Had time to read the decision and and came across this gem. Robert's in his explanation for the mandate being Unconstitutional said
"The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers."
However this statement is also true :
The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to tax commerce, not to compel it through taxation. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.
You see coercing/compelling a persons behavior through taxation or through statute is against the freedom of the people to decide for themselves what is best for themselves. Compelling commerce either through taxation or statute is what is against the constitution. The opposite however of giving tax incentives for appropriate behavior (say a tax break for owning insurance) would be appropriate.
So now we are stuck with a 2700 page piece of legislative shit that has been declared constitutional. That may or may not be repealed. Listen to what Romney has said about it. I will work to repeal it AND replace it. You better work to get constitutionally conservative congressmen in position from your state this election. Because we are going to need the House and Senate to keep Romney in line. Personally I would rather it had been declared unconstitutional and gotten rid of it out NOW. Why procrastinate? BTW : The tax aspect was brought before the court during oral arguments. but it was not a major point. You did notice the gymnastics he had to go through to call it a tax. He first declared it was a penalty so they could actually rule on the case because no one has yet paid the tax. Then he re designated it a tax under the Constitution.
P2O - Sorry but I can't agree with you on this. Roberts is responsible for his contortions to retain this terrible law. I can not think that the writers of the constitution intended the constitution to allow the government to tax something you did not own., read the dissension written by the conservatives. As for us being ultimately responsible because we allowed the election of these fools; Yes we are responsible, but I didn't vote for the liars that deceived the weak minded. Who's supposed to protect me from the liars and posers given control by their enablers at the polls. The last bastion of my protection for bad laws and assaults on the constitution is the Supreme Court. Roberts is as much a liar as the rest for not representing himself as a Progressive during his conformation hearings. Robert's argument twists the language of the constitution into a pretzel to justify his argument. He has proven he is a progressive.
P2O - I've never been taxed on something I did not own. Just as I have never been taxed on my potential earnings. Roberts logical contortions to retain this law is a direct stain on the integrity of Roberts himself. You really think the courts integrity is in tact?
Cowboy - have you ever paid a tax on something you didn't own. Ever paid taxes on income you didn't make?
Call it what you want. Contort your arguments into pretzels. But I have never paid a tax on something I never owned, never bought or income I never made.
Cowboy - In the Middle East there is a Mosque on every block. The people attending there do not pay for the building. That is funded by a rich Sheik from outside the neighborhood. He appoints an Imam that believes as the Sheik believes and the Imam recruits a militia to protect the block and the sect from other sects in the area.
Unfortunately for you; like your arguments on this thread, you have that backward also.
Roger- these are the same people that want the global population reduced to less than a billion. Goes hand in hand with Agenda 21 and Global Warming. They all require world control by a global government. And the US is standing in the way and must be removed. Thus we must be made weaker.
No, you better sharpen your reading skills. The court is saying that SS is tax, not insurance. That benefits are completely at the whim of Congress. That is not the description of an annuity contract between the government and the tax payers in the SS act. As far as this being MY OPINION, hardly. This is the opinion of the SS bureaucracy, as it is cited by the government on the SS web site as the reason that you have no financial basis in the scheme. Williams point is that we have been duped since its inception into believing that SS is a retirement system that we can count on for ever increasing benefits to meet the changing needs in retirement. In reality SS is a tax and the benefits for the recipients are wholly at the mercy of the Congress. Next year Congress could declare that you must be 75 to claim benefits and your benefit will be capped at $1000 or eliminated completely if you don't need the financial support. Hardly the description of an annuity or IRA. Why not change the SS system so that your and your employers contributions go into an account in your name. When you die any left over amount is distributed into your heirs accounts. Take the money and the administrative costs away from the government. How many private companies have survived a pension system like the Union and government systems. I think their survival is an exception not the rule. And what happens to those pensioners when the system collapses?
Society cannot guarantee your financial security. Only you can.