Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
    Well first, do you imply all taxes are by force then?
    Yes, because you go to jail if you do not pay your taxes. The police will come and arrest you. That is the very definition of "by force".

    Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
    Because that seems to be the stance you have taken. Also it's amusing you would say he doesn't support taxes taken by force since tax collectors at the time were government endorsed shakedowns by nature of how taxes were collected at the time(a bid process with collectors being allowed to collect as much as they could and keep the difference).
    Jesus is not remarking on the taxes or tax collectors themselves. Only the Jewish/Christian response and submission to those in authority above them. That is explicit in the passage.

    Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
    Why not let them pay themselves? Because money can be saved by distributing the burden. It's akin to buying in bulk. You can mitigate cost across multiple incidences, rather than an individuals certain circumstances.
    You are not mitigating costs for the people who are not receiving any benefits from the system. You are forcing them to pay into a system from which they receive no benefit (not to mention, when the government is involved, price goes up even more). That is actually even worse; it's a combination of slavery and a ponzi scheme. It's not akin to buying in bulk, because the person who buys in bulk at Costco is presumably the person (or family) who receives the benefit of the savings. And if they don't, it's by choice. In this instance, it would be like someone who is forced to buy 10 lbs. of meat, and the government takes 3 lbs. of it for the societal pot. It's forced redistribution of resources, or as many call it now, theft.
    "In God we trust, all others must bring data." - W. Edwards Deming

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Play Angry View Post
      The Cruz Amendment was part of the proposal that Moran and Lee killed. It was the reason Cruz was in favor of it, as opposed to the immediately preceding version which he remained uncommitted to.

      Just the same, it is all failing. They have a couple of days to figure it out or we are back where we ended last week.
      I've been watching Fox for the past couple of hours.

      Last week, Lee and Moran were not going to vote for the bill that had not been advertised. They decided not to have a vote on that bill. Yesterday, the Senate voted to put that bill up for debate and amendments could be offered to change it.

      Cruz offered an amendment this morning to that bill, and that was voted down (don't know the exact numbers but something like 53-47). Yes, Lee and Moran were part of the Republican coalition (there were 5-7 this time) who voted down Cruz' Amendment too.

      Then they had another vote on Total Repeal (Rand Paul's requirement for his yes vote yesterday to put the original bill up for debate) and that was voted down as well (55-45 this time). Now they are looking at a Skinny Obama Repeal.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
        Yes, because you go to jail if you do not pay your taxes. The police will come and arrest you. That is the very definition of "by force".



        Jesus is not remarking on the taxes or tax collectors themselves. Only the Jewish/Christian response and submission to those in authority above them. That is explicit in the passage.



        You are not mitigating costs for the people who are not receiving any benefits from the system. You are forcing them to pay into a system from which they receive no benefit (not to mention, when the government is involved, price goes up even more). That is actually even worse; it's a combination of slavery and a ponzi scheme. It's not akin to buying in bulk, because the person who buys in bulk at Costco is presumably the person (or family) who receives the benefit of the savings. And if they don't, it's by choice. In this instance, it would be like someone who is forced to buy 10 lbs. of meat, and the government takes 3 lbs. of it for the societal pot. It's forced redistribution of resources, or as many call it now, theft.
        Sure, but this was no different in Roman times... So... Yeah... My point regarding Christianity was that you should use it as a source for a stance on taxing because there is supporting scripture on both sides of the issue and selectively picking what you want to read is foolish when both texts are New Testament. Effectively the Biblical stance is what is the governments business is the governments business and one should submit to authority if you are it's subject, unless that authority is infringing on your or anyone else's ability to seek the Kingdom of Heaven, and taxes to support healthcare certainly does not. My advice is to leave Christianity out of it because it does not support either side.

        So you are working under the premise that most people would never benefit from medical care? That's a bit of a leap. Also saying government costs are higher, while are factually true, also ignores the fact that Medicare patients are disproportionately sick or elderly compared to private.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shockmonster View Post
          I've been watching Fox for the past couple of hours.

          Last week, Lee and Moran were not going to vote for the bill that had not been advertised. They decided not to have a vote on that bill. Yesterday, the Senate voted to put that bill up for debate and amendments could be offered to change it.

          Cruz offered an amendment this morning to that bill, and that was voted down (don't know the exact numbers but something like 53-47). Yes, Lee and Moran were part of the Republican coalition (there were 5-7 this time) who voted down Cruz' Amendment too.

