• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unions will dodge O's health tax

Do you acknowledge the fact that it should never be allowed to happen

Also, yeah, this kind of back-scratching in government is bad, no matter whose back is getting scratched.

It's a little more forgivable when you're talking about members of the House, since they really are only concerned with their little patch of turf, but the President has no such excuse.
 
rev, i believe there is supposed to be a provision that no taxes will be paid on insurance unless wages are over 200k, regardless of your union status.

I would love to see how that works. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to keep it "deficit neutral". Perhaps they could write in a law that says insurance will be provided free of charge by Santa Claus every year on non-denominational winter holiday.

The fact of the matter is, the bill that has been passed by the house and senate includes specific exemptions for unions. And a bunch of other ridiculous sweeteners for particular states that they needed to buy enough votes to cram it through.
 
I think there's already enough evidence. Chrysler and GM come to mind. As does recent proposals for punitive taxes on banks and executive bonuses.

Don't forget that the extremely high salaries and bonuses at Fanny and Freddy won't be taxed and congress, even though they own them, can't do anything about it.... talk about hypocrisy!
 
i pay my share of taxes, and have always stated i wouldn't mind paying more for universal healthcare. as for your "class envy" crap, tell it somebody who cares.

Cool..... what is your address so I can send my bill for Universal Health care to you.
 
if you make over 200k i have no problem with you paying a little more tax. sorry, that's the way i feel.

Unfortunately there are a lot of folks like you who always want the supposed rich to pay more.

Of course the fact that they're already paying more tax seems to be lost on many.


Part of the problem with the way many think about these things is that it always seems to start with - how will we pay for this - rather than - why does the government need so darn much of our money.
 
i pay my share of taxes, and have always stated i wouldn't mind paying more for universal healthcare. as for your "class envy" crap, tell it somebody who cares.

Ah, I sense hostility.

Did I point out the presence of a painfully swollen zit in the middle of your forehead like the horn of a unicorn?

No, I just pointed out that you're envious of the more successful.
 
It's my business as much as what's under my Burka at the airport is your business.

:mrgreen:


Ah.

So what you're saying is that what people make is none of your business.

Someone doesn't realize I FULLY support the Second Amendment.

And we now see one of those people who is too stupid to figure out what that means.

Becareful. I have the power to make your strawmen bite you.
 
Also, yeah, this kind of back-scratching in government is bad, no matter whose back is getting scratched.

It's a little more forgivable when you're talking about members of the House, since they really are only concerned with their little patch of turf, but the President has no such excuse.

It's not forgiveble, period.

Damn compromising liberty discarding loser socialists....
 
So what you're saying is that what people make is none of your business.

I am saying exactly what I said. Whatever conclusions you draw are your own.

Someone doesn't realize I FULLY support the Second Amendment.

I wasn't aware that the right to bear arms had anything to do with what I said.

And we now see one of those people who is too stupid to figure out what that means.

Are you calling me stupid, or are you trying to distract me from the fact that your argument is about as well-formed as a sand castle after the tide comes in?
 
if you make over 200k i have no problem with you paying a little more tax. sorry, that's the way i feel.

200K isn't as much as some people make it out to be.
 
Ah, I sense hostility.

Did I point out the presence of a painfully swollen zit in the middle of your forehead like the horn of a unicorn?

No, I just pointed out that you're envious of the more successful.
hardly. but keep your little fantasy if it makes you happy.
 
it's not peanuts. and i still don't know how that tax will work.

Although it's apparently the liberal dream to make people earning more than the arbitrarily selected $200,000 per year pay for everything, it will not work. The economics of the bill already don't work, and this would screw them up even more. I'm not sure where you heard the rumor that it's even being considered, but it's nothing more than that- a rumor. It will not be in the final bill.
 
I wasn't aware that the right to bear arms had anything to do with what I said.

You cognitive lapses don't appear to be an issue I'm required to compensate for.

Are you calling me stupid, or are you trying to distract me from the fact that your argument is about as well-formed as a sand castle after the tide comes in?

Well, first off, your two options aren't mutually exclusive.

Beyond that, I'm not obligated to respond.
 
You cognitive lapses don't appear to be an issue I'm required to compensate for.

This isn't a cognitive lapse on my part, this is a failure on your part to properly define your position.

Well, first off, your two options aren't mutually exclusive.

