Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
But but but...King Obama said it wasn't a tax

Lol he simultaneously said it wasn't a tax, and it definitely IS a tax. The only way the Supreme Court found the individual mandate constitutional is through the Congress' taxing authority, so if it's not a tax, it's not legal.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
...which is unenforceable because the penalty for noncompliance is cheaper than buying insurance. The healthy people STILL won't be buying insurance, they'll just get a shiny new tax.

If you're a college kid or young & unemployed you wouldn't pay it anyway because you don't file a return.
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
But but but...King Obama said it wasn't a tax

Can you guys try to tone down the hilarious sarcasm? Take a minute and read what you write before you send it. It's not funny, it's not witty, it's not effective in making a point.

This request goes to everyone, myself included. Stop arguing like a 10 year old.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Can you guys try to tone down the hilarious sarcasm? Take a minute and read what you write before you send it. It's not funny, it's not witty, it's not effective in making a point.

This request goes to everyone, myself included. Stop arguing like a 10 year old.

You can't see the point to what he said?

Obama DID insist it wasn't a tax.

The Supreme Court DID rule it IS a tax, and that's the only reason it was upheld.

That doesn't say "hey, we were lied to" to you?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
No. I think we should talk about it now. According to YOU, not me, but you, GoIrish41, there are hoardes of people who have been LITERALLY dying because they don't have health insurance and therefore have been left to fend for themselves against their various diseases and ailments. YOU said this, so YOU set the terms of the conversation. In your dire envrionment, the poxied and plagued masses would not be waiting six months until the enrollment season ends because they've wanted and needed this for so long and it's finally here! They're dying and desperate for this, right? They should be signing up IMMEDIATELY if the situation were as dire as you have presented. They would be literally busting down the doors, zombie-movie-style. But no, that type of behavior is reserved for the new Air Jordans, iPhone 5S, and Playstation 4.

when did I set the terms of your argument? When did I say hoardes of people have been LITERALLY dying because they don't have health insurance? i said millions of people were going to the exchanges. Is that incorrect? Even if everyone signed up today, they wouldn't have insurance until January 1.
 
Last edited:

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Can you guys try to tone down the hilarious sarcasm? Take a minute and read what you write before you send it. It's not funny, it's not witty, it's not effective in making a point.

This request goes to everyone, myself included. Stop arguing like a 10 year old.

Yeah, sure. I'll lay off the sarcasm as soon as you, goirish41, and BobD admit that everything about obamacare was a lie from the start and will do the exact opposite of what the president said it would do.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,945
Reaction score
11,225
Yeah, sure. I'll lay off the sarcasm as soon as you, goirish41, and BobD admit that everything about obamacare was a lie from the start and will do the exact opposite of what the president said it would do.

"Before we let you leave, your commander must cross that field, present himself before this army, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own arse. "
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Oh yeah? Take an example from above in this thread. A diesel mechanic/ welder/ plumber starting at 19 or 20 making $40k to $50k with no debt will have a better start than many people his age who went to college, got a useless degree, and have tens of thousands of dollars in debt with few career prospects.

Also as mentioned earlier in this thread, what good is a strong university/ program/ curriculum if some of the students there aren't capable of the coursework? "Everyone shoudl go to college" mentality is biting people in the @$$.

Not to mention driving up the costs of higher education. Demand is artificially high because:

1. People who probably shouldn't go to college are.

2. The federal student loan program is marketed as "free money" this is "easy" to pay back based on the average starting salary of graduates. The problem is, the "average" doesn't apply to everyone and people who graduate with debt and no jobs are screwed. The loans either hamper them for their entire lives or they go unpaid and are borne by the taxpayer.

If the federal student loan program were eliminated, top schools would have to make their tuition rates competitive to attract the top talent. As it stands, they can charge whatever they want because "everyone" can afford it with federal loans.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Not to mention driving up the costs of higher education. Demand is artificially high because:

1. People who probably shouldn't go to college are.

2. The federal student loan program is marketed as "free money" this is "easy" to pay back based on the average starting salary of graduates. The problem is, the "average" doesn't apply to everyone and people who graduate with debt and no jobs are screwed. The loans either hamper them for their entire lives or they go unpaid and are borne by the taxpayer.

If the federal student loan program were eliminated, top schools would have to make their tuition rates competitive to attract the top talent. As it stands, they can charge whatever they want because "everyone" can afford it with federal loans.

If you were running a university and the government was handing out "free money", wouldn't you jack up your rates too? lol such a joke these days
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Yeah, sure. I'll lay off the sarcasm as soon as you, goirish41, and BobD admit that everything about obamacare was a lie from the start and will do the exact opposite of what the president said it would do.

You negotiate like Ted Cruz.
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
Yeah, sure. I'll lay off the sarcasm as soon as you, goirish41, and BobD admit that everything about obamacare was a lie from the start and will do the exact opposite of what the president said it would do.

