A tax by any other name is still a tax

So now that the Supreme Court has ruled  that Obamacare is constitutional based on Congress’ ability to tax.  Now, Obama is saying it is not a tax.  Does this mean that he is saying it is not constitutional and that it is not a law.  Ha!  It passed Congress as a tax bill.  Oh, and since it is not a tax, why the need for so many IRS agents to enforce getting this, um, penalty?

But, since in his eyes it is not a tax but a penalty, I figured it was time to look up a few definitions to see what the difference will be.

from merriam-webster


: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of non-fulfillment of stipulations
a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
So, the words don’t have the exact same meaning.  Although there are a few who would argue that they suffer when they pay taxes.  It wasn’t until I began to look at the thesaurus that I found something interesting.  It has to do with the word fine, which means to penalize in a financial way.  In the list of synonyms I saw the word tax.  So, I can say either that Obamatax will penalize someone who doesn’t buy health insurance or Obamatax will tax someone who doesn’t by health insurance.
They can use penalty and penalize to describe it but when it comes down to the meanings of the words still end up meaning tax.  You can pick a word to make it sound better but the definition of the word doesn’t change.
Or perhaps rather than calling it a penalty or a tax, it should be called what it is…corporate welfare to the 1%.  Thanks occupiers, you got what you wanted by being played by the 1% as they begged you not to protest against them.  Please don’t throw me in the briar patch, oh yeah that story is no longer being taught since historical stories aren’t politically correct.

Why the funding of the military is fundamental to the US

Every once in a while when I get into a discussion about various issues that involve how DC is spending our money, the argument comes up that they don’t like the money going toward the military. I have decided to respond to this comment here. I admit I really didn’t know how to respond to it because I felt it was one of those things that we all have things that we wish the government didn’t pay for and we have to accept it for what it is. But, the problem with that argument about the government not funding the military goes back to one of the basic reasons we are the UNITED States of America. See, back then as we find continue to see now, the states wanted to keep as much decision making at that level rather than having someone in New Hampshire making decisions for Georgia (for instance.) I mean, unless you live in Wyoming, do you really think that the lawmakers from that state understand the needs for a state that has huge urban areas or a lot of farmland? It was the same then when the New England states were more industrialized than the states in the south. And while slavery was an issue it was the only issue that was up for debate as the founding fathers created our country. In fact, there really were only two reasons why they supported joining together the colonies. The two reasons were trade and defense. As you read the Bill of Rights, you can see how they limited the federal government in order to give the states the strength to make their own decisions. In fact, the whole reason for the 10th Amendment is to give the states all the rights not given to the Federal Government, which really were based on the need for a collective group to be able to defend the country from attacks from other countries, as happened with the War of 1812, and to be able to engage in trade with other countries, rather than having 13 colonies separately try to do so. So, isn’t it interesting that the one part of the budget that many on the left would like to not have is one of the few reasons we were formed as a country.

The other side to the argument about not funding the military came to me as I read something about pacifists and their desire to avoid World War II. I can understand that they don’t like the idea of fighting and don’t want to be around it. It reminds me of all the talk about trying to stop bullying. No matter what is said and done, bullying will exist. The most recent example of bullying I saw was a bird that would not allow other birds around the bird feeder. It is part of who we have been created to be. Sadly, sometimes I think the unspoken part of the message about not funding the military is that those who do want to have a strong military, do so because they want war and like the idea of going to war, thus the reason for wanting to fund the military.

Just as much as we would like to live in a crime free world, crime will exist. It was this idea that gave me the way I see the defense budget. I would love to live my life where I don’t have to worry about locking my house and that I could leave my keys in my car with it sitting in my driveway. Sadly, those days are over and we have to protect ourselves from those who would take a car with keys in it or go from house to house looking for an unlocked door. Women have to worry about being attacked and raped. Thus, the need for the military to protect us as a country as well as protect us as individuals in not something that we can avoid. It is something that allows us to have some degree of security that the door will stay locked at night when we go to bed and not be forced open by soldiers of another country.

So that is my two cents on why one of the few rights that the founding fathers gave to the Federal government was for the military.