Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Testifying before Congress this morning, President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court.

In a hearing of the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not.

But this directly contradicts one of the arguments the Obama administration is making before the Supreme Court in defense of the health care law, which is that the mandate is Constitutional because it's a tax and government has taxing power.

This has always been a tricky argument for the Obama administration, because admitting that the mandate is a tax means that Obama violated his pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. In September 2009, Obama told ABC's George Stephanapoulos that the mandate was not a tax. But by the following June, his administration was arguing in court that it was.

Now the administration is making both arguments simultaneously. Before Congress, Zients is arguing that it is not a tax. But before the Supreme Court next month, the administration will argue that it is, in fact, a tax.

"The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law," reads the administration's Supreme Court brief filed last month. "It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance."
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... are/376561" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Talk about a waffler.

Universal Healthcare is the only American way to go.

The sooner you conks realize that, the sooner we can get affordable healthcare to all Americans.

Mr. Zients, please call your office. The President is on hold!

dbackjon wrote:Universal Healthcare is the only American way to go.

The sooner you conks realize that, the sooner we can get affordable healthcare to all Americans.

I'd be against giving healthcare to the gays.

One guy's opinion isn't going to effect the legal analysis in the case. The characterization as a tax will come down to legal precedent and the Justice's opinion. Zient's opinion will have little practical effect, IMO.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Universal Healthcare is the only American way to go.

The sooner you conks realize that, the sooner we can get affordable healthcare to all Americans.

I'd be against giving healthcare to the gays.

We should have a vote on that

Gallup: “U.S. small-business owners who aren’t hiring — 85% of those surveyed — are most likely to say the reasons they are not doing so include not needing additional employees; worries about weak business conditions, including revenues; cash flow; and the overall U.S. economy.

Additionally, nearly half of small-business owners point to potential healthcare costs (48%) and government regulations (46%) as reasons. One in four are not hiring because they worry they may not be in business in 12 months.” Via NRO:

This is the “recovery” Obama’s Treasury Secretary welcomed us to in August of 2010.

Crooks
Stealing from taxpayers they should all be in jail

Like Pelosi said, we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.

Massachusetts hospitals are poised to receive a $3.5 billion windfall in federal funding over the next 10 years thanks to a little-known provision Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) inserted into the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, also known as “Obamacare.”

The increased funding—$367 million a year in the form of Medicare reimbursement payments, according to the Federal Register—would not only come at the expense of hospitals in the 49 other states, but would also directly benefit an organization that has given generously to Kerry’s campaign.

The obscure policy change was formally approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in July 2011. It was prompted by a small, 15-bed hospital located on the upscale island of Nantucket, a popular vacation spot for wealthy

New Englanders where Kerry and his wife own a $9 million waterfront home.

Via WFB:
http://freebeacon.com/the-kerry-kickback/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bronco wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'd be against giving healthcare to the gays.

We should have a vote on that

Yes we should, a majority would support both issues.

If you think his testimony was amusing, you should have read Geithner's comments in Congress. He said that simplifying the tax code is impossible because Republicans would never agree to do it.

CitadelGrad wrote:If you think his testimony was amusing, you should have read Geithner's comments in Congress. He said that simplifying the tax code is impossible because Republicans would never agree to do it.

Funny considering Geithner is a Republican.

dbackjon wrote:Universal Healthcare is the only American way to go.

The sooner you conks realize that, the sooner we can get affordable healthcare to all Americans.

I'm assuming that you also believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Universal Healthcare is the only American way to go.

The sooner you conks realize that, the sooner we can get affordable healthcare to all Americans.

I'm assuming that you also believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

No kidding, we ain't no Costa Rico.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Universal Healthcare is the only American way to go.

The sooner you conks realize that, the sooner we can get affordable healthcare to all Americans.

I'd be against giving healthcare to the gays.

I say fat, unhealty people pay higher premiums. Those that are healthy, excersize and maintain thier health (aka those less likely to need the insurance) should pay less.

Bronco wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'd be against giving healthcare to the gays.

