Thread: The Income Tax is the Villain

Before Hillarycare II was rammed through Congress Democrats told horror stories about people without coverage. Now, Democrats are telling happy stories about people who owe life and limb to the healthcare bill. In both cases the same millions were either victims or beneficiaries —— “millions” is the number Democrats want credit for saving. I guess that shows their culture of death isn’t so bad after all.

I’m not going to waste my time listening to pundits telling me what the bill means. I’ll wait a few weeks to find out if the High Court dealt with the items I want to cover. I’ve selected a half dozen that I think are important enough to merit discussion apart from the rest. Not enough was said about them before or since the bill was passed. I’m pretty sure nobody is going to discuss them on the talk shows now that judges gave Democrats what they wanted by calling it constitutional.

1. Affirmative action.

Affirmative action was always an integral part of imposing socialized medicine on the country. Keeping your own doctor is one of the biggest lies Hussein & Company told in order to sell Hillarycare II. The fact is the government is now a giant, constitutionally-approved, HMO. If your doctor retires, or if you have to see a doctor for the first time for any reason, you take the doctor the government tells you to take —— PERIOD. That includes specialists that you or your minor children might need.

2. Funding Hussein’s Ready Reserve Corps.

Not only will parasites pour into the healthcare industry, it is anybody’s guess as to how many hate-filled street punks, drug addicts, and perverts will be given GUNS and government incomes when they sign up with the Ready Reserve Corps.

It is in the healthcare bill:

Page 1312 of the now signed-into-law Senate version of ObamaCare provides for funding of Obama’s private militia referred to as “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps” Sec. 5210. This “Corps” is given broad powers to control the US citizenry

Obama's Private Militia, Student Loans, Nuclear Arsenals
Today’s New Atrocity: The Beginning of USA Disarmament
By Sher Zieve Friday, March 26, 2010

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21392

Hussein’s Ready Reserve Corps was designed to be a para-military force before it found its way into the healthcare bill. Originally, Hussein called for a civilian national security force. In a speech on July 2, 2008 then-Senator Obama said:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Hussein’s three prerequisites necessitate well-trained if the Ready Reserve Corps is going to carry out his agenda although he failed to include that little detail. National security was the hook he used to get the Ready Reserve Corps up and running. The healthcare bill gave him the personal goon squad he wanted all along. The Supreme Court put its imprimatur on it.

3. Universal coverage.

When Democrats were trying to sell the bill they said that every American would be covered. At the time there were supposedly 40 million uninsured Americans. After Hussein signed the bill it turned out there were 12 or so million who were still not covered. You’d have to be a fool not to know that there will always be millions in need of coverage. So long as there are millions without insurance the parasites can use the same story to keep coming back for more.

4. Funding abortions.

When Obamacare was signed into law in March, the President assured Americans that it does not, in any way, shape, or form, fund elective abortions. He even signed an executive order to this effect. The only problem with Obama's claims, which are being repeated by politicians like Harry Reid and partisan groups like Democrats for Life of America, is that they are not true.

The only real abortion restriction in Obamacare was in fact removed before the President signed the bill into law.

Does Obamacare Fund Abortion? Let Us Count the Ways.
By Steven W. Mosher Weekly Briefing: 2010 (v12)

http://www.pop.org/content/does-obam...-us-count-ways

Here’s how it’s being done:

As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “The final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.

“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortion Surcharge in
ObamaCare by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/12/12 7:11 PM

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/o...-in-obamacare/

5. Death panels.

The death panels that Hussein & Company swore were not in the bill are now securely wrapped in the Constitution.

Supreme Court decisions are supposed to clarify but more often than not they obfuscate. Upholding the healthcare law decision is an exception in that it did make two things clear; 1) social legislation is about the government’s Right to kill; 2) expanding the size and power of the parasite class. Everything else is misdirection.

NOTE: Long before death panels came along, seven lawyers on the Supreme Court began the killing when they decided infanticide was lawful. Government killing will only expand from here on.

