United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: More Proof Obama Is A Lying SACK OF SHIT!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 18, 2010
Author: .
Post Date: 2010-07-18 16:42:37 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 62283
Comments: 67
First watch the sack of shit say his healthcare bill is not a tax
Now look at this article from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax By ROBERT PEAR Published: July 16, 2010
WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.
In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.
While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.
Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.
“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.
Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”
Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.
Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.
Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”
Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.
Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.
“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.
In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”
In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.
In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.
The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.
Poster Comment:
Like I said. Obama is a lying sack of shit. No disputing it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-27) not displayed.
.
.
.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#25)
Maxine Waters (did they see the flag on Mars?) You got the wrong black woman (I know, they all look alike). Yep. Sheila 'I'm a Queen' Jackson Lee is the clown that wanted NASA to drive the MARS rover 'over to where the astronants landed on the moon...' or words to that effect. Maxine Waters is the clown you hear stuttering 'What this liberal would do is socialize....errrrr, ahhhh...mmm...take over your business...' or words to that effect. Both are African American females. Both are Democrats. Both serve in the House. And both are dumber than dirt.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Given that the late Teddy, Biden, Zero (57 states), and Maxine Waters (did they see the flag on Mars?) - to name a few demwit mis-speaking loons - are on your side, I don't think you really want to go there . And you have David Vitter, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnel, Michael Steele, and on and on and on. I'll compare my list to your any day. :-) Silly you....lol
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
So far, you are correct from what I can see.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I acknowledge the fact that all politicians lie and Obama is a politician. But you need to ask yourself why do you have the need to be such an authoritarian. Do you wish to be another Hitler? And have us all saying 'heil' when we greet you? Maybe we should all pledge allegiance to YOU. LOLOL
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
As a layperson, I cannot get into all the minute differences between the government styles of the European nations. I'm sure you'll be able to enlighten me. However, I can comment on their overall philosophy vis a vis that which once was ours: Their tradition of cradle to grave socialism vs. our tradition of individualism. Since you haven't answered my original question to you which is: After all, if it's what people are clamoring for, it should be an easy sell, right? let's see if you'll answer another: We are moving toward the European style, while we see some European countries moving away from it. Do you agree - and if yes, why do you think that is?
If I could, I would. Aghanistan Iraq Gitmo Iran protests I've criticized him repeatedly for what I believe are amatuer mistakes. I'lll still take him over McCain any day...or Palin...or Snewt...or Romney... Putting their 2008 campaign rhetoric aside (which we probably both agree was bullshit), tell me how you think McClown's actual governance would have been any different from Zero on the issues you listed: Iraq Gitmo Iran protests But the jury's out as to whether he would have done anything.
If I could, I would. So how does Sarah Palin's belief that everyone should share in oil company profits fit in? Isn't that socialism? Wouldn't the same be true of Republicans? Or did you miss Medicare Part D?
Do you include Palin in that list of liars you hate?
He did. IN fact, I thought that Obama got bullied into making a statement when he should have kept his fucking mouth shut. My issue with McCain - Palin aside - is that he seemed very inflexible and with his rhetoric he could have been running in 1964...putting Palin back into the mix, that was his FIRST "presidential" decision. I actually admire John McCain which doesn't translate into wanting him to be POTUS.
Happy reading: andrewsullivan.theatlanti...dd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html
So how does Sarah Palin's belief that everyone should share in oil company profits fit in? Isn't that socialism? Okay, I'll play. Is this where she was in favor of everyone in Alaska getting a bonus check that was based on the oil that oil companies had taken out of the ground in AK? I'm going out on a limb here, but a case COULD be made (I'm not making it, just stating it) that the oil that was in the ground belonged not to the oil companies, but the the people of the state. As such, the people of the state were entitled to some payment. Is this the case you keep referring to? Okay - can we get past Sarah Palin now? Like I previously said, I've never said I would vote for her. Wouldn't the same be true of Republicans? Or did you miss Medicare Part D? The dems are the marines who land on the beach and push back the enemy (in this case, the American People are the enemy). They take the initial casualties (which they will likely take this November.) Then the reps (army) comes in. Their function is to secure and hold the newly gotten territory against that same enemy (the American People). Your gripe with the reps seems to be they don't advance toward statism fast enough. For instance, George Bush grew government more than any POTUS since LBJ. Yet you bitch and moan about him I never understood this.
If I could, I would. I never understood this. Facts aren't GO65's friend. Hypocrisy is...(laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
That's because you're confused about the dynamic and, in some cases, you promote the GOP cause over the Dem cause. Your dig about Palin above is a case in point. If we talk about how goddam dumb she is, we're somehow "afraid" of her or she "gets" to us. Palin shouldn't even be a public figure unless she took over the role of Ellie Mae Clampett ina remake of The Beverly Hillbillies. That was the issue with Boy Blunder, too. He's a fucking moron. If I HAD to vote for anyone in an election, I'd always vote for the smarter candidate. ALWAYS.
