| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama: Individual mandate not a tax |
| 2009-09-21 |
| On ABC's "This Week," George Stephanopoulos has a pretty testy exchange with Obama over whether the individual mandate is a tax increase. The president insists it is not. Obama: "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. ... George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase." Stephanopoulos: "I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- 'a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'" Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition" Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?" Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion." |
| Posted by:Unoluter Javique5084 |
| #16 Hey, if it comes out of Washington it is a tax. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-09-21 23:10 |
| #15 Are the 'scales' falling off their eyes? No. If the mandate fell only on those making more than $250K per year, then there'd be silence. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-09-21 21:35 |
| #14 Prolly going for the excellent education system you've out there Munch. |
| Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-09-21 15:43 |
| #13 "Depends on what your definition of the word is, is, George. OK, most people only see taxes when they pay for something at the store. See, we're going to make it a payroll withholding called Selective Health Insurance Tallie, but acronym it like we did with FICA, because nobody really looks at the line of their paycheck except accountants and corporate bean counters. You know, we do the same thing with those traffic cameras...you know how we make it a civil fine so that people cannot challenge their accusors in a court of law? Same concept, that way...wait is this still rolling?..Well the people at Merrium Webster are a bunch of assholes, continuing definitions left over from an age of racism and slavery. You don't believe in laws and definitions from the age of slavery do you George?" |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2009-09-21 15:42 |
| #12 Case in point. Hawaii demands that I pay unemployment "insurance" for my employees even though I don't have any and am not myself eligible for unemployment. You say "tax", I say "extortion" - it's all in the pronounciation. |
| Posted by: Grumble Oppressor of the Munchkins3627 2009-09-21 15:27 |
| #11 Of course you can go to page 29 of the Baucus bill and see it's called an excise tax |
| Posted by: Beavis 2009-09-21 12:48 |
| #10 He's probably got his successor's "begging for forgiveness" speech in his top-right drawer. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-09-21 12:41 |
| #9 Anytime any government tells you to give money, it is a tax. Whether it is insurance, fees or demanded by the IRS. It is a tax. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-09-21 11:57 |
| #8 Obama could have defended the individual mandate as a 'fee' because the charge is to offset the benefits the person will get when they are insured Of course, for some healthy people it will offset more than what they get, for some sick people it will offset far less than what they get. But that is a little like, say, an auto registration fee. A car owner buy the registration for the same price no matter how many days a year they drive (of course you can choose not to own a car). |
| Posted by: lord garth 2009-09-21 11:54 |
| #7 "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." John Stuart Mill |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2009-09-21 11:51 |
| #6 An awful lot of people do not have cars, and therefore need no auto insurance: inner-city poor, city dwellers at all income levels, the elderly, sixteen-year olds who haven't passed their road tests, college students who can't afford car and rely on bicycles, idealistic Greens ditto... Therefore this is a tax. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-09-21 10:39 |
| #5 I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't constitutional. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2009-09-21 10:35 |
| #4 George testy? Oh yeh, he's not in the "in" group anymore. He's from Camalot 2, also known as the Clinton years. Obama IS Camolot 3. Good reason for him George to be testy. Way to go George! |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-09-21 10:16 |
| #3 However, in accordance with the Orwellian Democratic Party Dictionary past Republican resistance to increase funding beyond inflationary levels to a program is defined as a 'cut' in funding. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-09-21 09:41 |
| #2 Jeez. George got it right for once and actually used a method ("let's look it up") that I have done in the past when talking to liberals. Are the 'scales' falling off their eyes? |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2009-09-21 09:32 |
| #1 Can you say "no thanks!"? If not then it's a tax. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-09-21 08:24 |