6. Illegal aliens get free medical care.

Tax dollars paying for abortions and free medical care for illegals were not supposed to be in the bill:

Remember when South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson called out “You Lie!” when Obama claimed in his 2009 state of the union address that his Obamacare plan would never go to care for illegal aliens? Well, turns out Wilson was right. We now know that Obama did lie. His latest move has been to turn Obamacare to benefit illegals just like Wilson said it would.

Last week the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it was funneling Obamacare cash to 67 community health centers where the money would be used for migrant farm workers. HHS also informed us that the immigration status of said farm workers would not be ascertained before free care was given meaning that illegal aliens would be given Obamacare funding.

Obama DID Lie: Obamacare Now Paying for Illegal Immigrants
Written By : Warner Todd Huston

http://www.rightwingnews.com/democra...al-immigrants/

Aside from the tax, will anything else in Hillarycare II help bring about repeal? Or will it come down to simply repealing one specific tax? which is how the Court defined the individual mandate. I don’t know the answer. Alas, imposing a tax appears to be a lot easier than is repealing one.

NOTE: If it’s about taxes the healthcare law could trigger a move to repeal the Income Tax Amendment. In that sense upholding the government’s Right to tax is a blessing in disguise. None of the garbage the parasite class gets away with is possible without taxing the incomes of producers.

Finally, assuming Hillarycare II will be repealed the parasite class will regroup and attack from another direction. Before that happens an amendment to the Constitution must quickly follow repeal. An amendment prohibiting the government from punishing the behavior of law-abiding citizens is the only way to stop them. Why must they be stopped from dictating behavior? The answer is in the Eric Hoffer quote following my signature.

Granny says Obama's win may cost him the election...

Analysis: Victory for Obama now, but what of election?
28 June`12 WASHINGTON – After the health care law passed in 2010, President Obama and his aides celebrated the passage of his signature achievement with a toast on the Truman Balcony at the White House.

When the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision Thursday that upheld most of the law, the response was more muted. That was because the political impact on November's hard-fought election is at least mixed. The court decision that lets the signature achievement of Obama's first term stand avoided what would have been a calamitous rebuke for the former constitutional law professor who had staked so much of his presidency on passing it.

Still, Republicans can argue to voters that the only way to repeal what they call Obamacare is at the ballot box, a message that is sure to energize those who most avidly oppose the law. "The Supreme Court gives Obama a legacy and gives Romney an issue of now greater potency," says William Galston of the Brookings Institution. Obama praised the decision in the East Room, the same spot where he signed the law with such high hopes two years ago. "It should be clear by now that I didn't do this because it was good politics," Obama said. "I did it because it was good for the country."

Even after some of the most popular provisions of the law have gone into effect — helping seniors with prescription costs and allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance plans — most Americans have yet to embrace the law: 52% in an ABC News/Washington Post poll last week said they have an "unfavorable impression" of it. When Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, spoke to reporters a few minutes before Obama did, his podium was festooned with a sign that declared, "Repeal and Replace Obamacare." "It's obviously a big policy win in terms of the Affordable Care Act," says Phil Musser, a Republican strategist who was senior adviser for Tim Pawlenty's presidential bid. "But this will mobilize the hell out of conservatives in the fall."

Mike Franc of the conservative Heritage Foundation says the financial impact of the law on the middle class will probably become a key Romney talking point on the campaign trail in the coming months. "It won't be the only talking point," he says, "but it will probably be the first one." The money started rolling in almost immediately after the decision. The conservative group Americans For Prosperity announced it was launching a $9 million advertising blitz today to make the case that Obama "forced through the largest tax in American history." By evening, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul announced the campaign had received more than $2.5 million in contributions.

MORE

See also:

As Obama Fails Again, Voters Have Only One Choice
6/29/12 --- Despite Democrat, Republican and media attempts to create a meaningful and controversial wedge, in practice we operate an incredibly narrow political spectrum in the U.S.

New boss, same as the old boss. This old adage of political frustration has never rung more true than it has during Barack Obama's tenure as president of the United States. The first real hope for true social liberals since the late, great Robert F. Kennedy quickly turned into little more than just another political hack. If you label yourself a liberal, gag on the thought, and stop being so kind. Don't call Obama pragmatic. Don't say he reached across the aisle. Don't tell me he compromised. Stop with the euphemisms.