I'll give you that, but it's damn few cases. And it's ONLY because (once in a great while) a GOPer makes conservative noises. If a Dem were actually ever to run on conservative principles (highly unlikely, I'll grant you), I would support him or her.
If I could, I would. Intelligence doesn't necessarily translate to capability.
If I could, I would. You'd be hard pressed to find me injecting Palin into a discussion wherein she was not already the topic. I could say the same about Zero, too. What are/were HIS great qualifications? You could and you would have gotten no argument from me. Review LP from early 2008 and you'll se GO65 and I disagreeing about Obama and a lack of qualfications was at the center of it. Ironically, I stated that if he did ascend to the Presidency over Hillary [no doubt in my mind the real presidential election in 2008 was the race for the dem nomination] he'd be well served to find as many Clinton people as he could. He did. Carter was probably one of the most intelligent - and the worst (up to Zero) POTUS' that we've ever had. Carter had a lot of things working against him. He inherited a moribund economy and foreign policy. Nixon was too busy triangulating with Russia and China to pay attention to the dynamics in the Middle East and the increasing popularigty of Islamic Fundamentalism. And we all know the disaster of Nixonomics [e.g. wage/price freezes] on the US economy. So, in my opinion, it wasn't a matter of Carter's capability but his ability to "sell" it. What a lot of people don't realize about Carter was how very early on he hedged another Arab oil embargo or dislocation. So, he immediately worked on cultivating a relatioship with Saudi Arabia. It paid off when in 1979, oil flow was disrupted by the Iranian Revolution but Saudi Arabia opened its spiggots for us.
Happy reading: andrewsullivan.theatlanti...dd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html I read a little of your political hack site. Anyway I didn't see any lies. Except by the author of the site. Things like this Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
Sarah Palin, September 12, 2008: ----- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-flip-flop.html Meanwhile:...... She said 'can be' not 'are'. If thats the best example of a 'lie' you can come up with...then you obviously just have a blind hatred and feel the need to grasp at straws to avoid admitting it. JMHO.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Key word. Potentially. She is saying she is not sure. No lie.
Which one did she refudiate?
Key word: Certainly
"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming" "I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." Where is the 'lie'? Game, set and match.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
can be....potentially. Pretty much the same meaning. She sure is consistent. Not a liar. Words have meanings
Words have meanings Exactly. She scares the hell out of the Left. Thats the only viable conclusion you can draw from this insanity.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
"can" isn't "is"
Obama is surely a liar though. As the video and article prove conclusively.
Before I take on another one. We have to keep score. You are abandoning the first charge of lying...correct?
"I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." It depends on which of the above statements she actually believes.
As soon as you can explain how the below two statements don't contradict one another: She said it could be but it isn't her opinion that it is. That's not a lie.
She made two contradictory statements. Explain how they can both be true. Simple logic, if 1 is true, 2 must be false, and vice versa.
And there's more: http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/413373_joel18.html And now she bashes Obama for doing the same. Flip flop? Lie? Idiot? Take your pick.
You are intentionally being dense just so you can screech 'liar'. Sheesh, get some help.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
And even more: http://gov.state.ak.us/admin-orders/238.html Thats why so much time is being spent by those on the Left ranting about a women that isn't hold public office. They have to distract from the unfolding disaster courtesy of the Democrats, and the party's leader, Owe-bama.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
lying sack of shit bump
(chuckle)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#29. To: Skip Intro, Ignore Amos (#18)
#30. To: go65 (#13)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Can't dispute it can ya.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#27)
Do you acknowledge the FACT that Obama is a liar or are you still under self delusion. Or maybe you always knew he was a liar.
#33. To: go65 (#15)
(Edited)
First define "european style governance" given there are vast differences in government styles between say Italy, the UK, and Germany.
Why don't you Zero democrats just be honest and come out that you like and admire European style governance, and wish to have it here?
But I can't, so I won't.
#34. To: war (#26)
Obama's Errors:
Afghanistan
I'll give you that McClown may have been different re: Iran protests. He might have made some noises about helping them, for instance.
But I can't, so I won't.
#35. To: Ignore Amos (#33)
Their tradition of cradle to grave socialism vs. our tradition of individualism.
Why don't you Zero democrats just be honest and come out that you like and admire European style governance, and wish to have it here?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#36. To: A K A Stone (#24)
So Obama is a liar and he broke his promise. I hate liars don't you?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#37. To: Ignore Amos (#34)
(Edited)
He might have made some noises about helping them, for instance.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#22)
(Edited)
What did Palin lie about. I'm honestly not aware of any lies she has told.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#39. To: go65 (#35)
Their tradition of cradle to grave socialism vs. our tradition of individualism.
