Re: Obamacare – Largest Tax Increase In History?

Republicans are repeating rush limbaugh’s claim that “obamacare” includes the largest tax increase in the history of not just the united states, but the world. 

I will let this chart speak for itself.

And increasing taxes less than one half of one percent of the GDP to reduce the cost of healthcare by 10% of the GDP (it’s currently 20%, double what every other industrialized country pays) is a steal at twice the price.


About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Re: Obamacare – Largest Tax Increase In History?

  1. Ro_ad808 says:

    I’d not heard the claim previously, but it is a statistic.  Stats are fairly easy to twist; it’s all about how you frame them.  Perhaps they were talking straight price tag (maybe not even adjusted for inflation) instead of a %of GDP? 

  2. galadrial says:

    You’re using logic again.Surely you don’t expect the people who SWEAR their bitter hatred of the POTUS has nothing to do with his skin, to be logical? (I mean just because they endured MUCH worse for far less when the Guy in charge was white…)

  3. UTRow1 says:

    It’s also not a tax. Like, it’s very obviously not a tax. For months, conservative constitutional scholars and conservative politicians were gleefully declaring “The mandate is unconstitutional! If only it had been a tax, it could be upheld!” And now that it was (erroneously) held to be a tax, these same people are claiming that it’s either not a tax or the largest tax in history . . . Jesus Christ. How can solve any problem, large or small, with people this dedicated to obfuscation? Regardless, the mandate was clearly constitutional under the Court’s previous Commerce Clause jurisprudence (e.g., Wickard). Richard Epstein summarized my thoughts on the matter well: The opinion’s hilarious attempt to avoid this conclusion is absurd and politically motivated. Roberts realized he couldn’t strike down the mandate altogether without completely compromising his integrity, but he abhors the Court’s previous Commerce Clause holdings. So, he did what Republicans would have us believe conservative judges never do: he engaged in activism and, essentially, fabricated a doctrinal analysis out of thin air to uphold the mandate. Moreover, this analysis was, very obviously I might add, made to benefit conservatives come election time (“IT’S A TAX OBAMA SAID HE WOULDN’T INCREASE TAXES HE’S A MUSLIM LIAR THE BILL IS A FRAUD OBAMA IS A TAXING TAXAHOLIC!”) Liberals shouldn’t be celebrating right now, they should be terrified. Unlike Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy, whose extremism effectively retards their ability to be activist, Roberts appears to understand how to play the game. If conservatives start rolling back the scope of the Commerce Clause, we can see all kinds of progressive roll backs, from employment discrimination statutes to civil rights statutes, all of which require (at least in part) expansive readings of the Commerce Clause. This trend could end up being so bad for everyone. So very, very bad.  

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s