Y2HH

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) Once God took the rib away. There is a story around that most do not know. I know because I went there in a DeLorean and witnessed it. Don't question the validity of my statements, either. Originally, God asked a lonely Adam if he wanted companionship, and of course Adam -- rather excitedly -- responded, "Oy...my...God...Yes!". Despite the fact he was actually responding to God himself, I credit Adam with the original creation of OMG. Now, where was I? Oh, right...God then explained that in order for that to happen, sacrifices must be made for all future mankind. Now, keep in mind this is the original God, not the new nice God they decided to "rewrite" in the New Testament. Adam grew suspicious, knowing that the new testament had not yet been completed, so this omnipotent being he was dealing with was known to be a dick at times...but Adam forged ahead for all of us future men and asked for details. God said, "Ok, I'm feeling good today. How about I create a female gender which would contain all of the following attributes: A slender yet curvy, not to mention beautiful/perfect face with the hair and body to match, which never gets sick or has headaches, loves cooking (and knows how too cook), cleaning, raising children, pleasing you any time of the day or night, taking care of your every whim, always smiling and helping to brighten your day, that allows you to play with any and all of her friends, even at the same time?" Adam was overcome with joy...he immediately said, "Yes! Yes! Give me that! Give us all of that!" God stopped him in his excitement and said, "Hold on...before you agree to anything, you need to know what I'm asking in return...for all of that, and keep in mind this sacrifice is for all of man kind to come...not just you...all I want is an 'arm and a leg'. Adam thought about this for a few seconds before replying, "Hmmm...well, err, what can I get for a rib?!" ...and this is what we have. Thanks, Adam. You dick.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) I made it half of the first page before laughing at how ridiculous that is. That guy needs to grow a pair of balls. Jesus. When did being a man become a bad thing? Haven't you watched a single sitcom or romantic comedy in your entire life? Men are stupid retarded asshats and women -- unless they are in love -- are smart, intelligent, and awesome. However, if women are in love, they're allowed to be clumsy asshats.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:22 PM) I'm guessing his underlying question is then, why is the first one "grey area unconstitutional" if they do the same thing See my post above yours. While it's an extreme and simplified example...it's an example that highlights that just because both means lead to the same end, it doesn't necessarily mean they're both allowed and/or legal.

Let me liken the example to something very near and dear to our hearts... Just because there are multiple means to the same end, does not justify, or make legal, all means to that end. Huh? What? Let me explain. 1) It's legal to hit HR's in MLB. 1a) It's NOT legal to hit HR's while on PED's in MLB. 2) But...but...but both resulted in home runs! 3) Yes, and one is legal, while the other is not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Gotta repeat this question here. Clearly, raising everyone's taxes via a payroll tax or something similar and then granting a tax credit for those who have insurance would be constitutional. How is it that the exact same outcome but achieved through a slightly different mechanism that results in the same thing is unconstitutional? Because one is grey area unconstitutional (currently being discussed in the supreme court), and one is not?

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:20 AM) Er, just to clarify -- when you say "the way they choose to do things" are you talking about how Congress passed the bill, or how the Court adjudicates it? Congress.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) Looks like the ME supports Zimmerman's story: You son of a b****. You actually get 2x credit on this one, because I thought, WTF did I have something cached, and actually RECLICKED it. For that, I'll remind you Mr. Perfect is dead.