I'm not a big fan of the law, it's not what I would have pushed for - as I've written before. It is being implemented, however, so it probably makes sense to see how it works out.

But my opinion on this law is not relevant to my request. The sarcasm is not funny, and is not productive. It would be nice if you could tone it down.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
this is true.
the youngest will be hit the hardest by ALL of the fiscal issues facing the US (not just Obamacare).
Druckenmiller (who was at ND not to long ago) is on a nationwide crusade of sorts trying to wake up that 18-30 generation to all this. very interesting column last week by Tom Friedman talking about that very point you bring up:


Sorry, Kids. We Ate It All.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Eventually this shutdown crisis will end. And eventually the two parties will make another stab at a deal on taxes, investments and entitlements. But there’s one outcome from such negotiations that I can absolutely guarantee: Seniors, Wall Street and unions will all have their say and their interests protected. So the most likely result will be more tinkering around the edges, as our politicians run for the hills the minute someone accuses them of “fixing the deficit on the backs of the elderly” or creating “death panels” to sensibly allocate end-of-life health care. Could this time be different? Short of an economic meltdown, there is only one thing that might produce meaningful change: a mass movement for tax, spending and entitlement reform led by the cohort that is the least organized but will be the most affected if we don’t think long term — today’s young people.

Whether they realize it or not, they’re the ones who will really get hit by all the cans we’re kicking down the road. After we baby boomers get done retiring — at a rate of 7,000 to 11,000 a day — if current taxes and entitlement promises are not reformed, the cupboard will be largely bare for today’s Facebook generation. But what are the chances of them getting out of Facebook and into their parents’ faces — and demanding not only that the wealthy do their part but that the next generation as a whole leaves something for this one? Too bad young people aren’t paying attention. Or are they?
Wait! Who is that speaking to crowds of students at Berkeley, Stanford, Brown, U.S.C., Bowdoin, Notre Dame and N.Y.U. — urging these “future seniors” to start a movement to protect their interests? That’s Stan Druckenmiller, the legendary investor who made a fortune predicting the subprime bust, often accompanied by Geoffrey Canada, the president of the Harlem Children’s Zone, of which Druckenmiller is the biggest funder. What are they doing on a Mick Jagger-like college tour where they don’t sing, don’t dance, and just go through a set of charts showing young people how badly they’ll be hammered if our current taxes, growth rates, defense spending and entitlements stay where they are? “My generation — we brought down the president in the ’60s because we didn’t want to go into the war against Vietnam,” Druckenmiller told an overflow crowd at Notre Dame last week. “People say young people don’t vote; young people don’t care. I’m hoping after tonight, you will care. There is a clear danger to you and your children.”

Whenever Druckenmiller (a friend) is challenged by seniors, who also come to his talks, that he is trying to start an intergenerational war, he has a standard reply: “No, that war already happened, and the kids lost. We’re just trying to recover some scraps for them.”
With graph after graph, they show how government spending, investments, entitlements and poverty alleviation have overwhelmingly benefited the elderly since the 1960s and how the situation will only get worse as our over-65 population soars 100 percent between now and 2050, while the working population that will have to support them — ages 18 to 64 — will grow by 17 percent. This imbalance will lead to a huge burden on the young and, without greater growth, necessitate cutting the very government investments in infrastructure, Head Start, and medical and technology research that help the poorest and also create the jobs of the future.

Druckenmiller is not looking to get his taxes cut. He considers Social Security and Medicare great achievements for how they’ve reduced poverty among the elderly. He and Canada are simply convinced that only a Vietnam-war-scale movement by the young can break through the web of special interests to force politicians to put in place the reforms that would actually secure both today’s seniors and future seniors, today’s middle class and the wanna-be middle class. (Watch their N.Y.U. presentation: Generational Theft: How Entitlement Spending is Stealing Opportunity from America's Youth - YouTube).

Druckenmiller urges young people to design their own solutions, but, when asked, he recommends: raising taxes on capital gains, dividends and carried interest — now hugely weighted to the wealthy and elderly — to make them equal to earned income taxes; making all consumers more price sensitive when obtaining health care; means-testing Social Security and Medicare so they go to those most in need; phasing in higher age qualifications for entitlements and cutting corporate taxes to zero, so the people who actually create jobs will have more resources to do so.

At the Harlem Children’s Zone, explains Canada, “we have made a promise to all of our children: you play by the rules, do well in school, avoid drugs, gangs, crime and teenage pregnancy, and we will get you into college and on your way down the path of the middle class” and toward a future of financial security. But, he adds, “the current spending on my generation — I’m 61 — if it continues unabated, will erase any chance my children will have the safety net of social, education and health services they will need. It seems deeply offensive to me that we will be asking these poor children from Harlem to subsidize a generation that is, by and large, more well-off than they are, and then leave them deeply indebted in an America that had eaten the seed corn of the next generation.”