As an aside, Palin sure has gotten to you, hasn't she? Why don't you Zero democrats just be honest and come out that you like and admire European style governance, and wish to have it here?
I will allow you one difference between the parties - it's kind of like the difference between the marines and the army in battle.
But I can't, so I won't.
#40. To: Ignore Amos, GO65 (#39)
Your gripe with the reps seems to be they don't advance toward statism fast enough. For instance, George Bush grew government more than any POTUS since LBJ. Yet you bitch and moan about him
#41. To: Ignore Amos (#39)
(Edited)
I never understood this.
#42. To: war (#41)
in some cases, you promote the GOP cause over the Dem cause.
But I can't, so I won't.
#43. To: war (#41)
If we talk about how goddam dumb she is, we're somehow "afraid" of her or she "gets" to us.
You may or may not be afraid of her, but judging from how her name keeps popping up in unrelated posts or threads, you and others certainly are obsessed with her. Palin shouldn't even be a public figure unless she took over the role of Ellie Mae Clampett ina remake of The Beverly Hillbillies.
I could say the same about Zero, too. What are/were HIS great qualifications? To play a lawyer on LA Law? That was the issue with Boy Blunder, too. He's a fucking moron.
But your "issues" are completely partisan. That makes them irrelevant. What about Al Gore? Biden? Waters? McKinney? Boxer? The demwit list goes on and on? It's not my problem that you cannot see that fact. If I HAD to vote for anyone in an election, I'd always vote for the smarter candidate. ALWAYS.
Carter was probably one of the most intelligent - and the worst (up to Zero) POTUS' that we've ever had.
But I can't, so I won't.
#44. To: Ignore Amos (#43)
(Edited)
You may or may not be afraid of her, but judging from how her name keeps popping up in unrelated posts or threads, you and others certainly are obsessed with her.
#45. To: go65 (#38)
What did Palin lie about. I'm honestly not aware of any lies she has told.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#45)
(Edited)
Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area, with ice pack melting. Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change -- whether it's entirely wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we got to do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut back on pollution."
"That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now," said Palin.
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Dec. 4, 2007: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist, blaming the changes in our climate on human activity, but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren't changes."
Interview with Newsmax, Aug. 28, 2008: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#47. To: go65 (#46)
#48. To: go65 (#46)
"That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially
#49. To: Badeye (#47)
"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming"
"I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#50. To: A K A Stone (#48)
Key word. Potentially. She is saying she is not sure. No lie.
"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming"
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#51. To: go65 (#49)
#52. To: Badeye (#47)
#53. To: A K A Stone (#52)
can be....potentially. Pretty much the same meaning. She sure is consistent. Not a liar.
#54. To: go65 (#50)
#55. To: Badeye (#53)
#56. To: A K A Stone (#52)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm
"I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," Palin said Friday in Ohio, using the critics' dismissive name of the project. "'If our state wanted a bridge,' I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'"
While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess.
And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents.
Wasilla's lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.
"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#57. To: go65 (#56)
#58. To: Badeye (#51)
"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming"
Where is the 'lie'?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#59. To: A K A Stone (#57)
Before I take on another one. We have to keep score. You are abandoning the first charge of lying...correct?
"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming"
"I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#60. To: go65 (#58)
#61. To: A K A Stone (#60)
She said it could be but it isn't her opinion that it is. That's not a lie.
"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming"
"I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#62. To: All (#61)
Palin: "Alaska's climate is warming. While there have been warming and cooling trends before, climatologists tell us that the current rate of warming is unprecedented within the time of human civilization. Many experts predict that Alaska, along with our northern latitude neighbors, will warm at a faster pace than any other areas, and the warming will continue for decades."
The governor did what a forward-looking leader should do. She created a subcabinet group to look at "carbon-trading markets" and examine "the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy."
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#63. To: go65 (#58)
(Edited)
#64. To: A K A Stone (#62)
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 238
I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska, under the authority of art. III, secs. 1 and 24 of the Alaska Constitution establish the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet to advise the Office of the Governor on the preparation and implementation of an Alaska climate change strategy.
BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS
Scientific evidence shows many areas of Alaska are experiencing a warming trend. Many experts predict that Alaska, along with our northern latitude neighbors, will continue to warm at a faster pace than any other state, and the warming will continue for decades. Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is also a social, cultural, and economic issue important to all Alaskans. As a result of this warming, coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires, and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#65. To: A K A Stone (#55)
#66. To: Badeye (#65)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#66)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]