Obama is not a liberal. There is no such thing as an American liberal. You have moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. Together they form the middle. Liberals and conservatives, in the true, non-media-generated sense of the words, simply do not exist. Political hacks litter the landscape. If you want national health care, your dream died with Obama. Folks who favor a national, single-payer, public option, Canadian-style health care system lost the moment Obama folded like a house of cards on the matter.

When we stopped debating the public option, we entered into a meaningless discussion driven by blowhards ranging from Sean Hannity to the now-canned Keith Olbermann, respectively at Fox News and MSNBC. The anti-national health care side scored a major victory when the public option died but, of course, they will never admit it. They need to create the perception that, thanks to so-called liberals, "socialists" and Obama, the sky continues to fall. This is how they compete to win elections.

At the end of the day, health care coverage in America has always been tied to employment status and/or how much money you have. Obamacare does little to change that in any meaningful way. Your job and your income continues to dictate the circumstances and cost of your health care. Bottom line. End of story.

Source

Every problem the American people have should be so easy:

I took a break from my usual habits and watched Morning Joe this morning (an interesting reminder, incidentally, that "liberal" MSNBC dedicates hours of programming every day to conservative punditry shows) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was on, explaining that if Republicans win in November, they'll repeal the Affordable Care Act. Tom Brokaw said no way because of the filibuster. Cantor said Democrats passed the bill under reconciliation orders, so Republicans will unpass it under the same.

The Filibuster Won't Save Obamacare From President Romney
By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Friday, June 29, 2012, at 8:13 AM ET

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...t_romney_.html

Reconciliation orders will not matter in the fight to repeal Hillarycare II if those 21 Democrat senators who are running for reelection are swept out of office while the ten Republican seats stay Republican.

Serendipitously, Democrats losing 21 seats should be more than enough to overcome RINO votes.

Originally Posted by Flanders

Every problem the American people have should be so easy:



The Filibuster Won't Save Obamacare From President Romney
By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Friday, June 29, 2012, at 8:13 AM ET

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...t_romney_.html

Reconciliation orders will not matter in the fight to repeal Hillarycare II if those 21 Democrat senators who are running for reelection are swept out of office while the ten Republican seats stay Republican.

Serendipitously, Democrats losing 21 seats should be more than enough to overcome RINO votes.

Well they must have 51 votes in the Senate if the Democrats hold 50 or more seats its a deadlock. And Obama must not be re-elected that immediately kills any repeal outright unless by some miracle they can get the votes to override a presidential veto (not likely by a long shot). Many states have Gerrymandered districts locking in seats pretty ironclad and so what is the odds of a turnover as noted by this post, a very big long shot.

Now the threat is they can defund the program by removing the taxes that would still leave the law largely in place and just unfunded, that leaves the general revenues to be used to do so not the taxes in the law thats all. And here are states that are jumping on board with the law and a strong minority of voters do support it you cannot ignore a possible backlash in the elections after a repeal.

Originally Posted by tkolter

And here are states that are jumping on board with the law and a strong minority of voters do support it you cannot ignore a possible backlash in the elections after a repeal.

To tkolter: There is no backlash involved. Those who have a vested interest in Hillarycare II are a minority to be sure. I do not know how they can be any stronger than they've been all along. In fact, you can say it was weak minority all along because Democrats had to lie like hell just to pass the bill.

Those who want Hillarycare II repealed are the majority by far. Your backlash implies that many in the majority will change their minds after it is repealed and vote Republicans out in the midterm elections. That ain’t going to happen. In addition, conservative Republicans will get a lot of credit when they pass a few basic changes the public can support rather than pass another huge panoptic bill. One sure vote-getter in 2014 is competition in the medical insurance industry. The trick is in doing a bunch of small easily-understood laws.

Affirmative action was always an integral part of imposing socialized medicine on the country

The OP doesn't make much sense. This is a particularly "eh?" comment. Might want to work on that!

Granny says, "Dat's right - it ain't gonna just tax dem rich folks...

Obama’s Middle Class ‘Tax Cut’ Would Raise Taxes by $1.3 Trillion Over Eight Years
July 9, 2012 – The policy that President Obama described Monday as a middle-class tax cut would result in taxpayers paying nearly $1.3 trillion more over an eight-year period than they would have under his previous proposal, according to Congressional Budget Office figures.

