how did SCOTUS declare it a tax when it wasnt wriiten up as one in the law? How do they have the leeway to change the definition of something in a ruling? They are supposed to rule on whats before them, not define it as something else in order for it to pass constitutional muster.. ??? The reason it wasnt called a "tax" in the law is because it wouldnt have gotten the votes. SCOTUS ruling it is a "tax" bypasses the whole point of voting for a bill.
How come there aren't any people complaining that there are VASTLY more women in nursing than men. Surely we need to make sure that core nursing classes are a core subject for both men and women right?
This is the suit where Kleargear fined a couple $3,500 for leaving a bad review and ruined their credit etc etc. Looks like they (Kleargear) didnt even show up to court. Wonder why.
True story. Last year I had a credit score of 817. I then sold my home (installment debt), HELOC(home equity line of credit(installment loan) - which by the way has to be paid off for you to close on your house) and during that same week I closed on land that i sold that I was paying on (also an installment loan). We were moving and it all kinda happened around the same time. The NEXT month my credit score dropped to 787. Thats right...30 points.
See it turns out that your credit score is made up of a number of different factors and one of them is the kind of debt that you hold. So even though I havent been late on any of these installment loans my score still dropped because part of your credit score is based upon the right "mix" of debt that you have. Thats right friends. IF YOU PAY YOUR BILLS YOU ARE PENALIZED.
The whole thing is a scam. Let's get this through our thick skulls right now. Banks want to lend money to people that pay their bills on time but at the same time generate interest income. It's not really even, to a certain extent, based on whether you have a good enough job to pay the loan off that you are applying for. It's based on how much money the creditor thinks they can make off of you. I guess none of this really matters unless you need to purchase a new vehicle or buy a home. Smaller purchases like big screen tv's and laptops you can get credit for at your local brick and mortar for 0% for 18-24 months and thats easy to get even if you dont have perfect credit.
The difference between 787 and 817 however can make a difference in interest rates(i will be looking for a new home in the next 2 - 3 years). Since my credit score dropped to 787 back in November its now back to 800 but its been there now for 4 months without budging. I am not complaining about that - i just thought i would share my experience. I wonder what my score will be like once i am debt free by December?
If I was a high school Junior or Senior now and I knew that i wanted to be an iOS developer, I wouldn;t darken the doors of a college campus. There is plenty of material online for teaching yourself software development in general and more specific mobile developement. You've got tons of forums, tutorials, books, the free stanford IOS class for FREE on iTunes, etc etc. Also companies where mobile development is paramount, they aren't on the "only people with degrees need apply" attitude.
We can buy an iPhone direct from Apple instead of a wireless provider just as much as buying a TV directly from Samsung or an infinite amount of other goods and services on the internet or in showrooms dedicated to a certain product or line of products. Why are cars the exception??
I guess its no surprise considering that its still illegal to pump your own gas in NJ.
some people have like wives and kids..ya know families. So when its time to get off work, family should be #1. not coding when ive already been coding all day. That doesnt mean that you cant do 'something' on the side but of course there was no definition of 'coding in their spare time' when the amount of spare time could mean 4 or 5 hours a week or less.
All their goals that they want to achieve in that statement would come to fruition by actually allowing open municipal networks and thus creating competition. I dont understand why they think by hindering more networks to be created would somehow not create competition....
I am not sure - I havent seen that movie in a long time in its entirety. I only know about it because it was on some tv channel in the middle of the night and i just happened to be up and scrolling through the channels. VERY SLOW movie.
Just because someone has a channel on doesn't mean they are watching it. Doesnt mean its not on mute. Someone could be taking a whiz, making dinner or any number of things. Does DVR recording count as "watching"? because if thats the case you can FF through all the commercials anyway. I dont know how television networks get so much money from advertisers when actual viewership is just, at best, a liberal estimate of how many people are actually watching anything at all.
