yeah, Nancy, there's no way this isn't a tax!
And remember, this is the lady who thinks jail time is "very fair" for failure to purchase Obamacare coverage...
ADDENDUM: Good point from Rush today about Nancy's mocking of free riders...
"This is the party that celebrates free riders. This is the party that devotes itself to creating even more free riders. This is a party that could not survive without free riders and freeloaders. This is a party that does everything it can to make people as dependent as possible on the government. Free riders, freeloaders. And now this ruling is apparently so distasteful that the Democrat Party has to do a 180 and start attacking their own voters. Well, what happened to the precious 30 to 50 million uninsured? This is the piece de resistance, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi mocking free riders. The entire mission of the Democrat Party is to create more and more free riders. Haven’t they seen to it that almost half the country doesn’t pay income tax, a bunch of free riders?"
"It's a penalty because you have a choice," Carney said. "You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right? You have a choice to buy -- if you can afford health insurance. … So if you don't buy it, and you can afford it, it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America's taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room. So your choice is to purchase healthcare reform or a penalty will be administered."
HotAir: Democrats had a little trouble with their messaging yesterday in the wake of what should have been a big victory for them last week at the Supreme Court. Instead, the legal victory has given way to a huge political headache, and perhaps even a linguistic headache as well. How can Democrats argue that ObamaCare isn’t a huge tax when the Supreme Court decision that upheld it clearly states that it’s only constitutional as a huge tax? Nancy Pelosi tried arguing that it’s not a tax but a penalty when challenged by David Gregory on Meet the Press, but even she couldn’t spit that one out cleanly.
You're a free rider, Nance! Seriously, is anybody actually buying Nancy's BS?
Ed Morrissey concludes quite correctly:
"Of course the mandate is a tax, and neither Gregory nor Chris Wallace with Jack Lew actually get to the heart of the problem. Both of them limit the tax question to just the penalty, but the mandate requires taxpayers to spend a significant amount of money in a very narrow way. They must buy health insurance from private providers — and not just any insurance or a plan that best meets their own specific needs, but a one-size-fits-all plan — or pay a penalty to the IRS. That’s a tax either way; the only difference is who collects it. It’s the first federal tax applied in general to the public (as opposed to an excise tax on certain sales transactions that could be avoided by not participating in that kind of trade, for instance) that has to be paid to a private entity rather than government. Either way, though, the government forces taxpayers to spend that money just on the basis of their existence, and that’s clearly a tax even if you never have to pay the penalty to the IRS."
And with this new tax comes "nearly 4000" new IRS agents who are "slated for enforcement." Yeah, Nancy, there's no way this isn't a tax!
And remember, this is the lady who thinks jail time is "very fair" for failure to purchase Obamacare coverage...
ADDENDUM: Good point from Rush today about Nancy's mocking of free riders...
"This is the party that celebrates free riders. This is the party that devotes itself to creating even more free riders. This is a party that could not survive without free riders and freeloaders. This is a party that does everything it can to make people as dependent as possible on the government. Free riders, freeloaders. And now this ruling is apparently so distasteful that the Democrat Party has to do a 180 and start attacking their own voters. Well, what happened to the precious 30 to 50 million uninsured? This is the piece de resistance, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi mocking free riders. The entire mission of the Democrat Party is to create more and more free riders. Haven’t they seen to it that almost half the country doesn’t pay income tax, a bunch of free riders?"
Benedict Arnold rides again...in a robe this time
"So now, the Washington/New York media runs the Supreme Court..." ~ Rush
The story is starting to come out...and it ain't pretty, folks. It's now becoming apparent that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court caved to media/administrative pressure to be liked and to get along. Way to stick to conviction, John...
Newbusters: CBS News broke a huge story on Sunday's Face the Nation concerning the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on ObamaCare.
According to Jan Crawford, CBS legal and political correspondent, Chief Justice John Roberts was initially going to strike down the individual mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance, but changed his mind over the objections of the conservatives on the Court.
CBSNews: Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
So instead of sticking to principle and preserving what individual liberties we have left, Benedict Arnold rides again...in a robe this time. Although we may be able to battle this particular provision in the House, as it's now been deemed a tax, the ruling handed down by the Chief Justice sets an extremely dangerous precedence in how much power the federal government is allowed to wield against the people that will be reference for years to come.
What a coward...
ADDENDUM I: Wow, Law professor John Eastman is ticked, as he has every right to be, along with the rest of us...
“If the assumption is right, that he thinks was unconstitutional but found a way to uphold it to preserve the integrity of the court, then he really ought to resign because it proves he doesn’t have the judicial fortitude to do the job that he’s been chosen to do.”
It looks like it was worse than that piss-poor excuse, Mr. Eastman. Rather, he just folded to pressure, and said it was to "preserve the integrity of the court." Sickening.
But if I might make one request...Roberts should resign after Obama's out!
ADDENDUM II: In discussing the folly of Roberts' flip-flop with Cavuto earlier Monday, Levin brought up the concept of term limits for federal judges, especially if they're going to play politics on the High Court...
The story is starting to come out...and it ain't pretty, folks. It's now becoming apparent that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court caved to media/administrative pressure to be liked and to get along. Way to stick to conviction, John...
Newbusters: CBS News broke a huge story on Sunday's Face the Nation concerning the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on ObamaCare.
According to Jan Crawford, CBS legal and political correspondent, Chief Justice John Roberts was initially going to strike down the individual mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance, but changed his mind over the objections of the conservatives on the Court.
CBSNews: Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
So instead of sticking to principle and preserving what individual liberties we have left, Benedict Arnold rides again...in a robe this time. Although we may be able to battle this particular provision in the House, as it's now been deemed a tax, the ruling handed down by the Chief Justice sets an extremely dangerous precedence in how much power the federal government is allowed to wield against the people that will be reference for years to come.
What a coward...
ADDENDUM I: Wow, Law professor John Eastman is ticked, as he has every right to be, along with the rest of us...
“If the assumption is right, that he thinks was unconstitutional but found a way to uphold it to preserve the integrity of the court, then he really ought to resign because it proves he doesn’t have the judicial fortitude to do the job that he’s been chosen to do.”
It looks like it was worse than that piss-poor excuse, Mr. Eastman. Rather, he just folded to pressure, and said it was to "preserve the integrity of the court." Sickening.
But if I might make one request...Roberts should resign after Obama's out!
ADDENDUM II: In discussing the folly of Roberts' flip-flop with Cavuto earlier Monday, Levin brought up the concept of term limits for federal judges, especially if they're going to play politics on the High Court...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)