A question about postponing the Business Mandate

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Of all the little bitches around .. you certainly ought to know. I accept your expertise. Bitch.

Sounds to me like you need to hook up with some of the alleged Greek posters and relax a bit to take the edge of that frustration. Since you seem to want to divert attention from the OP topic.

still no fine print that magically changes the number of full time employees a business has based on the revenue generated by that business ...

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

YES! Because of the upcoming 2016 elections!

With about 2,500 EXEMPTIONS, what "mandates"?

Besides .. if I have to pay $250 a month for each employee as my part of the NEW RATES, which amounts to $3,000 annually, I am going to pay my $750 a year TAX BULLET per employee to NOT OFFER COVERAGE and save $2,250 a year per employee by NOT OFFERING COVERAGE.

Then if the employee doesn't want to pay $6,000 a year in premiums for health insurance the employee can pay $750 a year for the TAX BULLET and SAVE $5,250 a year out of pocket!

That is ASSUMING that the carriers HOLD premiums for the "average" plan at $500 a month!

So what good is a law that was supposedly designed to insure 11 million people ... if it generates 30, 40, to 50 million uninsured! ..... It generates TAXES .. from businesses AND the MIDDLE CLASS.

gee, look who was first to divert away from the OP, which was " .. .
"can the President just cherry pick parts of a Law he does not like and not enforce, or implement it".

not the law itself.



So what good is a law that was supposedly designed to insure 11 million people ... if it generates 30, 40, to 50 million uninsured! ..... It generates TAXES .. from businesses AND the MIDDLE CLASS

really, a question ended with an exclamation mark ?

I bet you follow people around and correct their punctuation don't you?

[nwarounder]

The fact that bothers me most is not that the president has once again chose not to enforce a law for political reasons, but that he has enlisted the help of the IRS to not enforce those laws. It's one thing to tell Holder not to enforce a law, but when a president tells the IRS to not enforce a law congress has passed, and they obey, it certainly dispels the belief that the IRS acts independent of the executive branches persuasion, as they are mandated by law to do.

On a much more positive note, it does clearly show that as soon as a Republican president gets into office, he will have the authority to simply tell the IRS not to enforce Obamacare, thus ending it while he is in office.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

The fact that bothers me most is not that the president has once again chose not to enforce a law for political reasons, but that he has enlisted the help of the IRS to not enforce those laws. It's one thing to tell Holder not to enforce a law, but when a president tells the IRS to not enforce a law congress has passed, and they obey, it certainly dispels the belief that the IRS acts independent of the executive branches persuasion, as they are mandated by law to do.

On a much more positive note, it does clearly show that as soon as a Republican president gets into office, he will have the authority to simply tell the IRS not to enforce Obamacare, thus ending it while he is in office.

its not the IRS ... as soon as a republican gets to the WH, hell will be frozen over



Washington (CNN) - The requirement that businesses provide their workers with health insurance or face fines – a key provision contained in President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law – will be delayed by one year, the Treasury Department said Tuesday.
The postponement came after business owners expressed concerns about the complexity of the law’s reporting requirements, the agency said in its announcement. Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses employing 50 or more full-time workers that don't provide them health insurance will be penalized.

"We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so. We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action," Mark J. Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy, wrote in a post on the website of the Treasury Department, which is tasked with implementing the employer mandate

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

its not the IRS ... as soon as a republican gets to the WH, hell will be frozen over



Washington (CNN) - The requirement that businesses provide their workers with health insurance or face fines – a key provision contained in President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law – will be delayed by one year, the Treasury Department said Tuesday.
The postponement came after business owners expressed concerns about the complexity of the law’s reporting requirements, the agency said in its announcement. Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses employing 50 or more full-time workers that don't provide them health insurance will be penalized.

"We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so. We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action," Mark J. Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy, wrote in a post on the website of the Treasury Department, which is tasked with implementing the employer mandate

The IRS is part of the Treasury Department, so that is where you would expect an announcement to come from.
It is the IRS (a department under the Treasury) specifically dictated by law to enforce and impose penalties on anybody that does not comply with Obamacare, and it is the IRS that is ignoring the law and obeying Obama's orders.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

The IRS is part of the Treasury Department, so that is where you would expect an announcement to come from.
It is the IRS (a department under the Treasury) specifically dictated by law to enforce and impose penalties on anybody that does not comply with Obamacare, and it is the IRS that is ignoring the law and obeying Obama's orders.

the Treasury Department, which is tasked with implementing the employer mandate


anything you say

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

the Treasury Department, which is tasked with implementing the employer mandate


anything you say

Obamacare, as written and passed (and yet to be amended) into law by congress tasks the IRS to issue penalties for anybody that does not comply with Obamacare after Jan 2014.

The IRS has only two choices: Obey the law as it has been written and impose penalties, or obey Obama and not impose those penalties.

Not sure what you are debating by bringing up the Treasury Department announcement?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Obamacare, as written and passed (and yet to be amended) into law by congress tasks the IRS to issue penalties for anybody that does not comply with Obamacare after Jan 2014.

The IRS has only two choices: Obey the law as it has been written and impose penalties, or obey Obama and not impose those penalties.

