President Obama's Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than $250,000 a Year

Center right? BHO was endorsed by the Socialist Party of Chicago during his state campaign.

Regardless, the use of the label "left" or "right is meaningless. They both want socialism. Both are anti-freedom.

On the path to Socialism Republicans are on a ocean liner, with Democrats taking a private jet.

Then majority of the public complains which party is going too fast or to slow.

With a small minority whom argue it is the wrong direction.

"Liberal", you are just as bad as the Religious Right. You want to tell people how to live. You want to force people to conform to your standard. Letting people live their own life is unacceptable. You must force everyone to conform. In your view, your life is not your property. Your life belongs to the State, a god, or some other lie. You want to own people. If you live, you must pay.

I am not harming anyone. My life is my property. Yet, in your view I am a criminal.

You evade facts. You don't care about the intent of the Constitution, You don't care about abusing the tax code. You don't care about forcing people to BUY a product, they do not even want.

The end, justifies the means. Whatever it takes to get your utopia, regardless of who you harm.

Would you agree, that liberals are defined as advocates of individual freedom?

Then why do "liberals" spend so much effort forcing individuals to live a certain way? When they have harmed, no one?

...but only because it could conceivably force an expansion of whatever limited public option ends up making into the finished bill (probably wishful thinking). The individual mandate, while it has worked extremely well in places like the Netherlands and Switzerland, seems like its main intent here is to subsidize private corporations so their conservative lackeys in congress will go along with health care reform.

Still not sure what you mean with the charge that I am "evading" anything. Do you not know what the word means? Not sure I'm all too interested in the constitutional argument 'till its relevant. Your interpretation of the commerce clause is one of many (one, however, that has been more or less dead since 1828) and we have a process for sorting them out that may or may not get a chance to do so in this case come the time. Personally I'd like to see the individual mandate eventually struck down...

You are evading the fact that the Fed still has to follow the powers they are given (even by recent SC interpretations that expanded their power in the past 70 years).

Today, the Fed simply has no legal power to force individuals to BUY something.

The commerce clause does not work in this situation.

The tax code is used for enforcement, because they have no other legal mechanism to force compliance.

Nowhere in history has the Fed has forced individuals to buy a product.

In your view the SC interpretation gave the Fed power to do anything and everything they wanted.

If this was original intent of article, then why the did the founders go through so much trouble to restrict Fed powers in such detail.

Today, the Fed uses interstate commercial as a "do anything we want" clause. Do you feel this is what the framers intended?

I will prove you wrong. Copied directly from the bill, version "AAHCA09"

"(A) TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The amounts received in the Treasury under section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986"

"(B) EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON EMPLOYERS NOT PROVIDING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The amounts received in the Treasury under section 3111(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986"

The word "TAX" appears 172 times
The word "FEE" appears 77 times
The word "IRS" appears 100 times

OK Mr. "first five pages" you can cut and paste pretty good, but you still don't seem to understand what the argument here is all about. First, these are tax penalties, not income taxes (the point you challenged me on initially) and, as penalties, they don't constitute the bill's funding. Second, if you actually read through the bill you'd notice that tax credits for those making less than 250K are considerably greater than any penalty, making the legislation an ultimate tax cut for most people

A tax penalty for what exactly?

Please detail how you can have an income tax penalty, without an income tax liability?

How does a person that chooses not to buy a service, suddenly become liable for an additional income tax, when their income is the same? Wouldn't this type of situation normally be called a fine?

Where does the Fed get the power to fine an individual for not buying a service?

Has the Fed ever done this before? Where in the Constitution does the Fed get such a power?