The law says the have to participate in the exchanges. If you want to raise thier salaries, then do it instead of trying to backdoor something in. The rest of the country that lost their employee insurance because of implementations of this law do not have the government paying the difference when they have to use the exchanges. You or i will not have the government making up the forced costs we have to endure if we either pay the penalty or get insurance through the exchanges. Or do you think the millions of people having to pay something they previously did not wasn't a cut in pay too?
The entire idea behind putting the requirment that congress and its staff uses the exchanges was go subject electef officials to the same damn laws the rest of the country is subject to. The only flaw i can see is you thinking government is special and do not need to be under the same set of laws the oppressed subjects of that government have to follow.
The government has already argued that it is a penalty. The only difference is that it is a tax penalty so it survived the initial challenge.
Thr government can tax everyone and provide a deduction, but not to penalize anyone without due process. If this wasn't the case, congress could consider all fines as taxes and make random laws only certian people would be likely to violate and collect the tax (formerly fines) on the accusation of violation.
My understanding of the exemption argument is that obama and congress will be subsidizing the healthcare of congress and staffers indepentent of the law's income qualifications through executive order and a slushfund.
That would certainly seem like a special exemption to me. The rest of the citizens who have to purchase healthcare do not get government subsidies unless their income is low enough.
Not quite risk mitigation any more. The pre existing condition clause of the ACA means ypu can wait for the risk to become reality then mitigate costs. That is why it is neccesary to enslave everyone by penalty.
Yhe problem with cutting military spending is that we will not stop spending that money. This is obvious if you pay attention to the war spending with Iraq and Afghanistan. Under bush, it was treated as off budget emergency spending. Everyone knew we were borrowing money to wage the wars. One of the first things that happened when obama took office is that spending was put on budget. Then instead off the spending disapearing and we stop borrowing as much when the wars wound down, the saving from not spending was used to justify new spending or increase existing spending.
In short, under the current political structure (both dems and repubs) cutting spending doesn't cut what we spend unless it is something like the sequestor. Otherwise, it is just pointless accounting scams
What exactly was correct? All i saw was ad hominem and opinion basef on it. Please explain this insight for us. And it would be nice if you did so from a logged in account instead of attempting to hide any association to a psudo anonymous identity.
The tax is a fine or penalty. It doesn't follow due proccess as every other fine issued by the government has to. If everyone had their taxes increased then recieved a deduction, it would be ok. But because it is punitive by nature, it needs to follow due process. The ability to tax doesn't surmount the due process clause because the 9th amendment states that you cannot use parts of the constitution to deny other parts of it.
Because the law says you cannot preempt a tax, someone will have to actually pay it to have standing to challenge it. I see that happening too
The argument goes away if everyone was taxed and deductions where given if you had insurance too. Yes, the wording and proceedure is important here because the penalty is punitive by design. Imaging the government levying a fine for not having children or not being married to the other parent of you children. But that happens because you get a deduction for the rugrats.
Now, because this is a penalty, i see it being challenged in court again once someone actually has to pay the fine and has standing. I suspect it will be over thr due process clause and the 9th amendment.
You shouldn't have any trouble imagining that at all. Most gang members come from poor neighborhoods that sees a lot of unrmployment and government assistance. Those are typically not republican strongholds.
Also, they wouldn't have to peacably line up for anything. The polling locations would most likely not mingle turfs similar to how clinics and other services for the poor are set up.
You should stop reading whst you want to think into everything i post. If you took what i say at face value, you would find yourself not needing to troll me all the time.
My point still stands, while the interuption caused anxiety, it was nowhere near as dire as the gp attemped to make it out to be.
Maybe-maybe not. Federsl law only allows phone companies to keep those records for the purpose of doing business as a provider. The phone company cannot sell or otherwise disclose this information to anyone who isn't authorized by statute. Currently, unless the FISA laws apply, a warrant is needed to disclose them to law enforcement.
I agree with your assumption on a new trial unless those other records were the result of the phone records. You know, like if a cop breaks into your house and finds pot plants in your closet, the plants couldn't be used against you (poisonous fruit or something like that).
To be even more pedantic, the life mentioned in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a right to live, but your right to control your own destiny or die trying. That is where liberty and pursuit of happiness come into play. It is only limited by your abilities and resources due to the life you created for yourself.
The concept of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not about what a person is entitled to. If that was the case, the very first congress would have instituted welfare. It wasn't until the early 1900s that it became part of the political landscape and that wasn't because the sudden invention of TV or Radio and congress somehow knew some of the people were in need. No, the concept is about what you can attempt to strive for and achieve.
Actually, he probably meant gang members and thugs which would likely be more apt to vote democrats then republicans or tea party members.
However, I'm not sure why you jumped to political affiliations. It is not like only republicans or only tea party members own guns or carry guns. To think so it sort of silly.
Living paycheck to paycheck should have no bearing on how stocked a pantry is when the pantry is being stocked by welfare benefits cards. It is literally like me saying here is $174.00, buy food with it and only food and you waiting until your paycheck comes in to purchase the bare minimum and save the rest for your next paycheck.
Furthermore, and I understand this is anecdotal, but it is representative of most of the people I know getting food stamps via EBT cards, most of these people have friends and families that will float money to them for food purchases and then make their purchases from the EBT cards. This is nothing new, it is illegal, but it is also something that probably would be completely overlooked due to a situation like this. Normally, the EBT holder would go to the store and purchase the food for the other person then receive a cash reimbursement from that person. So it isn't like there was absolutely no option if someone was completely out of food. This doesn't even begin to mention friends and family that would just say "come on over for dinner and we will send some left overs home with you" or something of the sort.
I don't lack empathy for these people, I'm just challenging the sense of dire emergency you are presenting. I know it is frightening for people who receive the benefits. I was just talking with a girl about it being a problem with Xerox and not the government shutdown so the benefits should be restored soon. But she was frantically surfing her Iphone5 trying to find out more information for it. I told her to go to the local TV news site, they just did a story on it before I left the house. She saw the story and was relieved some but still nervous because of the shutdown. It sure was an inconvenience, it likely left a lot of people anxious, but it was not a dire emergency or anything like you present.
Ha.. I can see that working. If I concentrated in all the negative I could see in my sexual partners I likely would have problems performing too.
How much do you wanna bet that this will be the new ADHD type illness that schools rush to have children treated for. I can see it now, a school without goth.. and a lot more promiscuous kids.
Not to mention that the lid came off the coffee cup because the coffee was hot enough to melt the cup just above the waterline. That was the result of either too hot of a cup of coffee or too poorly constructed cup they were serving it in. Either way, there was good reason for the lawsuit to end against McDonalds.
As for the liability, the states that allow the self driving cars can simply pass a law limiting the liability of them and make the owners of the cars obtain an insurance policy large enough to cover that amount. They can even limit the liability to the manufacturers as well.
I'm not sure all college students are capable of understanding those concepts or even capable of caring about them. Most college students I have seen are more worried about the bling the neighbor has, how much jack they will pocket once employed, and of course where the party is tonight. Quite a bit of college students are only there because they were told it was what they needed to do if they wanted a decent job. They aren't there exactly to learn or learn about the concepts of a micro-kernel. While a few are there to learn and further their wisdom, it is more of a put my time in so I will make lots of money thing for most college students.
It's insane because they are cherry-picking the areas that have the most public visibility in an attempt to minimize the apparent damage, but knowing that the bills will fail. They have yet to pass a bill funding any of the social programs so, for example, kids don't get nutitional assistance. Almost no one (except the kids) are impacted by this, but whether you like it or not, it's a program the government put in place and so should fund. Ditto for the EPA, Natioinal Labor Relations Board, etc. etc. etc.
Nonsense. The house passed bills that would provide funding for specific interests but that doesn't make those funding bills not sane. What makes them not sane if you intend to hold that concept is the fact that the democrats refuse to take them up and insist on a single all inclusive bill that only does what they want it to do.
If the House doesn't like a program, there's a procedure. You pass a bill removing the program, get the Senate to pass the bill and the President to sign it. If you can't get that support, you shouldn't try to subvert democracy by the econmic equivelent of strapping a bomb to your chest.
Actually, not funding something is a valid procedure too. It has been used several times in the distant past as well as the recent past. Here is an article describing the more recent events concerning the ACA.
The rhetoric of claiming it is terroristic or comparing it to strapping a bomb to your chest is just childs play to anyone who is actually paying attention. I know it sounds good in ideological circles but repeating it shows how armature those participants really are. Thomas Jefferson, as president, ended up with a similar issue of a law being passed and not being funded. He also ended up creating an impoundment of existing funding in order to secure new generation gun boats for the Mississippi river. To think this is all something new and never done before is like ignoring history ever existed. Granted, I can understand why you might not know some of these things as the interweb doesn't list unlimited sources of it like it seems to do for anything post 1999. But rest assured that all of history that has happened pre1999 is still history and still relevant.
I never mentioned any IRS "scandal". I say the administration exploited the IRS and use it against his political enemies. If you think that is a scandal, it says much more about what you think about it than what I do.
I can understand why you chose to reply AC instead of logging in to a psudo anonymous identify that could follow you around a bit. Everyone who reads your "I don't want to believe something so I won't read it- insert ad hominem" diatribe is more stupid then any other time in their life during the 2 seconds it takes to read your reply. It sure is a good thing stuff like science doesn't follow your line of reasoning else we might still think the world if flat and the moon chases the sun across the sky in a game of tag every day.
I can't help but wonder if the reason you posted was to lower everyone else intelligence if not just for a few moments just so you wouldn't feel so abnormal. Well, if that is the case, you didn't have to do something like this, most educated people have enough compassion for the lesser intelligent people like you that we do not look down on you. So I guess you might just want to change who you hang out with.
I think you give Obama too much credit. He saw how to exploit this just like he saw how to exploit the IRS and use it against his political enemies. Obama railed against raising the debt limit when he was senator calling it unpatriotic and now he insists on no negotiations to lower the deficit as a condition to raising the debt limit. (yes, I know that is a political add, but it has Obama's own voice in it).
Despite amending or doing away with it, Obama could also through legitimate power as the head of the executive, ensure that US agencies used the power the Patriot Act gave the government in ways that we would not be concerned with today. Instead, he used that same power to expand the surveillance and even justify that expansion through the Patriot act.
He and the democrats did nothing because they saw it as a way to increase their power and objectives. They took the ball and ran because they wanted to. If you look at how Obama was elected to senator, you would see that It has nothing to do with being beholden to anything other then their ideology. The entire Obamacare debacle proves this. Harry Reid himself called the medical device tax a stupid tax yet he refuses to consider anything to repeal it or any changes to the Affordable Care Act out of ideological persistence.
Yet, I have no problems with believing either side will attempt to be against the other side when they are in power. It's all ideology if you ask me.
It shouldn't be too amazing. The video games offer a variety of constant visual stimulation that simply isn't there when listening to someone speak or learning a new subject. The ADHA sort of actually works for them in the games because the changes in visual input generally satisfies their attention interests while also making them a better player because the minute details that change often usually give performance advantages.
I agree, with your overall assertion but have to ask if the inverse is also true. If games can help rewire the brain to stimulate concentration, can the same mechanisms that allow ADHD players concentrate rewire the brain to make them less capable of concentrating when listening to a speaker or learning a new subject? I suspect that a lot of the old "tv will rot your brain" and "video games make you stupid" was anecdotal from ADHD players swarming to those mediums and excelling (playing lots of games and watching lots of TV but not doing well in school or their career). I'm just wondering if there is any truth to it outside of that.
I believe what you are talking about is called knurling. It is commonly used on valve guides for high performance engines to specifically decrease what is known as sticktion. But it is often used as you say also. It has been around for a long time.
So you would support the US bombing Mexico because a lot of people want them out of the US if they didn't go through the proper immigration channels? Maybe support is the wrong word, maybe "can't really blame them for that" should be used instead?
I never can understand the line of reasoning behind things like "How about if we just stayed the fuck out of Iraq completely? Like since 1991.
No 9/11 because there wouldn't have been any pissed of extremists."
No one can ever seem to explain it in a way that they agree with if you supplant those extremist with Americans and America. It seem like the logic is a failure from the start if you cannot reverse the roles and have the point mean just as much in that fictional play. It is more like that line of reasoning is little more the cover to bash the US while justifying those who would hurt her without taking direct fire.
Maybe I'm wrong and you can be the first person in 11 years who it able to justify the premise outside of the actors presented.
Slashdot Mirror
The law says the have to participate in the exchanges. If you want to raise thier salaries, then do it instead of trying to backdoor something in. The rest of the country that lost their employee insurance because of implementations of this law do not have the government paying the difference when they have to use the exchanges. You or i will not have the government making up the forced costs we have to endure if we either pay the penalty or get insurance through the exchanges. Or do you think the millions of people having to pay something they previously did not wasn't a cut in pay too?
The entire idea behind putting the requirment that congress and its staff uses the exchanges was go subject electef officials to the same damn laws the rest of the country is subject to. The only flaw i can see is you thinking government is special and do not need to be under the same set of laws the oppressed subjects of that government have to follow.
The government has already argued that it is a penalty. The only difference is that it is a tax penalty so it survived the initial challenge.
Thr government can tax everyone and provide a deduction, but not to penalize anyone without due process. If this wasn't the case, congress could consider all fines as taxes and make random laws only certian people would be likely to violate and collect the tax (formerly fines) on the accusation of violation.
My understanding of the exemption argument is that obama and congress will be subsidizing the healthcare of congress and staffers indepentent of the law's income qualifications through executive order and a slushfund.
That would certainly seem like a special exemption to me. The rest of the citizens who have to purchase healthcare do not get government subsidies unless their income is low enough.
Not quite risk mitigation any more. The pre existing condition clause of the ACA means ypu can wait for the risk to become reality then mitigate costs. That is why it is neccesary to enslave everyone by penalty.
Yhe problem with cutting military spending is that we will not stop spending that money. This is obvious if you pay attention to the war spending with Iraq and Afghanistan. Under bush, it was treated as off budget emergency spending. Everyone knew we were borrowing money to wage the wars. One of the first things that happened when obama took office is that spending was put on budget. Then instead off the spending disapearing and we stop borrowing as much when the wars wound down, the saving from not spending was used to justify new spending or increase existing spending.
In short, under the current political structure (both dems and repubs) cutting spending doesn't cut what we spend unless it is something like the sequestor. Otherwise, it is just pointless accounting scams
What exactly was correct? All i saw was ad hominem and opinion basef on it. Please explain this insight for us. And it would be nice if you did so from a logged in account instead of attempting to hide any association to a psudo anonymous identity.
The tax is a fine or penalty. It doesn't follow due proccess as every other fine issued by the government has to. If everyone had their taxes increased then recieved a deduction, it would be ok. But because it is punitive by nature, it needs to follow due process. The ability to tax doesn't surmount the due process clause because the 9th amendment states that you cannot use parts of the constitution to deny other parts of it.
Because the law says you cannot preempt a tax, someone will have to actually pay it to have standing to challenge it. I see that happening too
The argument goes away if everyone was taxed and deductions where given if you had insurance too. Yes, the wording and proceedure is important here because the penalty is punitive by design. Imaging the government levying a fine for not having children or not being married to the other parent of you children. But that happens because you get a deduction for the rugrats.
Now, because this is a penalty, i see it being challenged in court again once someone actually has to pay the fine and has standing. I suspect it will be over thr due process clause and the 9th amendment.
You shouldn't have any trouble imagining that at all. Most gang members come from poor neighborhoods that sees a lot of unrmployment and government assistance. Those are typically not republican strongholds.
Also, they wouldn't have to peacably line up for anything. The polling locations would most likely not mingle turfs similar to how clinics and other services for the poor are set up.
You should stop reading whst you want to think into everything i post. If you took what i say at face value, you would find yourself not needing to troll me all the time.
My point still stands, while the interuption caused anxiety, it was nowhere near as dire as the gp attemped to make it out to be.
Maybe-maybe not. Federsl law only allows phone companies to keep those records for the purpose of doing business as a provider. The phone company cannot sell or otherwise disclose this information to anyone who isn't authorized by statute. Currently, unless the FISA laws apply, a warrant is needed to disclose them to law enforcement.
I agree with your assumption on a new trial unless those other records were the result of the phone records. You know, like if a cop breaks into your house and finds pot plants in your closet, the plants couldn't be used against you (poisonous fruit or something like that).
To be even more pedantic, the life mentioned in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a right to live, but your right to control your own destiny or die trying. That is where liberty and pursuit of happiness come into play. It is only limited by your abilities and resources due to the life you created for yourself.
The concept of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not about what a person is entitled to. If that was the case, the very first congress would have instituted welfare. It wasn't until the early 1900s that it became part of the political landscape and that wasn't because the sudden invention of TV or Radio and congress somehow knew some of the people were in need. No, the concept is about what you can attempt to strive for and achieve.
Actually, he probably meant gang members and thugs which would likely be more apt to vote democrats then republicans or tea party members.
However, I'm not sure why you jumped to political affiliations. It is not like only republicans or only tea party members own guns or carry guns. To think so it sort of silly.
I need to challenge your premise a bit.
Living paycheck to paycheck should have no bearing on how stocked a pantry is when the pantry is being stocked by welfare benefits cards. It is literally like me saying here is $174.00, buy food with it and only food and you waiting until your paycheck comes in to purchase the bare minimum and save the rest for your next paycheck.
Furthermore, and I understand this is anecdotal, but it is representative of most of the people I know getting food stamps via EBT cards, most of these people have friends and families that will float money to them for food purchases and then make their purchases from the EBT cards. This is nothing new, it is illegal, but it is also something that probably would be completely overlooked due to a situation like this. Normally, the EBT holder would go to the store and purchase the food for the other person then receive a cash reimbursement from that person. So it isn't like there was absolutely no option if someone was completely out of food. This doesn't even begin to mention friends and family that would just say "come on over for dinner and we will send some left overs home with you" or something of the sort.
I don't lack empathy for these people, I'm just challenging the sense of dire emergency you are presenting. I know it is frightening for people who receive the benefits. I was just talking with a girl about it being a problem with Xerox and not the government shutdown so the benefits should be restored soon. But she was frantically surfing her Iphone5 trying to find out more information for it. I told her to go to the local TV news site, they just did a story on it before I left the house. She saw the story and was relieved some but still nervous because of the shutdown. It sure was an inconvenience, it likely left a lot of people anxious, but it was not a dire emergency or anything like you present.
Ha.. I can see that working. If I concentrated in all the negative I could see in my sexual partners I likely would have problems performing too.
How much do you wanna bet that this will be the new ADHD type illness that schools rush to have children treated for. I can see it now, a school without goth.. and a lot more promiscuous kids.
You are probably right. I find myself often needing jokes explained to me. Why should this be any different.
Not to mention that the lid came off the coffee cup because the coffee was hot enough to melt the cup just above the waterline. That was the result of either too hot of a cup of coffee or too poorly constructed cup they were serving it in. Either way, there was good reason for the lawsuit to end against McDonalds.
As for the liability, the states that allow the self driving cars can simply pass a law limiting the liability of them and make the owners of the cars obtain an insurance policy large enough to cover that amount. They can even limit the liability to the manufacturers as well.
I'm not sure all college students are capable of understanding those concepts or even capable of caring about them. Most college students I have seen are more worried about the bling the neighbor has, how much jack they will pocket once employed, and of course where the party is tonight. Quite a bit of college students are only there because they were told it was what they needed to do if they wanted a decent job. They aren't there exactly to learn or learn about the concepts of a micro-kernel. While a few are there to learn and further their wisdom, it is more of a put my time in so I will make lots of money thing for most college students.
Nonsense. The house passed bills that would provide funding for specific interests but that doesn't make those funding bills not sane. What makes them not sane if you intend to hold that concept is the fact that the democrats refuse to take them up and insist on a single all inclusive bill that only does what they want it to do.
Actually, not funding something is a valid procedure too. It has been used several times in the distant past as well as the recent past. Here is an article describing the more recent events concerning the ACA.
http://beforeitsnews.com/healthcare/2013/08/guess-what-congress-has-already-defunded-parts-of-obamacare-2449918.html
The rhetoric of claiming it is terroristic or comparing it to strapping a bomb to your chest is just childs play to anyone who is actually paying attention. I know it sounds good in ideological circles but repeating it shows how armature those participants really are. Thomas Jefferson, as president, ended up with a similar issue of a law being passed and not being funded. He also ended up creating an impoundment of existing funding in order to secure new generation gun boats for the Mississippi river. To think this is all something new and never done before is like ignoring history ever existed. Granted, I can understand why you might not know some of these things as the interweb doesn't list unlimited sources of it like it seems to do for anything post 1999. But rest assured that all of history that has happened pre1999 is still history and still relevant.
I never mentioned any IRS "scandal". I say the administration exploited the IRS and use it against his political enemies. If you think that is a scandal, it says much more about what you think about it than what I do.
I can understand why you chose to reply AC instead of logging in to a psudo anonymous identify that could follow you around a bit. Everyone who reads your "I don't want to believe something so I won't read it- insert ad hominem" diatribe is more stupid then any other time in their life during the 2 seconds it takes to read your reply. It sure is a good thing stuff like science doesn't follow your line of reasoning else we might still think the world if flat and the moon chases the sun across the sky in a game of tag every day.
I can't help but wonder if the reason you posted was to lower everyone else intelligence if not just for a few moments just so you wouldn't feel so abnormal. Well, if that is the case, you didn't have to do something like this, most educated people have enough compassion for the lesser intelligent people like you that we do not look down on you. So I guess you might just want to change who you hang out with.
I think you give Obama too much credit. He saw how to exploit this just like he saw how to exploit the IRS and use it against his political enemies. Obama railed against raising the debt limit when he was senator calling it unpatriotic and now he insists on no negotiations to lower the deficit as a condition to raising the debt limit. (yes, I know that is a political add, but it has Obama's own voice in it).
Despite amending or doing away with it, Obama could also through legitimate power as the head of the executive, ensure that US agencies used the power the Patriot Act gave the government in ways that we would not be concerned with today. Instead, he used that same power to expand the surveillance and even justify that expansion through the Patriot act.
He and the democrats did nothing because they saw it as a way to increase their power and objectives. They took the ball and ran because they wanted to. If you look at how Obama was elected to senator, you would see that It has nothing to do with being beholden to anything other then their ideology. The entire Obamacare debacle proves this. Harry Reid himself called the medical device tax a stupid tax yet he refuses to consider anything to repeal it or any changes to the Affordable Care Act out of ideological persistence.
Yet, I have no problems with believing either side will attempt to be against the other side when they are in power. It's all ideology if you ask me.
It shouldn't be too amazing. The video games offer a variety of constant visual stimulation that simply isn't there when listening to someone speak or learning a new subject. The ADHA sort of actually works for them in the games because the changes in visual input generally satisfies their attention interests while also making them a better player because the minute details that change often usually give performance advantages.
I agree, with your overall assertion but have to ask if the inverse is also true. If games can help rewire the brain to stimulate concentration, can the same mechanisms that allow ADHD players concentrate rewire the brain to make them less capable of concentrating when listening to a speaker or learning a new subject? I suspect that a lot of the old "tv will rot your brain" and "video games make you stupid" was anecdotal from ADHD players swarming to those mediums and excelling (playing lots of games and watching lots of TV but not doing well in school or their career). I'm just wondering if there is any truth to it outside of that.
I believe what you are talking about is called knurling. It is commonly used on valve guides for high performance engines to specifically decrease what is known as sticktion. But it is often used as you say also. It has been around for a long time.
So you would support the US bombing Mexico because a lot of people want them out of the US if they didn't go through the proper immigration channels? Maybe support is the wrong word, maybe "can't really blame them for that" should be used instead?
I never can understand the line of reasoning behind things like "How about if we just stayed the fuck out of Iraq completely? Like since 1991.
No 9/11 because there wouldn't have been any pissed of extremists."
No one can ever seem to explain it in a way that they agree with if you supplant those extremist with Americans and America. It seem like the logic is a failure from the start if you cannot reverse the roles and have the point mean just as much in that fictional play. It is more like that line of reasoning is little more the cover to bash the US while justifying those who would hurt her without taking direct fire.
Maybe I'm wrong and you can be the first person in 11 years who it able to justify the premise outside of the actors presented.
Hackers also go bowling and put bumper stickers on cars. But few call those activities hacking. Just like few call rescueing kittens- firefighting.