Beyond that, I'm not obligated to respond.

In other words, you can't respond without earning an infraction, which in fact means that both conditions are true at the same time.

It's good to know that your argument is so weak that even you acknowledge all that is left to you is to sling personal insults.
 
Although it's apparently the liberal dream to make people earning more than the arbitrarily selected $200,000 per year pay for everything, it will not work. The economics of the bill already don't work, and this would screw them up even more. I'm not sure where you heard the rumor that it's even being considered, but it's nothing more than that- a rumor. It will not be in the final bill.


They picked 200k because it sounds impressive.

Since that number isn't going to steal the revenue needed to make this behemoth government takeover scam work, it's merely the current ceiling which will be lowered rapidly until old liblady and her pals are "contributing" more than they feel comfortable with, and then some.

And they'll still be saying they're not paying enough in taxes.

I wonder how many of those people donated to Huckabee's "Tax Me More Fund"?
 
This isn't a cognitive lapse on my part,

Clearly it was, since you failed to understand the implications.

this is a failure on your part to properly define your position.

My position is perfectly defined.

Right now, I'm sitting, with my knees bent, elbows on desk, typing, with my head turned slightly to the left and looking down at a monitor.

My political positions are also perfectly defined, if you unclearly meant to imply some kind of philsopical stance, not a physical one.

In other words, you can't respond without earning an infraction, which in fact means that both conditions are true at the same time.

Not necessarily.

Pointing out that your assertion that I may be calling you a fool and whatever else it was you said didn't mean the second part was true.

It did't mean the first part was true.

It meant you're not very adept at presenting logical conditionals for public perusal.

The logic traps you create for yourself aren't assigned to me to unravel and correct. My name isn't Samurai Second Grade Teacher-San.

It's good to know that your argument is so weak that even you acknowledge all that is left to you is to sling personal insults.

I haven't slung personal insults, I've bent over backwards encouraging you to examine your logical posturing without actually -ewww- holding your hand to do so.

Okay, so it's vastly entertaining to watch someone like yourself work diligently with that shovel.

Can you explain why you think the hole you're in will get less deep if you persist in digging?

Can you identify the single logical flaw you made that got yourself special attention from your superior, me?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Scarecrow... stop baiting and attacking or there will be further consequences.
 
they raised the exemption from 8500 for an individual to 8900, for a family from 23000 to 24000

UNLESS you're member of a FAVORED union

the secrecy of this bill's crafting

the bribes

the strongarm nature of its passage

he had a capitol hill rally and wouldn't let the MEMBERS hold their blackberries

shh, shh, can't let the public know what we're doing

and now, the newest, biggest buzzword, blooming like a southern california fire fanned by hot santa ana winds---EXEMPTIONS

nebraska---let the other FORTY NINE states pay

government motors---let OUT of obama's brand new, embarrassingly ad hoc bank tax, his FINANCIAL CRISIS RESPONSIBILITY FEE

LOL!

uaw, spared as much pain as possible in the auto bankruptcies, rewarded beyond all due, while stockholders and especially taxpayers get screwed

the secret deal with phrma

and now this---the let-my-people-go COLLECTIVE BARGAINING exemption

no wonder they have to surrender their blackberries

this pill is poison, they're chumps to pass it

can't they hear MASSACHUSETTS, her voice so loud and clear?

it's only a couple hundred miles

and they're hardwired on the same wavelength

weird

party leadership is playing so like petrograd, it's engendering rage out there IN MASSACHUSETTS

oh well

party on
 
Last edited:
Excellent post prof. You summed up Obama's first year pretty well. I surely would have thanked it if the system were enabled. I'd just add creditors to your list of people that were screwed in the UAW deal.
 
The fact that BRIBES are necessary says EVERYTHING about this plan, and the left.
 
Since when is the New York Post breaking news?

Gotta love the journalistic integrity of the headline...:roll::roll:
 
Since when is the New York Post breaking news?

Gotta love the journalistic integrity of the headline...:roll::roll:
Better late then never to complain about how breaking something is.
 
the ny post is responsible for contributors to obama being EXEMPTED from taxes everyone else must pay?

are you sure it's not the nebraska post?

the unmeasured mindlessness only a cspan afficianado ignorant of conference procedures could be capable of
 
Back
Top Bottom