Medicaid is an entitlement from the government. This is not the government trying to tell anyone how to live, but the government restricting what behavior they will support with entitlements. That is part of the definition of free choice and smaller government. If you don't like it, you have the free choice to not be on Medicaid. I'm not saying this is a perfect argument for several reasons, and I'm also not saying that the Republicans are never hypocritical in trying to control American citizens' lives. God knows they are. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of "taxing" Medicaid is the equivalent of a political double-negative and in no way anti-conservative.
Wrong. Medicaid is an entitlement. You can't tax an entitlement. The word "tax" in the title is wrong, but unless they could use the words "flab tax", no one would be interested.
The problem is that fiscal policy is rarely a zero-sum game. This proposal is more likely for political points rather than lowering anyone's taxes. If they manage to lower the cost of the Medicaid program, do you really think they will even CONSIDER lowering our FICA? I don't.
I have a big problem with this title being political spin. Medicaid is an entitlement. You cannot tax an entitlement. You can change the rules to reduce the cost of the entitlement, which, if fiscal policy was a zero sum game would equate to a tax CUT. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Still, this is NOT a tax. I have the same issue when politicians try to repeal a tax cut and claim they are not raising taxes, just repealing a cut. Bullshit.
Peak efficiency or not, gasoline is much cleaner to burn than coal. You can clean up coal plants all you want, but you can't change that. By trading your internal combustion engine for a car that runs on electricity produced by burning coal, you are making the situation worse.
The problem is that not all AGW fanatics support nuclear energy. In fact, I would wager that most don't, and this will worsen in the coming months. Some seem to think that by driving an electric vehicle they are helping reduce greenhouse emissions, but in most areas, they aren't. In reality, they are contributing more. Electric cars will not help reduce greenhouse emissions until coal use is significantly reduced. Solar and wind will help a small amount, but electric cars and nuclear energy are a package deal.
I'm confused a little about the whole motivation behind electric cars. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge on the subject can fill me in.
I like the idea of eliminating or at least reducing our dependence on foreign oil for political purposes. I'm not so sure I like the idea of replacing our petroleum-based transportation with what will essentially be coal-based transportation. I personally don't think there's much we can do about global warming, and I'll admit I'm not 100% convinced that we're even causing it. That being said, from the perspective of a AGW fanatic, wouldn't this switch from gas to coal be undesirable?
That's exactly why they read you the Miranda warning before asking you any questions. That way you can't say, "Your honor, I did not know that anything I said could be used against me in a court of law."
I remember seeing an episode of To Catch a Predator where this guy told Chris Hansen that he was chatting in a "role-playing chatroom" and that he didn't really believe that the "girl" was underage, because hey, it was a role-playing chatroom. His story was basically that he expected to meet an adult woman at the house. I remember thinking at the time that this was a brilliant defense and if you combined this with lying to the bait about your own age, it would probably get the charges dropped. Turns out it did.
You are aware, aren't you, that Chernobyl is located in a country whose inhabitants are not native English speakers and that they may have a different spelling when the proper name of the city is translated to English? Apparently not.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh God, that WORD!
Actually, by creating counterfeit money, you are devaluing the current supply of currency albeit only slightly.
66% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Um... Mod points anyone?
Medicaid is an entitlement from the government. This is not the government trying to tell anyone how to live, but the government restricting what behavior they will support with entitlements. That is part of the definition of free choice and smaller government. If you don't like it, you have the free choice to not be on Medicaid. I'm not saying this is a perfect argument for several reasons, and I'm also not saying that the Republicans are never hypocritical in trying to control American citizens' lives. God knows they are. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of "taxing" Medicaid is the equivalent of a political double-negative and in no way anti-conservative.
Wrong. Medicaid is an entitlement. You can't tax an entitlement. The word "tax" in the title is wrong, but unless they could use the words "flab tax", no one would be interested.
The problem is that fiscal policy is rarely a zero-sum game. This proposal is more likely for political points rather than lowering anyone's taxes. If they manage to lower the cost of the Medicaid program, do you really think they will even CONSIDER lowering our FICA? I don't.
I have a big problem with this title being political spin. Medicaid is an entitlement. You cannot tax an entitlement. You can change the rules to reduce the cost of the entitlement, which, if fiscal policy was a zero sum game would equate to a tax CUT. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Still, this is NOT a tax. I have the same issue when politicians try to repeal a tax cut and claim they are not raising taxes, just repealing a cut. Bullshit.
Um... poppies. Just sayin'.
Someone please mod this up.
Falsely.
If we all rode bikes in protest, I promise you, they will find a way to tax that.
So... what are you saying?
Maybe the RIAA is conspiring to gradually lower the quality of music so piracy will decrease. Duh. Winning!
My physics is rusty, if not non-existent, but I would guess 1 G.
Peak efficiency or not, gasoline is much cleaner to burn than coal. You can clean up coal plants all you want, but you can't change that. By trading your internal combustion engine for a car that runs on electricity produced by burning coal, you are making the situation worse.
Bingo! ...and I do as well.
The problem is that not all AGW fanatics support nuclear energy. In fact, I would wager that most don't, and this will worsen in the coming months. Some seem to think that by driving an electric vehicle they are helping reduce greenhouse emissions, but in most areas, they aren't. In reality, they are contributing more. Electric cars will not help reduce greenhouse emissions until coal use is significantly reduced. Solar and wind will help a small amount, but electric cars and nuclear energy are a package deal.
I'm confused a little about the whole motivation behind electric cars. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge on the subject can fill me in.
I like the idea of eliminating or at least reducing our dependence on foreign oil for political purposes. I'm not so sure I like the idea of replacing our petroleum-based transportation with what will essentially be coal-based transportation. I personally don't think there's much we can do about global warming, and I'll admit I'm not 100% convinced that we're even causing it. That being said, from the perspective of a AGW fanatic, wouldn't this switch from gas to coal be undesirable?
That's exactly why they read you the Miranda warning before asking you any questions. That way you can't say, "Your honor, I did not know that anything I said could be used against me in a court of law."
I remember seeing an episode of To Catch a Predator where this guy told Chris Hansen that he was chatting in a "role-playing chatroom" and that he didn't really believe that the "girl" was underage, because hey, it was a role-playing chatroom. His story was basically that he expected to meet an adult woman at the house. I remember thinking at the time that this was a brilliant defense and if you combined this with lying to the bait about your own age, it would probably get the charges dropped. Turns out it did.
I'm confused. Are you implying that Rupert Murdoch runs The New York Times?
You are aware, aren't you, that Chernobyl is located in a country whose inhabitants are not native English speakers and that they may have a different spelling when the proper name of the city is translated to English? Apparently not.
I can see it now: Come down to Bob's for the Hindenburger. Only available well done.
Link, please. I would LOVE to see that.
The Tolkien Estate will be looking into this.