Semantics. Either way, if you purchase insurance, you taxes are lower than if you don't.
The future of the Republican Party.
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Semantics. Either way, if you purchase insurance, you taxes are lower than if you don't.
Perhaps, but it's like asking your friend for $20 is effectively the same as stealing $20 from him/her. In the end you're $20 richer and they're out the money. Same result right?
False analogy, since the Ryan plan raised taxes *before* offering the tax credit. Top tax analysts have concluded that Ryan's plan imposed an effective "penalty" for not having insurance that was greater than the one in the ACA.
All of which falls within the confines of the constitution. Government can raise and lower taxes as well as specify how the taxation will be implemented. Never before, in the 200+ years of the country, has the Federal government forced an individual to purchase something. The SCOTUS this week wasn't concerned about if Obamacare was going to save taxpayers money or whatever, it was all about the individual mandate and how it "...changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way" to quote Justice Kennedy.
In regard to a false analogy, it's not. Asking a friend for $20 is legal and okay. Stealing is not. Paul Ryan's plan is legal and legitimate, based on how the Constitution is currently understood. The individual mandate on the other hand is an unknown (maybe it's legal, maybe it's not). I believe the SC will strike down the individual mandate, in which case it will be illegal, but if they rule the other way then I'm wrong.
It just seems disingenuous to me that with two plans which are effectively identical as far as the taxpayer's liabilities are concerned, one would be considered constitutional and one not based on a technicality.
It's the politics of wanting to claim that taxes weren't raised, nothing more.
If you don't do A, the government will increase your dues by B, from C to C+B.
If you do A, the government will reduce your dues by B, from C+B down to C.
There is no difference.
It's the politics of wanting to claim that taxes weren't raised, nothing more.
If you don't do A, the government will increase your dues by B, from C to C+B.
If you do A, the government will reduce your dues by B, from C+B down to C.
There is no difference.
Are people simply forced to buy private insurance or are the insurance fees identical for everybody and payed via taxes?
Because the former is, as zephramc has pointed out, indeed a problem. Somebody with chronic illness will have to pay higher fees in a private insurance market and if his employer has to cover part of that the fees he will have a hard time finding a job. So it might be possible that the very person who is supposed to be most in favour of this bill is actually against it.
With tax-based public health systems like in Nordic countries you don't face such problems. Yet insuring everybody creates a serious adverse incentives problem, even in the case of one's own health, so stuff like fat taxes (Denmark) or more generally taxing anything that has bad effects upon health has to be considered.
Because the former is, as zephramc has pointed out, indeed a problem. Somebody with chronic illness will have to pay higher fees in a private insurance market and if his employer has to cover part of that the fees he will have a hard time finding a job. So it might be possible that the very person who is supposed to be most in favour of this bill is actually against it.
With tax-based public health systems like in Nordic countries you don't face such problems. Yet insuring everybody creates a serious adverse incentives problem, even in the case of one's own health, so stuff like fat taxes (Denmark) or more generally taxing anything that has bad effects upon health has to be considered.
As a conservative party?
The difference is the legality (again depending upon the SC ruling). As it stands, Congress is limited to the powers listed in Article I, Section 8. Taxation laws can be found in the same section mentioned as well as the 16th amendment. The monies collected via the individual mandate are not taxes, at least not in the current sense of the law.
Look, I don't have a problem with a heathcare system of some sort in which taxes are apportioned. I think certain social safety nets are part and parcel of a wealthy, modern day society. But, in this case, the ends don't justify the means. There are dangers going down this road. The danger is as Justice Roberts stated:
Knight Templar
Commodore
1) As supporting abortion rights.
2)
3) As in my opinion in favor of cutting dramatically the U.S. military.
4) As opposed to the manned space program in my opinion.
5)
6) As being anti business and pro labor in my opinion.
For starters.
Last edited:
I just pick out point 3) and let the Vice Admiral and the statistics speak for themselves. Or as Eisenhower said: "I get tired of saying that defense is to be made an excuse for wasting dollars. I don't think we should pay one cent for defense more than we have to."
People who wanna reduce military spending aren't some stinking hippie peaceniks, they are sane minded enough to realize that the USA can be defended with far less resources and that imperialism is just too costly. We in the West lead expensive wars to get our hands on resources while the Chinese already own half of Africa without shooting one bullet. So from a pure Kissingerian, Realpolitik point of view it makes sense to question the current way to gain influence in the world.
People who wanna reduce military spending aren't some stinking hippie peaceniks, they are sane minded enough to realize that the USA can be defended with far less resources and that imperialism is just too costly. We in the West lead expensive wars to get our hands on resources while the Chinese already own half of Africa without shooting one bullet. So from a pure Kissingerian, Realpolitik point of view it makes sense to question the current way to gain influence in the world.
What rights, exactly, are homosexuals and Democrats pushing for that aren't the same as every other member of society? The right to marry? The right to have children? The right to be free of employment and housing discrimination?
Do tell.
Ohhhh, yeah. This will end well.
I'd hate to find out what "homosexual rights" means in this particular context. I get the feeling some of this isn't gonna be pretty.
Yes. Do tell.
I'd hate to find out what "homosexual rights" means in this particular context. I get the feeling some of this isn't gonna be pretty.
Yes. Do tell.
Seems strange that conservatives on the one hand consider families to be the nuclei of society, a concept that definitely makes some sense, but want LGBT folks to not create families.
If I imagined to be a conservative guy who is for family and and not a big fan of people screwing around I would naturally want LGBT folks to marry. There are such consistent conservatives but the overwhelming majority are reactionary charlatans who ignore their own principles whenever it pleases them.
If I imagined to be a conservative guy who is for family and and not a big fan of people screwing around I would naturally want LGBT folks to marry. There are such consistent conservatives but the overwhelming majority are reactionary charlatans who ignore their own principles whenever it pleases them.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Yes, those are the ones. But that said lets not get all worked up over just one issue.
Easy to say for white, heterosexual males who have never been the victims of discrimination.
Fine. How about these issues?:
How in any stretch of imagination are those negative and not worth supporting?
Do tell...
Yeah, the fact that he outright said he doesn't like the Dems because they support minorities is pretty damning. 
Knight Templar
Commodore
Yeah, the fact that he outright said he doesn't like the Dems because they support minorities is pretty damning.
I just do not like what I see as constant pandering to what people have determined to be "oppressed groups" or something of that nature. I think the people in power in the govt. should treat everyone alike (except for the exceptions noted previously) and pay more attention to the majority.
Now, given that those issues are offensive to people here I'll go back to my post and edit them out if possible. I have no wish to start any kind of angry exchange over conflicting values. Nothing says we can't get along just because we disagree.
So pay more attention to straight, white people. Especially, those who own and or run businesses. I suppose those colored folk can just go back to where ever they came from and take the gays with them. But whose going to do the gardening, drive the limo, hold the door at the club, and fix the drinks? It would be anarchy.