“I’m calling on Congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 per year for another year,” Obama said at the White House Monday. Obama’s proposal would mean the tax rates on people (and small businesses) making $250,000 or more a year would rise at the end of 2012, as scheduled, while tax increases on everyone else would be delayed by one year. Currently, all tax rates are scheduled to rise at midnight on December 31, 2012, when the lower Bush tax rates are due to expire. The new policy is a shift from the one Obama presented in his 2013 budget, which called for the lower Bush tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 a year to be made permanent.

While the CBO has not yet done an analysis of Obama’s new suggestions, its analysis of his previous proposal offers insight into just how large a tax increase Obama is in fact proposing. In its analysis of his 2013 budget proposal, CBO estimated that the government would forgo $1.34 trillion in revenue from 2013 to 2022. For the period 2014 to 2022, that figure is $1.26 trillion. In other words, had Obama’s original plan been enacted, the government would have taken $1.26 trillion less from Americans making less than $250,000 per year between 2014 and 2022 because current tax rates for those earners would have remained in place.

Now, however, Obama plans to allow those rates to rise in 2014 -- meaning that the government will not be giving up the $1.26 trillion estimated by the CBO. Instead, under Obama’s new proposal, the government will be collecting that money when rates rise in 2014. This means that if Obama’s new proposal is enacted, middle-class Americans could see their taxes go up by $1.26 trillion between 2014 and 2022, contrary to the president’s claim that his proposal is a tax cut for the middle class. The figures come from Table 3 of CBO’s March analysis of Obama’s 2013 budget. In that table, CBO breaks down the effect of Obama’s revenue proposals on the federal budget.

The budget forecasting agency found that if Obama permanently prevented tax increases on those making less than $250,000 per year, revenues would be $1.34 trillion lower than if he allowed taxes to rise as scheduled. The analysis foresees the government giving up more and more revenue over time as the economy improves, starting with $75 billion in 2013 and ending with $174 billion in 2022. Now, however, Obama wants to let taxes rise one year later than under current law, meaning that the government should be collecting the $1.26 trillion CBO said it would otherwise forgo.

Source

See also:

Obama Proposal Increases Tax Rates for All Income Brackets by 2014
July 9, 2012 – President Barack Obama today proposed allowing the income tax rates enacted in the Bush tax cuts of the last decade to expire at the end of this year for people earning more than $250,000 and at the end of next year for everyone else.

Under current law, the lower tax rates will expire at the end of 2012. Under Obama's proposal, they will expire at the end of 2012 for those making more than $250,000 and at the end of 2013 for Americans making less than $250,000. “At the same time, most people agree, we should not raise taxes on middle class families or small businesses, not when so many folks are just trying to get by, when so many folks are digging themselves out of the hole that was created by this great recession that we had and at a time when the recovery is still fragile,” Obama said at the White House on Monday. “That’s why I’m calling on Congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 for another year,” he said.

This tax proposal differs from the one Obama called for six months ago in his 2013 budget. In that document, Obama said that the lower Bush tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 per year should be made permanent. His proposal today does not make the current lower tax rates permanent--it gives those making under $250,000 only one more year at those rates before they would automatically snap up to the higher rates that prevailed before Bush cut them. The tax increases Obama proposes for 2014 could impact hundreds of thousands of independent and small businesses.

According to a 2010 report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) Obama’s earlier proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year would have impacted 50 percent of all independent business income. "50 percent of the approximately $1 trillion of aggregate net positive business income will be reported on returns that have a marginal rate of 36 or 39.6 percent,” the JCT said of Obama’s 2010 tax increase proposal. In 2010, Obama sought to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year in 2011 while keeping rates the same for everyone else.

Currently, the top two income tax rates--the ones Obama plans to raise--are set at 33 and 35 percent. Obama's proposal would increase them to 36 and 39.6 percent in 2013. In 2014, the remaining brackets would also reset to higher levels. The JCT said that as many as 750,000 independent and small businesses owners could have been affected by Obama’s tax increase policy in 2011.

MORE