          Then they had another vote on Total Repeal (Rand Paul's requirement for his yes vote yesterday to put the original bill up for debate) and that was voted down as well (55-45 this time). Now they are looking at a Skinny Obama Repeal.
          I think you are confused about what had been proposed to be included in the version that Moran and Lee killed last week mere hours after it was floated. Otherwise that summary is correct and matches the vote totals which are posted on the prior page (along with the specific list of dissenting Republicans in each vote).

          Whatcha think they should do?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Play Angry View Post
            I think you are confused about what had been proposed to be included in the version that Moran and Lee killed last week mere hours after it was floated. Otherwise that summary is correct and matches the vote totals which are posted on the prior page (along with the specific list of dissenting Republicans in each vote).

            Whatcha think they should do?
            I've always believed that they should have some principles laid out that they can agree on, and allow the 50 states to build their own program, and spend as much of their own money as they want. I have no problem with the people who CAN work and who aren't, having limitations, and for people who decide to not pay for insurance, having pre-existing conditions penalties. They just can't allow those who don't purchase insurance, and then find out they have cancer, be covered after the fact. The expanding of Medicaid is hurting those citizens with severe disabilities also.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by WuDrWu View Post
              One area that I felt never got enough attention was the pre-existing clause.

              I never really heard anyone discuss this in depth. If you only want insurance when you get sick, that's not going to work. People understand this yes? I can't buy car insurance right after I get into an accident. And if I could, my premiums would be the price of the car, and then some.

              If you mandate coverage, then there is no lapse, so why is there any talk of pre-existing conditions? If you have to have coverage, then you have coverage. You're always covered, therefore by definition nothing is pre-existing, right?
              .
              Here are several issue I have seen in my own family with pre-existing conditions.

              1. If you change jobs, generally that means you are changing insurance companies. You didn't want to change jobs while your wife was pregnant.

              2. If you did become unemployed have you looked at what continuing your previous employer insurance? You get raped. If you unemployed you probably don't have the money to cover the cost.

              3. I have also seen insurance companies raise the cost of premiums of people who are buying private insurance (don't have employer insurance) if they ever used it. They try to make it impossible for you to keep it - they see you as a risk and want to get rid of you (or rape you if you stay on). If you try and change your insurance to a new company then you would run into the pre-existing clause.

              Comment


              • The last employer insurance I was offered prior to ObamaCare was through a temp agency. The business they were hiring for kept close to half their employees as temps for up to 3 years.

                The insurance was only $200 a month. The co-payments and deductibles were low. There was no exclusion for pre-existing conditions. That sounded great and most people took it. I had heard complaints about getting payments through that carrier and discovered why when I got into the fine print about 3 pages into the policy.

                They capped their payments at $2,000 a year. The employees paid $2,400 a year, but could only recover $2,000 a year.

                For all the people who never had a claim, that was a low payment, low deductible, low co-pay plan that got eliminated under ObamaCare.
                The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades.
                We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.

                Comment


                • Cpl. Klinger probably isn't happy with the new stance of the US military.

                  Comment


                  • If being transgendered is a mental illness, this makes sense. If being transgender is related to gender expression, this makes sense.
                    Livin the dream

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jdshock View Post
                      Cpl. Klinger probably isn't happy with the new stance of the US military.

                      What?
                      Really?
                      Did you even watch the show?
                      Klinger would be happy as a pig in **** right now!
                      Section 8. Next flight to Toledo and a Mud Hens game!
                      Klinger just bought a red MAGA hat!
                      There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MoValley John View Post
                        What?
                        Really?
                        Did you even watch the show?
                        Klinger would be happy as a pig in **** right now!
                        Section 8. Next flight to Toledo and a Mud Hens game!
                        Klinger just bought a red MAGA hat!
                        You're right. I got so excited to make the joke, that I didn't even think about it.

                        Comment


                        • I don't see why taxpayers should pay for anybody's elective plastic surgery.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pinstripers View Post
                            I don't see why taxpayers should pay for anybody's elective plastic surgery.

                            Anybody's?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by CBB_Fan View Post
                              Isn't that more restorative plastic surgery rather than elective?
                              Kung Wu say: "If Chuck Norris had a coach, his name would be Gregg Marshall."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
                                Isn't that more restorative plastic surgery rather than elective?
                                I think the definition is being missed here. Most surgeries are elective, which simply means scheduled at a time to suit the surgeon, hospital, and patient. It seems elective is being confused for optional or non-medical. By definition, a skin-graft for a burn is just as much an elective surgery as a sex-assignment surgery. That was what I had an issue with.

                                I don't personally care about funding or not funding surgery for 65 people, and that's not a percentage. It is a matter far, far below the national level that simply isn't worth substantial time or energy when considering the scale of the problems facing the government and country. But there are certainly elective plastic surgeries for thousands or tens of thousands of vets that I would support.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X