How can SCOTUS make it a tax out of thin air when thats not what the bill spelled it out to be? I dont see how they redefine it to be a tax instead of a penalty just to save unconstitutional merits. Your line about deferring to Congress is really exactly what i was confused about. Shouldn't congress have had to go back and write it as a tax and vote on it again since originally it was going to be a penalty?
the general idea was is that if it had been written as a Tax instead of a penalty it wouldnt have made it to the presidents desk to sign because people didnt want to be taxed more to basically fund other peoples healthcare - so they were going through with it as a penalty.... this is what i remember so please correct me.
then why did SCOTUS even have to say "its unconstitutional for it to be a penalty, but its legal for it to be a tax." That was basically the premise behind the swing vote. I thought it was originally written to be a penalty.
What I don't get is that the bill that was written had it as a PENALTY. Thats what was voted on in congress. SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional as a TAX yet I find it odd that congress didn't have to go back and vote on the bill with the clarity of it being a tax.
Perhaps a dumb question but: How is it that the Affordable Care Act is being implemented when the congress voted on it based on penalties but that was found to be unconstitutional....and congress didn't have to re-vote on the bill to be passed after the SCOTUS ruling that said it had to be a tax?? I've been wondering that now for some time.
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
I dont see anywhere where it says , No bill... shale be passed... except when talking about Copyright. Did they just make that part up on a whim? I know that they have made up things in the past, like declaring that somehow there is a "separation of church and state" in the constitution where that phrase never is mentioned in any founding document. Not only did they have to go outside of the any of the founding documents to declare this clause part of the constitution but the intent behind the Danbury letter had a totally different context/meaning/circumstance that is well documented in history and they, (SCOTUS) chose to ignore/were ignorant of the facts.
Again, in the Ashcroft case, it looks like they just made up laws on the whim which is not their job anyway.
I cannot believe that the law didn't say something to the effect, limited in nature and not to exceed "X" amount of years. The non-dissenters argued that as long as the copyrights werent perpetual then that wasnt a problem. What the heck does perpetual even mean? As long as it's not "forever"? That is, as one dissenter stated, virtual perpetual extensions.
Slashdot Mirror
i think for the pilot program the only thing stored is the email addresses. No credit cards or links to checking accounts. I saw that somewhere..
how did SCOTUS declare it a tax when it wasnt wriiten up as one in the law? How do they have the leeway to change the definition of something in a ruling? They are supposed to rule on whats before them, not define it as something else in order for it to pass constitutional muster.. ??? The reason it wasnt called a "tax" in the law is because it wouldnt have gotten the votes. SCOTUS ruling it is a "tax" bypasses the whole point of voting for a bill.
Am i missing something?
How come there aren't any people complaining that there are VASTLY more women in nursing than men. Surely we need to make sure that core nursing classes are a core subject for both men and women right?
This is the suit where Kleargear fined a couple $3,500 for leaving a bad review and ruined their credit etc etc. Looks like they (Kleargear) didnt even show up to court. Wonder why.
Palmer vs Kleargear
Yelp reviews
True story. Last year I had a credit score of 817. I then sold my home (installment debt), HELOC(home equity line of credit(installment loan) - which by the way has to be paid off for you to close on your house) and during that same week I closed on land that i sold that I was paying on (also an installment loan). We were moving and it all kinda happened around the same time. The NEXT month my credit score dropped to 787. Thats right...30 points.
See it turns out that your credit score is made up of a number of different factors and one of them is the kind of debt that you hold. So even though I havent been late on any of these installment loans my score still dropped because part of your credit score is based upon the right "mix" of debt that you have. Thats right friends. IF YOU PAY YOUR BILLS YOU ARE PENALIZED.
The whole thing is a scam. Let's get this through our thick skulls right now. Banks want to lend money to people that pay their bills on time but at the same time generate interest income. It's not really even, to a certain extent, based on whether you have a good enough job to pay the loan off that you are applying for. It's based on how much money the creditor thinks they can make off of you. I guess none of this really matters unless you need to purchase a new vehicle or buy a home. Smaller purchases like big screen tv's and laptops you can get credit for at your local brick and mortar for 0% for 18-24 months and thats easy to get even if you dont have perfect credit.