Not sure what you are debating by bringing up the Treasury Department announcement?

oh, I dunno ... maybe the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch and the IRS isnt

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

oh, I dunno ... maybe the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch and the IRS isnt

Okay, that has nothing to do with my discussion so I'm still not sure why you replied to my post? Whether Jay Carney, the Treasury, HHS, or any other agency, person, or what branch they belong to announces it has no meaning to my discussion.

My point was that Obama has ordered the IRS to NOT enforce a law and impose penalties at his discretion, and it appears that they will obey him over a law passed by congress. The second point was that at least if Obama can do it, another president has authority to do it as well.

[CJ7]

the Treasury implements, the IRS enforces


The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law, and it can of course choose not to enforce the law if it wants. But people can sue the federal government, and a judge could theoretically force the administration to enforce the mandate.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

The second point was that at least if Obama can do it, another president has authority to do it as well.

So, let's see. The conservative position on the OP question is that Obama and any other Democrat has to implement laws just as Congress passes then and has no power or discretion, but Republicans can pretty much do any damn thing they want. Did i get that right? At least their views are consistent from issue to issue. If Dems do it, it is bad and evil, and if Repubs do it, it is fine. How much more Manichean can you get?

Every other President has done it in one way or another of course. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it (or make silly comments that show that they don't know it).

You mean like the President ordering spying on Americans, the military to attack without Congress declaring war, or like the President selling guns/arms to fund the rebels where support was specifically outlawed by Congress or more like sodomy laws not being enforced by local officials (selectively in most cases)? Oh, the first three are actually breaking specific laws not just delaying enforcement, but since they are Repubs, they get a pass???/

The third point is this is done all the time, at all levels of government and has been done for decades (probably from the inception of the Republic, but I'm too lazy today to find all the references). Obama is certainly not setting a precedent. This is exactly what the founders envisioned as checks and balances or interplay between the three arms of government, though they might not have imagined it quite this way. If you don't like it write your congressman.

Though messy and imperfect, it is far better than a King/Emperor/Dictator with his official church passing all sorts of laws (many based on dogma of a specific religious sect) and then selectively enforcing them as he or his officials see fit at the time with no checks and balances at all.

On the OP. A delay in enforcing some sections is not that big a deal unless it is extended indefinitely and then it means that the law is a failure. Timing enforcement with the provisions for businesses to comply is only sensible. The President and Congress at the time could not have known the complexities involved with implementation and only guessed at the acceptable time lines plus they didn't forsee the vocal opposition since it was basically a Republican plan (remember we were for it before we were against it???) and Republicans had been trying to implement something like this since Nixon called for universal Health care in 1974 (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stor...-proposal.aspx).

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by austxjr

So, let's see. The conservative position on the OP question is that Obama and any other Democrat has to implement laws just as Congress passes then and has no power or discretion, but Republicans can pretty much do any damn thing they want. Did i get that right? At least their views are consistent from issue to issue. If Dems do it, it is bad and evil, and if Repubs do it, it is fine. How much more Manichean can you get?

Every other President has done it in one way or another of course. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it (or make silly comments that show that they don't know it).

Lol, why would this be a conservative view? I'm extremely liberal on some issues and conservative on others...To me, this particular declaration is a matter of character and integrity of the office, not repubs v. dems.

Of course many presidents have broken the law and the public trust in the past, none of which their actions, I support, but I was referring only to Obamacare in your quoted statement.

I think the precedent now being set by Obama is that the president can now tell the IRS what parts, if not all of a law that the IRS may or may not enforce or impose penalties, and on which groups or individuals he so picks and chooses. Which again, is highly disturbing and is usually considered taboo even by all of Obama's predecessors. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on any past presidents abuse by ordering the IRS to only impose penalties, or not to impose penalties based solely upon the presidents wishes?

Where we strongly disagree is that I do not believe this, or even the IRS was what our founding fathers intended.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Lol, why would this be a conservative view? I'm extremely liberal on some issues and conservative on others...To me, this particular declaration is a matter of character and integrity of the office, not repubs v. dems.

Of course many presidents have broken the law and the public trust in the past, none of which their actions, I support, but I was referring only to Obamacare in your quoted statement.

I think the precedent now being set by Obama is that the president can now tell the IRS what parts, if not all of a law that the IRS may or may not enforce or impose penalties, and on which groups or individuals he so picks and chooses. Which again, is highly disturbing and is usually considered taboo even by all of Obama's predecessors. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on any past presidents abuse by ordering the IRS to only impose penalties, or not to impose penalties based solely upon the presidents wishes?

Where we strongly disagree is that I do not believe this, or even the IRS was what our founding fathers intended.

The POTUS has no power over the IRS ... he communicates with the Treasury and the Treasury communicates with the IRS ... thank Nixon for that

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

The POTUS has no power over the IRS ... he communicates with the Treasury and the Treasury communicates with the IRS ... thank Nixon for that

Wink, wink, nod, nod still exists. You can thank us for still allowing that to happen.

Certainly it would be foolish to think that the IRS will obey the law, and not Obama in this particular incident, wouldn't you agree?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Wink, wink, nod, nod still exists. You can thank us for still allowing that to happen.

Certainly it would be foolish to think that the IRS will obey the law, and not Obama in this particular incident, wouldn't you agree?

you can bet I wont make excuses for him ..

but Federal Law prohibits the president, vice president and members of their executive office staff from farting with the IRS

I cant see taking a chance and getting busted for something he (the potus) has the authority to do without breaking the law