GUN MANUFACTURERS COULD BENEFIT FROM SUPREME COURT HEALTH CARE DECISION

The Supreme Court's decision on the Obamacare mandate has set a precedent that could haunt the liberals who saw it as a wonderful victory.

Essentially, it says that the federal government can require its citizens to buy anything--and to tax those who don't comply.

So, considering that at least 50 percent of the time most of us are unhappy with who is running the federal government, it goes to reason that there's a good chance that you will be required to buy something that is against your beliefs.

Here are some federal government purchasing requirements (under penalty of a tax) that would bring this Supreme Court decision home to roost for liberals:

1. How about requiring every American to purchase a gun? This would help to compensate for the decrease in military spending and assist local communities who are cutting back on the number of police.

2. How about requiring every American to purchase an air conditioning unit? This would prevent the deaths that occur--typically in inner cities--due to heat prostration. Sure it would require increased energy use--but if it saves just one life!

3. How about requiring every American to purchase a real "holiday" tree? Our landfills are filled with artificial trees, so Americans must cut down real trees using gas-powered chainsaws and disgard them using gas-powered wood chippers.

Liberals should be careful what they wish for.

No votes yet

tax increase in World History !

Numerous higher taxes, med-school minority mandated quotas ,hospital hiring mandated quotas, fines for not buying health insurance, prison time if you don't pay the fine, death panels, and having one human being,the H.H.S. Secretary, deem what exactly this monstrosity is, bodes one thing...Fascism, is alive and well in the psychotic America hating World of Liberals or RINO's, with epilepsy effecting their cognition !

And since guns are mentioned in the constitution there would be better constitutional backing for it IF conservatives wanted to do it. In fact, they could argue it's necessary to well regulate the militia.

In fact, this could give Congress the authority to arm the Minutemen in Arizona in light of the Executive Decision this week.

Additionally another fallout from the decision. This is a tax which means it falls within the Congressional budget rules. That means repeal can be pushed through reconciliation rules and subvert a Democrat filibuster. So if the GOP gains control of the Senate and Mitt Romney wins he could uphold his promise to "repeal it on day one".

Another fallout, Romney and the GOP matched almost 10% of last month's contributions in one day yesterday.

MikeyA

And how about if we make citizens--under penalty of tax--buy their prescriptions at Walmart? That would drive the wonders of the Obamacare decision home for the union members!

I've got one better, Galt-boy: How about a federal mandate that you must join a labor union, or pay a tax if you fail to do so?

Wheeeee! Isn't it fun when you infinitely expand federal powers!

Now you must pardon me while I crawl away and vomit.

The Militia Act of 1792 forced citizens to own a gun. So...this has already occurred in our country's history.

Pink Slip

Why isn't such an Act in force today? The wiki doesn't go into that much detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

The SCOTUS really screwed the pooch this time. The idea that the government can make you do anything, under threat of in-lieu taxation, is very much not a power of the federal government given to it under the U.S. Constitution. The decision of the court was Doublespeak.

So what it implies is that the government can just tell you to buy a gun or be taxed. After all, failures of self defense across the land result in social cost. It's the same justification as with Obamacare's individual mandate. So buy a gun and learn to defend yourself with it, or pay a tax to the government that has to deal with your failure to defend yourself with ER and police actions across the nation.

Checkmate, Liberals.

More proof that the Federal powers as they pertain to the budget and taxing need to be amended. I have long been a balanced budget amendment proponent. That too could be used to close the infinite taxing power.

I.e. Highest earning 1% shall not pay more than 45% of taxes to the Federal Gov't, the highest 5% no more than 35%, the highest 10% no more than 30%, The highest 20% no more than 25%, the highest 50% no more than 20%, the highest 70% no more than 10%, the highest 80% none. The National Debt may not exceed no more than 20% of the GDP for one year or 15% for a ten year period. All tax revenues collected may not be spent until the beginning of the next fiscal year and MUST be outlined by a budget passed by both Houses and the President. If a budget is not produced the pay for Congress and the President shall be immediately forfeitted until a budget is passed. Once a budget is passed their forfeitted pay will not be reinstated retroactively and will be instead used to fund essential services outlined by the Treasury Dept in the interim.

No loopholes. Little chance of a shutdown. No arbitrary dollar values that are affected by inflation or deflation. You want an Affordable Healthcare Tax, cut taxes somewhere else to pay for it.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.