Also, let's not forget they haven't passed judgement yet. Who knows what they will end up doing...but IMO, that part of the way they choose to do things is unconstitutional but that's not up to me to decide.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) I'm a huge fan of the liberals on this board arguing that the Court should ignore the text of a bill and decide its constitutionality based on the "oh come on, we all know what they MEANT to do" standard. That's exactly how I see it...and it's exactly how every last one of their arguments are being framed. As I'm not an expert, and I'm only basing my opinion on what I know/understand, there was a legal way of doing this, and the way they actually did it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:55 AM) And so basically, they did something that is structurally exactly identical. They raise the income tax by $695, and then offset it with a $695 credit that you receive if you purchase the private insurance. They changed the terms. A refund versus a write-off. Fundamentally it is the exact same thing. The only difference is that they spelled out the mechanism in one bill rather than doing so independently. There's no plausible standard by which doing one of these can be constitutional and doing the other is an unconstitutional impingment on freedom. Either the government has the right to incentivize certain purchases or it doesn't. The problem is, as I see it, one method is legal, and one is not. And for the purpose of disclaimer, I'm not an tax code expert, nor a constitutional expert. Our tax code is so complex that issues like this arise BECAUSE it's so complex. What I am is a home owner that can tell you the differences in added taxes I now have versus when I didn't own a home...and the write off doesn't come CLOSE to off setting the added amount of my money that's being sucked up by various government entities. And a write-off is nothing close to a refund, by the way. As an easy example, you can write off 3000$ a year in stock market losses. Now, that sounds great, but if I lost 3000$ in the market, and I get a 'write off' of 3000$...here is how it works out for me: For the sake of this example, let's say I make 50,000$ a year and my tax rate is 15%. 50000*0.15=7500$ With that "write off", my taxable income drops to 47000. 47000*0.15=7050$ 7500-7050 = 450$. Now, if I got a 3000$ tax CREDIT for that loss...I'd get 3000$ back. NOT even close to the same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:37 AM) You're right, you haven't responded to my point other than to call it a simplification, but you haven't given a single statement about why the comparison is incorrect or why the government can't do this other than to repeat that somehow the government is forcing you to buy insurance when the government itself projects that 15 million people will not buy insurance. You haven't made a valid point to respond too. The (simplified) point you are attempting to make is that if you purchase a home, you pay less in federal tax as an incentive to ease the burden on the home owner...so by that same token, if they increased taxes on everyone, and then provided tax *credits* for purchasing private health care, that it's the same. First and foremost, that's not what they did. Second, the mortgage example is an incentive that slightly lowers taxes in one area because it will now be imposed in other area(s) you weren't previously paying into at all. The other is a blanket tax offset...where if you get taxed 700$ a year, earmarked for Heath Care expenses, and IF you buy private insurance, you get it all back in the form of tax credits...which is a refund, not a write off.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) Correct. Incorrect. But you can keep going.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) You're right, it isn't the same in 2 ways, which I already pointed out. 1. THe language does not use the term "tax", it just structures it as a tax increase. 2. They were done in the same bill, as opposed to passing a different bill for the tax increase and for the tax credit. I'm waiting for you to tell me the other difference. Every one you've said so far is just a slogan. The government is not "Forcing" or "Requiring" or "Threatening" you or whatever if you don't purchase insurance, and it is legally mandating the purchase using the exact same mechanism by which it offers every other tax credit on the books. If the government passed 2 bills, one of which included an $800 tax increase on every American, and then immediately passed a second bill offering an $800 tax credit for purchase of qualifying private insurance, that would be the individual mandate in the affordable care act. You're oversimplifying it, on purpose to make your point, I might add. The government configured the tax code to ease the burden on home buyers, etc...an incentive to help offset the other costs incurred for "taking part". Bold: Again, vast over simplification.