Busted


Gateway Pundit:

Democrats told us Obamacare was not a tax.
Then they argued in front of the Supreme Court that it was a tax.
Now they want to tell us again that Obamacare is not a tax.

Jack Lew, the Obama White House Chief of Staff, was trying to persuade Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday that Obamacare was not a tax. But it didn’t work out so well for Lew when Wallace played audio of the Obama lawyer arguing that Obamacare was a tax in front of the Supreme Court.

Lew was stunned after being caught in the lie.


Obamacare = ObamacareTax


Advertisements
This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Obamacare, ObamaTax and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Busted

  1. Oswald says:

    Bald-faced liar

  2. DM says:

    It’s VD, Venus Disease. It’s an exotic name because it’s acquired from having a little pleasure. Please don’t call it STD, sexually transmitted disease.

  3. lyn5 says:

    It’s a composite tax.

  4. Lola-at-Large says:

    To say he was was stunned is an overstatement, but consider the source. It was more like an acknowledgement that he wouldn’t be successful in rhetorically twisting it the way he wanted, so he left it with a a sort of “heaven help us” smirk. Lew is a snake, though, and his legal jujitsu arguments are bunk. Obviously so.

    • DM says:

      Justice Roberts used the left leaning justices to throw a ball that only the Republicans can hit, and the dumb Democrats declared the game was over. It must have been a fastball that flew right by their intelligence. I expect Pelosi to eat crow.

  5. angienc says:

    Man, this guy is a liar. First, he deliberately lies about what the holding is (the court upheld it on “multiple grounds”) which is very scary because *most* people out there will not read the actual opinion & could believe him. That kind of jaw-dropping lying should be illegal. Yes, Wallace called him out on it, but do you think the bozos on MSNBC will? Second, while it is true that parties can (and do) argue alternate theories, there is only ONE theory that the Court goes with & it is that theory that becomes the holding/law. So again, he is lying/misrepresenting things. And again, this is dangerous because people who are unfamiliar with the legal system could believe him. Third, (which goes with #2) this dumbass & all those who are arguing “it’s not a tax” in light of the SCOTUS decision are saying the bill is unconstitutional. Point.Blank.Period. Again, they are counting on people’s ignorance to get away with this. Finally, how he isn’t aware there is tape of the Administration’s attorney and that the Administration briefed and argued the tax issue shows his incompetence OR it shows the MSM’s compliance with the Obama administration’s lying (i.e., he didn’t expect anyone to play the tape because *most* outlets will not). <==== That, btw, is an example of an "alternate theory" — one of the two is true.

  6. r u reddy says:

    Its a penalty. No . . . its a tax. No . . uhh . . . its a penaltax.

    Well, whatever it was, Roberts was o kay with it. And the good ship BORomneycare puts out to sea.

    • angienc says:

      You are unbelievably and shockingly wrong on this. It isn’t “whatever it was, Roberts was okay with it.” It is a tax — the SCOTUS the final authority on the interpretation of law in this country, says it is a tax in its majority opinion. So it isn’t “whatever” it is — it’s a tax. Story over; no debate & no doubt about it. The only way the FEDERAL mandate is constitutional is if it is read as a tax.* To say it isn’t a tax is saying it is unconstitutional.
      That doesn’t mean that we the people have to be OK with it and *live* with the SCOTUS ObamaTAX decision without recourse. WE always have recourse to what is called “legislatively overrule” any & all SCOTUS opinions either via repeal or Constitutional amendment. In this case, because the law was upheld (instead of being stricken as unconstitutional) then all we need is to elect enough and/or put enough pressure on our representatives in the House & Senate to repeal the law. That is the way the rule of law in this country works — you either respect it or you don’t. You either work with it or you sit around & whine about it.
      Finally, calling it BORomneycare is idiotic. Things can be OK on the state level that are not on the federal level. That’s what the 10th Amendment guarantees. For example, a 72 page law with a mandate — which Romney never misrepresented as anything other than a tax — and which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in MA cannot reasonably be said to be “the same” as a 2700 page law with a mandate that was misrepresented to the American public (not only lying about the tax, but with elected officials refusing to hold townhalls to discuss it with their communities) & that was shoved through on strict partisan lines in an underhanded, sneaky b.s. “reconciliation” measure. Furthermore, if the people of MA are OK with the law, it is nobody’s business. If the people of MA are no longer OK with the law, it is *their* responsibility to repeal it, not yours, not mine. Comparing it to a FEDERAL law is so bogus it is mind-boggling to me that people actually make, much less believe, that intellectually dishonest argument.
      *I’m getting really tired of this Roberts bashing — and I’ve got no personal reason to be pro or anti the man. But this idea that the SCOTUS is supposed to “respond to the will of the people” is such crap. That isn’t what the SCOTUS does. Our elected representatives are the ones who are supposed to respond to the will of the people, not the Justices. They are supposed to interpret the law regardless of the political temperature in the country. That is why they are appointed for life. Really, is civics just not taught at all anymore?
      Furthermore, while Roberts reasoning on the mandate may be stretched and you may disagree with him (although from what you wrote I doubt you read the opinion so therefore have no basis to agree or disagree), the fact is there are 2 ways a Court can read a law: (1) a plain reading (which is what the 4 dissenters did); or (2) a “most favorable” reading (which is what Roberts did). The idea behind the “most favorable” reading is that if reading the statute in this way allows it to be upheld, then the Court should do that rather than strike the law down. Reasonable minds can disagree on which reading the statute should be given; and reasonable minds can disagree whether Roberts’ favorable reading was, perhaps, “too” favorable. But the people saying that he “rewrote” the statute are lying as much as this Lew character is in the video clip & they are relying on people’s ignorance to buy it.
      Heavenly Father save me from all the Constitutional scholars who have sprung up all over the internet since Thursday.

      • myiq2xu says:

        Heavenly Father save me from all the Constitutional scholars who have sprung up all over the internet since Thursday.

        None of whom would pass the Bar exam.

        • angienc says:

          And all of whom think the Bar is a place that serves alcoholic beverages.

        • Lulu says:

          If the Supremes say it is a tax it is a tax. They are the final arbiter of legal definitions. Every court will call it a tax as they must now. I think one of the Romney PACs needs to make a public service announcement explaining that the SC is the last word not King Obama and his weasels.

  7. Lola-at-Large says:
  8. HELENK says:

    Breaking: Mexico preliminary count: PRI’s Enrique Pena Nieto wins presidency – @AP

    Is this good or bad for us?? Will they crack down on the cartels or work with them???

    • Glennmcgahee says:

      vagrant [ˈveɪgrənt]
      n
      1. a person of no settled abode, income, or job; tramp
      2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) a migratory animal that is off course
      adj
      1. wandering about; nomadic
      2. of, relating to, or characteristic of a vagrant or vagabond
      3. moving in an erratic fashion, without aim or purpose; wayward
      4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) (of plants) showing uncontrolled or straggling growth Archaic equivalent vagrom [ˈveɪgrəm]
      [probably from Old French waucrant (from wancrer to roam, of Germanic origin), but also influenced by Old French vagant vagabond, from Latin vagārī to wander]

  9. jeffhas says:

    Yeah, all of Jack Lew’s ‘Jedi Mind Tricks’ aside… I’m very concerned the media will simply report the story as though we were all under Jedi Mind Control.

    How lame – total liars.

  10. myiq2xu says:

    Venus and Jupiter look really bright in the eastern sky just before dawn. Jupiter is about 5 degrees above Venus, and Venus is so big it almost shows as a disk.

Comments are closed.