The Can Kicks Back
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I'm not a big fan of the law, it's not what I would have pushed for - as I've written before. It is being implemented, however, so it probably makes sense to see how it works out.
Right, because if there's any organization well-known for undoing a program that doesn't work out well, it's the federal government.

But my opinion on this law is not relevant to my request. The sarcasm is not funny, and is not productive. It would be nice if you could tone it down.
Oops...
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I'm not a big fan of the law, it's not what I would have pushed for - as I've written before. It is being implemented, however, so it probably makes sense to see how it works out.

But my opinion on this law is not relevant to my request. The sarcasm is not funny, and is not productive. It would be nice if you could tone it down.

1) If you're not a big fan of the law, why do you continune to defend it so adamantly? If you're in "sit back and wait" mode, then just sit back and wait. I'll bet my next paycheck people are going to be a lot more pissed off about it in 2014 and 2016 than they already are now.

2) Others found my sarcasm funny. If you didn't, sorry. Go pound sand lol...no one forces you to read my posts or reply.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Good theory, especially since the IRS is famous for playing by the rules.

We will see as it plays out, but they have zero authority to do this and it has been noted many times in many publications that the tax/penalty can be avoided by those savvy enough to do it.
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
You seem a little sensitive for being ND's all time leading rusher.

ha - my prodigious rushing stats have nothing to do with this.

in truth, I took a look at a bunch of posts and was embarrassed to be a part of this site. It's just grating. It's hard to take a debate seriously when it reads like it's coming from 10 year olds on a playground, frothing at the mouth.

Sorry, but had to say it. Am hoping that folks might read what they're about to post and see if it's really as witty as it sounded in their heads.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
We will see as it plays out, but they have zero authority to do this and it has been noted many times in many publications that the tax/penalty can be avoided by those savvy enough to do it.

They had zero authority to target Tea Party groups either, but they did that.

The Senate had no authority to pass ACA through the budgetary process, but they did that.

President Obama had no authority to grant waivers to the work-for-welfare statutes, but he did that.
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
1) If you're not a big fan of the law, why do you continune to defend it so adamantly?

Really? Here's what I have written about the ACA on this site:

"I actually am not a fan of the ACA b/c I was hoping for more structural transformation of our health care system that would eat away at the monopoly of the AMA and solve the rising costs problem over the long term.

That said, the comments from the conservatives on here are laughable. This law helps a whole lot of people, fixes glaring problems with our health care system, and is dramatically more efficient than our current system."

AND:

"Let me explain my thoughts a little more so we're clear. The most basic provisions will help lots of people in very obvious ways. Beyond that, we don’t know what’s going to happen.

Its actual implementation is unpredictable, considering that we don’t yet know whether healthy, uninsured individuals will actually comply with the law and how quickly. Right now this group utilizes emergency services when they have a major health problem, which raises everyone’s premiums. If they sign on for insurance, they will lower health care costs for everyone. If they don’t, premiums might not drop. Again, we don’t know exactly how this will play out. But no matter how it plays out, there is no scenario where this could possibly be the calamity that many of you are implying. The changes that are being implemented are complex, but they are not that important for most of the country. The best estimates I’ve seen suggest that the number of people whose health insurance situation will actually change is about 7% of the population."


Does that count as an adamant defense? By the way, that was weeks ago and I haven't even mentioned it since. You're arguing, sarcastically, against imagined foes.


2) Others found my sarcasm funny.

Are you typing on a playground?
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,262
While it is a tax, they do not have the authority to actually collect on it if you do not have insurance and you are not owed a refund.

To my understanding, they cannot put a lien or levy on property. But if you're manipulating your withholding to prevent a return, couldn't they simply force your employer to change the withholding to zero?
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
It's absolutely hilarious that some folks think the deficit would be lower if a republican was president. It would be the same or higher, just spent on different things.
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
Question:

Since I am finally getting a paycheck, they said it's all supposed to be lumped onto one paycheck coming up. I was told that I can change my tax exemptions to 99 and that will essentially allow me to get my paycheck tax free. I've never heard of this and could use a little guidance.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Question:

Since I am finally getting a paycheck, they said it's all supposed to be lumped onto one paycheck coming up. I was told that I can change my tax exemptions to 99 and that will essentially allow me to get my paycheck tax free. I've never heard of this and could use a little guidance.

You'd owe a sh!t load come April 15th.
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
You'd owe a sh!t load come April 15th.

My buddy that was talking to me about it said that we can do something like that twice a year and change it back to what our normal exemptions are, just sounds off to me.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
It's absolutely hilarious that some folks think the deficit would be lower if a republican was president. It would be the same or higher, just spent on different things.

Not even sure I'd go that far. The last Republican administration gave us: (1) Medicare Part D; (2) multiple wars of choice; (3) a new and completely unnecessary cabinet-level department; etc.
 
Top