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) Yes, it fundamentally is the exact same thing. The only difference is the language. That is literally the only difference, it is not spelled out as a "Tax". The government has every right to do every single step of this bill, and thus the government has every right to do so together. If the government were to pass an $800 tax increase on everyone in the country, and then offer an $800 tax credit for purchasing a mortgage, that would be the exact same structure as this bill in a legal sense, and that is effectively exactly what the current system has: I pay a higher federal income tax rate because I cannot claim a certain deduction. If the government then changed that terminology from "tax credit" to "Mandate" it could do so without altering the law at all. The law right now could be changed to call the mortgage interest tax deduction a "Homebuying mandate" and the law would be exactly the same as what is on the books right now. I edited my post. It's not the same, even if it's meant to achieve the same goal. Bold: This is a vast oversimplification of the tax code and why they set it up that way. It's meant to ease the burden because of the extra amount of income that person will be spending on other various taxes, etc. You're *federal* income tax rate is slightly lower to offset the MASSIVE tax you have coming from local/state. Second Bold: Again, you don't HAVE to buy a home.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:18 AM) Then in that case, does the government have the right to raise income taxes? Because either the government has no right to raise everyone's income tax, or the government has no right to give a tax credit. If 2 things are constitutional, then doing them together in the same bill cannot make them suddenly unconstitutional. That's not what they're arguing is unconstitutional. What's unconstitutional is the government telling you that you HAVE to buy something for said credit...or else! If you want to impose a new tax...impose it. Not the same as doing what they're doing here even if it's meant to achieve the same outcome.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:07 AM) Yes or no question. If I had a mortgage right now, would I pay a lower tax rate? Am I paying more in taxes than I would if I were paying interest on a privately purchased mortgage? No. Not even close.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:07 AM) Yes or no question. If I had a mortgage right now, would I pay a lower tax rate? Am I paying more in taxes than I would if I were paying interest on a privately purchased mortgage? You're forcing me to answer a framed/loaded question, but it's not a yes or no question as you're attempting to pose it as. As Brad Pitt told Matt Damon in Ocean's Eleven, "It's slightly more complicated than that..." No, you don't pay a lower tax rate. You're tax rate is the same. You simply get a deduction...which is no where near the same as getting a lower tax rate. Yes, my interest is a *partial* deduction, but it's more complicated than a simple "yes" coupled with a tax deduction. I pay 3,800$ a year on my property tax...a tax you have to pay at ALL.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) No, they did not. You do not have to buy health insurance under the mandate. You flat out do not. They have not removed the choice in any sense. You do not go to jail, you can still pass go if you fail to purchase health insurance. You simply have to pay an $800 or so tax if you choose to do not, assuming you do not have other income levels. You have every right to choose not to purchase a product that will cost a family of 4 on average $20k this year and pay the tax penalty, just like I have every right to choose not to purchase a mortgage and pay several hundred dollars in higher taxes for the exact same reason. I am paying higher taxes than a person with a privately purchased mortgage who has the exact same income as me and otherwise has the exact same other purchases. That is the exact same issue. Again, you ignore the reality in an attempt to make a point. You're right, you don't HAVE to buy insurance...but if you don't you get taxed/penalized. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. You don't get taxed/penalized for not buying a Volt, a H/E furnace or a house.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 08:06 AM) Of course, we've been over this many times, but hey, it's morning, and I'm up for a rant so I'll repeat myself. The government is not forcing you to buy a corporate product. The government is raising your taxes and offering you an equivalent tax credit if you purchase a corporate product. Effectively, the government is saying you will pay a higher tax rate if you choose not to purchase that product. You will not go to jail if you fail to purchase health insurance. The government of course does this all the bloody time. For example, I am currently not a homeowner. I do not have a mortgage, and thus i am not paying interest on that mortgage. If I were to purchase a mortgage, it would be originally a corporate product. Thus, I am paying a tax penalty for failing to purchase a corporate product. In the exact same way that you're saying the government is "Forcing" me to buy health insurance, it is "forcing" me to buy a mortgage. You have every right to not purchase either of these products, but if you choose not to do so, you pay a higher tax rate. I would love to purchase a Chevy Volt, but I have not done so. Thus, I have not cashed in the tax credit for purchasing a Chevy Volt. By the exact same standard, I am being "Forced" to buy a chevy volt; the government has a tax credit that kicks in if I buy a corporate product. BS doesn't eat meat, thus he's being inactive in terms of cashing in on all the subsidies that go to meat production. I have not given significant funds to charitiy this year, and thus I have failed to cash in on the enormous tax credits for giving to charities. I have not had a business lunch this year. I have not made energy efficiency upgrades to a home that I own this year. The "Mandate" is a mandate in the exact same sense that any of these are "mandates", you pay a higher tax rate if you aren't economically active by giving your money to that private group. It is different in a few ways: 1. The increased tax rate and the tax credit are in the same bill and are the same amount 2. It is not called a "Tax", it is called a "Mandate", because the word "Tax" is hard to get through Congress and the word "Mandate" actually produces a stronger reaction in people making them more likely to make the purchase. 