We should have a vote on that

McVeigh.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:If you think his testimony was amusing, you should have read Geithner's comments in Congress. He said that simplifying the tax code is impossible because Republicans would never agree to do it.

Funny considering Geithner is a Republican.

How would you know? Have you seen his voter registration card?

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'd be against giving healthcare to the gays.

I say fat, unhealty people pay higher premiums. Those that are healthy, excersize and maintain thier health (aka those less likely to need the insurance) should pay less.

You're gonna expand the government, Conkly. Gonna need a a whole bureau of fat police to go along with the pregnancy police monitoring miscarriages.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:If you think his testimony was amusing, you should have read Geithner's comments in Congress. He said that simplifying the tax code is impossible because Republicans would never agree to do it.

Funny considering Geithner is a Republican.

BS. He's a registered independent.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Funny considering Geithner is a Republican.

BS. He's a registered independent.

His policies are 100% conk.

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'd be against giving healthcare to the gays.

I say fat, unhealty people pay higher premiums. Those that are healthy, excersize and maintain thier health (aka those less likely to need the insurance) should pay less.

Actually we need more unhealthly people that die young so we can keep social security afloat longer.

HI54UNI wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I say fat, unhealty people pay higher premiums. Those that are healthy, excersize and maintain thier health (aka those less likely to need the insurance) should pay less.

Actually we need more unhealthly people that die young so we can keep social security afloat longer.

Only if they kick the bucket at 61 3/4!

-
-

Geithner is a Republican

I'd be very surprised but I'm a registered Independent...so maybe

We know he's a tax cheat, a wall street guy and based on the story below he has a sense of humor

Obama has been 'relentlessly focused' on jobs, Geithner says
Los Angeles Times ^ | 10/26/11 | Jim Puzzanghera


Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner strongly defended President Obama from criticism that he was distracted from dealing with the economy in 2009 as he tried to pass healthcare reform.

“Absolutely not," Geithner told CBS News' Norah O'Donnell when asked if Obama had taken "his eye off the ball on jobs.''

"He was relentlessly focused on it," Geithner said in the interview that aired Tuesday night. "And in fact he was doing things that were deeply difficult politically for him.”

Geithner cited the $825-billion stimulus package passed in early 2009, along with the government rescue of General Motors and Chrysler, as well as enactment of financial reform as proof Obama was focused on reducing unemployment.


(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like another Obama win, Repubs must be pissed they keep getting outmaunevered by a black guy...ouch...

Bronco wrote:-
-

Geithner is a Republican

I'd be very surprised but I'm a registered Independent...so maybe

We know he's a tax cheat, a wall street guy and based on the story below he has a sense of humor

Obama has been 'relentlessly focused' on jobs, Geithner says
Los Angeles Times ^ | 10/26/11 | Jim Puzzanghera


Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner strongly defended President Obama from criticism that he was distracted from dealing with the economy in 2009 as he tried to pass healthcare reform.

“Absolutely not," Geithner told CBS News' Norah O'Donnell when asked if Obama had taken "his eye off the ball on jobs.''

"He was relentlessly focused on it," Geithner said in the interview that aired Tuesday night. "And in fact he was doing things that were deeply difficult politically for him.”

Geithner cited the $825-billion stimulus package passed in early 2009, along with the government rescue of General Motors and Chrysler, as well as enactment of financial reform as proof Obama was focused on reducing unemployment.


(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Bronco, I don't think it's fair to lump all conks together as tax cheating Wall Street cheerleaders. Just like I don't think it's fair to insinuate that a sense of humor suggests conk leanings. Plenty of Donks are guilty of financial malfeasance and 99% of all comedians are liberal.

But here's another good example of why one must turn in their conservative card immediately if they think Geithners economic policies wouldn't make a Republican proud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-rat ... 15571.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dbackjon wrote:Universal Healthcare is the only American way to go.

The sooner you conks realize that, the sooner we can get affordable healthcare to all Americans.

No, the American way to go is to shoot Injens, so go fvck yourself.