Register for a FREE GoComics account and get this plus any other comic strip delivered to your Personalized
Comic Page, Daily. With a free account you will be able to build a Comic Page filled with the Comics you
want to see each day.
With the largest collection of Comics and Editorial Cartoons online there is plenty to choose from. Upgrade
to a GoComics Pro account (Only $.99/Month) and have unlimited archive access to decades of comics.
It’s amazing that no one has discerned this properly. 1)Obamacare is unconstitutional as a mandate. 2) Roberts didn’t rule it was constitutional AS a tax, he ruled that constitutionally it IS a tax. 3) The problem is…… It wasn’t written as a tax and therefore cannot legally be a tax. It couldn’t be ruled on as a tax because the tax hasn’t been levied yet, it takes effect in 2014. As soon as the tax is implemented the whole law is unconstitutional. Justice Roberts is brilliant. The admin. in stupidly trying to argue that it is both a tax and mandate during oral arguments allowed the court to define what Obamacare is. This opened the door for complete destruction of this Act and tighter restrictions on their precious Interstate Commerce Clause. SCOTUS will never have to deal with this again. In 2014 a lower court will find this law unconstitutional, totally. It wasn’t created as a tax, not worded as a tax, not designed as a tax and not implemented as a tax. It is completely unconstitutional, and the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
Contrary to the delusions of liberals and members of the democratic national socialist party, you do not have the right to tax people for not buying something. ====== Do they have the right to tax people for not having children?
Then why the “Exemption” for dependents? Same thing.
Why would anyone want health care? No one ever gets sick, or has to pay high cost medical bills. This is America, where the radical rich tell the other 99% what to do.
“Why would anyone want health care?” wrong question to frame your argument. Just like “who does not want clean air and not to kill kittens” Of course that is a lib trick. The real question is “Who does not want to pay for someone else’s Golden Health Care Insurance?” When you have a U6 unemployment of over 16% You have the bottom 50% of the Nation paying NO income tax, Why are we talking about making someone pay a tax, to pay for a private insurance policy for some one else?
You are right this doesn’t appear to be a Frankenstein’s monster. It is more like letting loose millions of Alien monsters to devastate and kill everyone. The massive drain on the American economy will destroy it. All your ‘points’ could have been provided and paid for BY the government at a far less cost. But then again liberals love creating entitlement programs. It keeps getting them elected by screaming every 4 years "The Republicans will take away (Social Security, abortions, welfare and now ‘your free healthcare’). If you don’t believe me I will bet you one million carbon credits.
I think this comment makes clear a difference in attitude. In general, I agree that no one should have a right to use my money to buy things. For example, if you want a new iphone, work and pay for it. That’s true for, I don’t know, maybe 95% of things. But I don’t think it’s true for everything. I don’t think it’s true for highways. I think those should be paid for from general tax revenue, and even those people who don’t drive on the highways should have to contribute — partly because they benefit from the highway system. I don’t think it’s true for education. I think there should be a public education system and it should be funded from general tax revenue, and even those people who don’t have children should contribute. Likewise, I believe that there should be a publicly funded health care system. I think society as a whole benefits, and I don’t want to see any of my fellow citizens to be without health care when they need it. Where I live, in Toronto, we have such a system, and it works pretty well. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good. I think it’s part of being a citizen that we all contribute in this way,
I’ll bet you wouldn’t turn down the money if you were elevated to the 1% status. The IRS defines the 1% level as being above 350,000. I’m 65, semi retired and would love to have that much money! Odd how success used to be incentive for hard work, not a punishment in many’s eyes.
Called "the Thomas Nast of his time" by The National Review magazine, Payne is an informed journalist whose investigative writing has also made national headlines.
Pat Oliphant by Pat Oliphant
Joel Pett by Joel Pett
Comments (36) (Please sign in to comment)
braindead08 said, 12 months ago
I disagree strenuously with this cartoon.
`
But, it’s funny.
Litho stone said, 12 months ago
Watch out!
Or this will happen.
http://youtu.be/co6-tYS9k1U
Radish
said, 12 months ago
The cons will never be satisfied.