The difference between 787 and 817 however can make a difference in interest rates(i will be looking for a new home in the next 2 - 3 years). Since my credit score dropped to 787 back in November its now back to 800 but its been there now for 4 months without budging. I am not complaining about that - i just thought i would share my experience. I wonder what my score will be like once i am debt free by December?
just in case someone didn't get the joke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If I was a high school Junior or Senior now and I knew that i wanted to be an iOS developer, I wouldn;t darken the doors of a college campus. There is plenty of material online for teaching yourself software development in general and more specific mobile developement. You've got tons of forums, tutorials, books, the free stanford IOS class for FREE on iTunes, etc etc. Also companies where mobile development is paramount, they aren't on the "only people with degrees need apply" attitude.
We can buy an iPhone direct from Apple instead of a wireless provider just as much as buying a TV directly from Samsung or an infinite amount of other goods and services on the internet or in showrooms dedicated to a certain product or line of products. Why are cars the exception??
I guess its no surprise considering that its still illegal to pump your own gas in NJ.
can't someone just install firefox themselves? It would take like 1 minute tops.....
some people have like wives and kids..ya know families. So when its time to get off work, family should be #1. not coding when ive already been coding all day. That doesnt mean that you cant do 'something' on the side but of course there was no definition of 'coding in their spare time' when the amount of spare time could mean 4 or 5 hours a week or less.
All their goals that they want to achieve in that statement would come to fruition by actually allowing open municipal networks and thus creating competition. I dont understand why they think by hindering more networks to be created would somehow not create competition ....
i havent seen any documentation of that at all. was just looking. Im surprised they didnt have any setback from the animal agencies./etc/etc
i dont think they killed live rabbits, if thats what are you suggesting?
I am not sure - I havent seen that movie in a long time in its entirety. I only know about it because it was on some tv channel in the middle of the night and i just happened to be up and scrolling through the channels. VERY SLOW movie.
Night Of the Lepus
Carnivorous rabbits at your service.
Just because someone has a channel on doesn't mean they are watching it. Doesnt mean its not on mute. Someone could be taking a whiz, making dinner or any number of things. Does DVR recording count as "watching"? because if thats the case you can FF through all the commercials anyway. I dont know how television networks get so much money from advertisers when actual viewership is just, at best, a liberal estimate of how many people are actually watching anything at all.
How can SCOTUS make it a tax out of thin air when thats not what the bill spelled it out to be? I dont see how they redefine it to be a tax instead of a penalty just to save unconstitutional merits. Your line about deferring to Congress is really exactly what i was confused about. Shouldn't congress have had to go back and write it as a tax and vote on it again since originally it was going to be a penalty?
the general idea was is that if it had been written as a Tax instead of a penalty it wouldnt have made it to the presidents desk to sign because people didnt want to be taxed more to basically fund other peoples healthcare - so they were going through with it as a penalty.... this is what i remember so please correct me.
then why did SCOTUS even have to say "its unconstitutional for it to be a penalty, but its legal for it to be a tax." That was basically the premise behind the swing vote. I thought it was originally written to be a penalty.
maybe i need a history refresher but why does a company have to be part of a dealership program to sell cars?
What I don't get is that the bill that was written had it as a PENALTY. Thats what was voted on in congress. SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional as a TAX yet I find it odd that congress didn't have to go back and vote on the bill with the clarity of it being a tax.
Perhaps a dumb question but: How is it that the Affordable Care Act is being implemented when the congress voted on it based on penalties but that was found to be unconstitutional....and congress didn't have to re-vote on the bill to be passed after the SCOTUS ruling that said it had to be a tax?? I've been wondering that now for some time.
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
I dont see anywhere where it says , No bill... shale be passed... except when talking about Copyright. Did they just make that part up on a whim? I know that they have made up things in the past, like declaring that somehow there is a "separation of church and state" in the constitution where that phrase never is mentioned in any founding document. Not only did they have to go outside of the any of the founding documents to declare this clause part of the constitution but the intent behind the Danbury letter had a totally different context/meaning/circumstance that is well documented in history and they, (SCOTUS) chose to ignore/were ignorant of the facts.
Again, in the Ashcroft case, it looks like they just made up laws on the whim which is not their job anyway.
I cannot believe that the law didn't say something to the effect, limited in nature and not to exceed "X" amount of years. The non-dissenters argued that as long as the copyrights werent perpetual then that wasnt a problem. What the heck does perpetual even mean? As long as it's not "forever"? That is, as one dissenter stated, virtual perpetual extensions.
Orca
:)
This is a movie you should watch