3. It was passed by Democrats, and Democrats are evil. The final majority opinion is likely to have Scalia-written BS about "Economic inactivity" in it. Personally, I would love to challenge the mortgage interest deduction on the same standard. The only ways it differs from the "Mandate" in the PPACA are those 3 points. Of course, the real reason why it would be unconstitutional is #3, but hey, that's the world we live in. You are purposefully ignoring the difference between choice to buy and forced to buy in every last one of the examples you listed above, which skirts around the entire conversation, but you designed your argument to do just that. You don't HAVE to buy a Chevy Volt, a house, a high efficiency furnace, or A/C unit for the tax credit(s)/incentives offered for such purchases. It's a choice coupled with an incentive to "take part". What they did with this was remove the choice...you must buy said product from private business, or you get penalized. Nobody I know is being penalized for not buying a house/car/furnace...that reasoning is absolutely ridiculous. You're entire bolded section makes zero sense. You aren't paying ANY tax for not taking part in purchasing a volt or a house...because you don't "have" to buy either, nor do you have to buy alternatives that are taxed at a non-incentive higher rate. I know people that 1) don't own a car, and 2) don't own a house...and 3) aren't looking to own either. Therefore they pay ZERO taxes on either. That's how easily they'd knock down your argument if you attempted it in court, by the way.

I think they'll be better than people expect.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) Now it's a far-reaching conspiracy on the part of the police, EMT's, witnesses, etc. They're obviously all in on it together...I mean all cops, emts, random witnesses and suspects those same police requested an arrest for -- which was denied -- are co-conspirators! The grainy video is all the evidence you need. The detective requested to make an arrest...and was denied...so he must have went back, got everyone together that was on the scene that day and rewrote the entire arrest report.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:55 AM) But it certainly doesn't look like someone who was having his head repeatedly smashed into the concrete. I don't know the actual words used when they described this...did they specifically say concrete? I ask because it comes to my attention that he had grass stains on his shirt, so they say? Perhaps it was dirt/grass he had his head knocked into? I don't know, I never read the official report.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) Am I the only one who thinks it's lame to be suspicious of young black males because they have a hoodie on? If that's the case, I'm going to be suspicious of middle aged white guys in track suits who look Italian... I'm suspicious of middle aged Italians wearing track suits. Why shouldn't I be? It doesn't make me a racist to be suspicious of people. I'm also suspicious of young kids wearing hoodies, too. Again, why shouldn't I be? Why is it inconceivable to people to be suspicious of suspicious looking people? You know what I'm not very suspicious of? A 90 year old lady walking .005mph with a shopping cart, regardless of her skin color. It's not lame at all to be suspicious of people...it's lame to take that suspicion as far as Zimmerman did. People are looking further into this than necessary. It's natural to pre-judge people on their appearance/clothing. Anyone...I'll repeat that, ANYONE that claims otherwise is a f***ing liar.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) Police Video Shows No Blood, Bruises On George Zimmerman After Killing We already discussed this...the video's aren't clear at all, which area all post incident, post EMT's cleaning him up. If they want actual evidence, all they need to do is subpena the medical report from the EMT's that's checked out Zimmerman on the scene and filled out his medical report.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) Are you trying to get me to go away No, trying to wake you up so you get off that disgusting sounding diet...boiled chicken...yuck. I'd sooner just stop eating meat if I was forced to eat that, there are easier high protein alternatives like Tofu that you can make taste like other things versus a tasteless piece of boiled meat. :/ The issue is I don't see it as a sustainable diet...it just comes across as the exact type of diet you'll get away from the second you can because it's tasteless and boring, and more often than not, when people do move away from "meh" tasting diets, they crash into unhealthy eating territory.