Ransom D Stone said, 12 months ago
Payne is always a pain.
narrowminded said, 12 months ago
It’s amazing that no one has discerned this properly.
1)Obamacare is unconstitutional as a mandate.
2) Roberts didn’t rule it was constitutional AS a tax, he ruled that constitutionally it IS a tax.
3) The problem is…… It wasn’t written as a tax and therefore cannot legally be a tax. It couldn’t be ruled on as a tax because the tax hasn’t been levied yet, it takes effect in 2014.
As soon as the tax is implemented the whole law is unconstitutional.
Justice Roberts is brilliant.
The admin. in stupidly trying to argue that it is both a tax and mandate during oral arguments allowed the court to define what Obamacare is. This opened the door for complete destruction of this Act and tighter restrictions on their precious Interstate Commerce Clause.
SCOTUS will never have to deal with this again. In 2014 a lower court will find this law unconstitutional, totally. It wasn’t created as a tax, not worded as a tax, not designed as a tax and not implemented as a tax. It is completely unconstitutional, and the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
mikefive said, 12 months ago
If the penalty that can’t be enforced has become a tax does that mean that, since it is a tax, a penalty can now be imposed and enforced?
NebulousRikulau
said, 12 months ago
Contrary to the delusions of liberals and members of the democratic national socialist party, you do not have the right to tax people for not buying something.
======
Do they have the right to tax people for not having children?
Then why the “Exemption” for dependents?
Same thing.
ninety_nine_percent said, 12 months ago
Why would anyone want health care? No one ever gets sick, or has to pay high cost medical bills. This is America, where the radical rich tell the other 99% what to do.
Harleyquinn
said, 12 months ago
“Why would anyone want health care?”
wrong question to frame your argument. Just like “who does not want clean air and not to kill kittens” Of course that is a lib trick. The real question is “Who does not want to pay for someone else’s Golden Health Care Insurance?”
When you have a U6 unemployment of over 16% You have the bottom 50% of the Nation paying NO income tax, Why are we talking about making someone pay a tax, to pay for a private insurance policy for some one else?
Ms. Ima said, 12 months ago
@Stephen Runnels
You are right this doesn’t appear to be a Frankenstein’s monster. It is more like letting loose millions of Alien monsters to devastate and kill everyone. The massive drain on the American economy will destroy it. All your ‘points’ could have been provided and paid for BY the government at a far less cost.
But then again liberals love creating entitlement programs. It keeps getting them elected by screaming every 4 years "The Republicans will take away (Social Security, abortions, welfare and now ‘your free healthcare’).
If you don’t believe me I will bet you one million carbon credits.
Ms. Ima said, 12 months ago
@ninety_nine_percent
The ‘radical rich’ that wags the dog is the congress, Obama and the Supreme court.
retpost said, 12 months ago
Congress could work to make this and even better bill, instead their only work is to run for aonther term!
lonecat said, 12 months ago
@Harleyquinn
I think this comment makes clear a difference in attitude. In general, I agree that no one should have a right to use my money to buy things. For example, if you want a new iphone, work and pay for it. That’s true for, I don’t know, maybe 95% of things. But I don’t think it’s true for everything. I don’t think it’s true for highways. I think those should be paid for from general tax revenue, and even those people who don’t drive on the highways should have to contribute — partly because they benefit from the highway system. I don’t think it’s true for education. I think there should be a public education system and it should be funded from general tax revenue, and even those people who don’t have children should contribute. Likewise, I believe that there should be a publicly funded health care system. I think society as a whole benefits, and I don’t want to see any of my fellow citizens to be without health care when they need it. Where I live, in Toronto, we have such a system, and it works pretty well. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good. I think it’s part of being a citizen that we all contribute in this way,
mikefive said, 12 months ago
@lonecat
I am not in full agreement with everything you stated but your opinion is well stated and worth further consideration (at least on my part).
mickey1339
said, 12 months ago
@Ms. Ima
I’ll bet you wouldn’t turn down the money if you were elevated to the 1% status. The IRS defines the 1% level as being above 350,000. I’m 65, semi retired and would love to have that much money! Odd how success used to be incentive for hard work, not a punishment in many’s eyes.