Page 40 of 54 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 540

Thread: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

  1. #391
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Asked and answered -- move on, counselor.


    In what post did you give me a number?



    Here, I'll give you a number, 0, your case, is dismissed, with prejudice, counselor.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #392
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladiator View Post
    Since 2000, conservatives and Republicans have been compaining about "Activist Judges legislating from the bench." Why don't people appreciate the humor of Obama camplaining about Activist Judges on the Right?

    /
    It was stupid when the conservatives said it.... It is stupid when the liberals are saying it now.
    The SCOTUS is doing the job it was put in place to do. Rule on the constitutionality of a law to check the power of the other two branches.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  3. #393
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    In what post did you give me a number?



    Here, I'll give you a number, 0, your case, is dismissed, with prejudice, counselor.
    I gave you examples, and reasoning. I would have to go through the tax code with a fine tooth comb to come with a total number.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  4. #394
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I gave you examples, and reasoning. I would have to go through the tax code with a fine tooth comb to come with a total number.



    You did no such thing... You made a loose connection that did not apply. The number is 0.,
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #395
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    You did no such thing... You made a loose connection that did not apply. The number is 0.,
    I guess I better repost my original response so you can finally respond to it.

    "See, what you don't seem to get is that Congress can already do most, if not all of those things, because a tax penalty has exactly the same effect as a tax credit. So, to use someone else's example, handing out a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels is functionally identical to handing out a $4,000 tax penalty for NOT installing solar panels. See how this works? If Jon and Bob both have to pay $5,000 in taxes on unadjusted gross income, but Bob actually only has to pay $1,000 because he got a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels, Jon has effectively been penalized $4,000 for not installing solar panels.

    Or to use your examlple, Congress IS penalizing people for not going to college, because interest on student loans is deductible. Thus, if you don't have student loans your tax bill is higher than someone else's tax bill who does have student loans -- JUST like a penalty.

    IOW, EVERY TAX PREFERENCE IS A "MANDATE" in the same sense that the AHCA penalty is a mandate."

    So now we've established that Congress has required people to buy solar panels, and to go to college. I'll add that Congress requires people to purchase homes, and employers to provide health insurance. These are all mandates in the same sense that the PPACA "mandates" that individuals buy health insurance.

    Last edited by AdamT; 04-09-12 at 11:59 AM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  6. #396
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Oh no, a repeat of the silly stuff from before.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  7. #397
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I guess I better repost my original response so you can finally respond to it.

    "See, what you don't seem to get is that Congress can already do most, if not all of those things, because a tax penalty has exactly the same effect as a tax credit. So, to use someone else's example, handing out a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels is functionally identical to handing out a $4,000 tax penalty for NOT installing solar panels. See how this works? If Jon and Bob both have to pay $5,000 in taxes on unadjusted gross income, but Bob actually only has to pay $1,000 because he got a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels, Jon has effectively been penalized $4,000 for not installing solar panels.

    Or to use your examlple, Congress IS penalizing people for not going to college, because interest on student loans is deductible. Thus, if you don't have student loans your tax bill is higher than someone else's tax bill who does have student loans -- JUST like a penalty.

    IOW, EVERY TAX PREFERENCE IS A "MANDATE" in the same sense that the AHCA penalty is a mandate."

    So now we've established that Congress has required people to buy solar panels, and to go to college. I'll add that Congress requires people to purchase homes, and employers to provide health insurance. These are all mandates in the same sense that the PPACA "mandates" that individuals buy health insurance.



    like I said, you are stretching it so thin, I would not skate on it.... So if I don't install new windows, I'm being assessed a $1500 tax penalty, for not installing new windows with the tax credit that get's offered for doing so?


    That has to be one of the silliest arguments I've heard.....
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #398
    Verifier
    Gladiator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Your Back Yard
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,878

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    like I said, you are stretching it so thin, I would not skate on it.... So if I don't install new windows, I'm being assessed a $1500 tax penalty, for not installing new windows with the tax credit that get's offered for doing so?


    That has to be one of the silliest arguments I've heard.....

    Sounds the same to me. If you are filing taxes, and you get a deduction, or incentive, for having health insurance, it is the same thing as having a tax penalty for not having health insurance.
    _______________________________
    How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

  9. #399
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladiator View Post
    Sounds the same to me. If you are filing taxes, and you get a deduction, or incentive, for having health insurance, it is the same thing as having a tax penalty for not having health insurance.
    Exactly, but he won't actually address the argument. His response rises to the level of "IS NOT!" And then he just asks the same question all over again, as if the answer will be any different.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #400
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladiator View Post
    Sounds the same to me. If you are filing taxes, and you get a deduction, or incentive, for having health insurance, it is the same thing as having a tax penalty for not having health insurance.


    It's a silly argument, tax incentives to get you to spend money =/= to fining someone for not getting health insurance to the government's standards, no matter how much whining AdamT does,
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

Page 40 of 54 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •