RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DomKen -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/9/2012 2:50:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


How many times Have I personally disproven this piece of deceptive editing on this board alone? 3?
http://www.collarchat.com/m_2247442/mpage_2/key_/tm.htm#2247936
http://www.collarchat.com/m_2391093/mpage_1/key_debunk/tm.htm#2393532
http://www.collarchat.com/m_2486621/mpage_1/key_debunk/tm.htm#2487203



You have not actually debunked anything. Your "debunking" is seriously flawed because none of the groups you claim he is speaking of (Peace Corps, Ameri Corps, and foreign service) have anything to do with "civilian national security". Since Peace Corps and Ameri Corps are not national security groups (and obviously neither is foreign service), nor is their purpose even closely related to anything remotely similar to national security your explanation just doesn't hold water.

In that clip he is speaking of funding and training a "civilian national security force".

Your "debunking" is actually more of a confirmation if you consider what is being discussed in that video, because what you're claiming is that he doesn't want to make a civilian national security force, but that he is actually speaking about co-opting those groups to turn them into a modern day equivalent of Hitlers Brown Shirts which would be sent out to handle national security issues on American soil.

But if you want to stick with your explanation, please explain what "civilian national security" issues the Peace Corps and Ameri Corps are currently responsible for. Thanks.

-SD-




Did you watch the whole speech in context? Obviously not. The full speech makes it clear.

BTW why did you choose to try and refute something you had not seen? It just makes you look like rather stupid.




Sanity -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/9/2012 5:54:47 AM)


Thanks for the link Mark - "The tax man cometh to police you on health care" is a great article. But talk about cherry picking!

Did you miss this part?

quote:


The penalty will be fully phased in by 2016, when it will be $695 for each uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater, up to $12,500. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 4 million people will pay the penalty that year...

...The law allows the IRS to withhold tax refunds to collect the penalty, and most filers get refunds. This year, 77 percent of the 135 million individual income tax returns processed by the IRS qualified for a refund. The average refund: $2,707.


You know this is the old foot in the door trick, right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

I found this just this morning, immediately thought of my friend Sanity...

"Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui said, "The overwhelming majority of funds used by the agency to implement the Affordable Care Act go to administer the premium tax credits, which will be a tax cut averaging about $4,000 for more than 20 million middle-class people and families."

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/the-tax-man-cometh-1473500.html

Pretty different picture painted, than a "Gestapo"like presence.





SilverMark -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/9/2012 10:50:21 AM)

Thomas, The goal is coverage, not the system we have at present. As it is we allow those that have no insurance to not pay for services.( I guess somehow that doesn't resonate although your stance is normally something akin to personal responsibility)

The mandate, fines those who do not have coverage, nothing new there, is there?

Still the cost is not involved in a Gestapo service out arresting those who decide not to participate.

The IRS withholding refunds is not unusual, child support, student loans and back taxes are all within the realm of confiscation by the IRS if there is a refund involved.




Hillwilliam -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/9/2012 11:03:21 AM)

I think it's interesting that one of the main effects of the new healthcare law is to force freeloaders to buy insurance if they're capable of it. That's right, freeloaders. If an uninsured person shows up at the ER, they will be treated at my expense.
Isn't this what the Teabaggers talk about when they speak of "Liberals demanding that we pay to support their lifestyle"?

Now that the law makes these people pay their own way, all of a sudden, the Teabaggers are 100% against it. I wonder why?

OOPS, of course, it was a Democrat that got the law passed.[8|]




vincentML -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/9/2012 11:38:47 AM)

quote:

Now that the law makes these people pay their own way, all of a sudden, the Teabaggers are 100% against it. I wonder why?


Cuz their Koch masters give them marching orders? Surely, you don't for a moment think Teabaggers are independent. [8|]




Musicmystery -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/9/2012 1:01:07 PM)

quote:

I think it's interesting that one of the main effects of the new healthcare law is to force freeloaders to buy insurance if they're capable of it. That's right, freeloaders. If an uninsured person shows up at the ER, they will be treated at my expense.
Isn't this what the Teabaggers talk about when they speak of "Liberals demanding that we pay to support their lifestyle"?


In fact, that was the Republican argument when they came up with this in the early 90s.




Hillwilliam -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/9/2012 1:09:21 PM)

Kinda my point MM




Sanity -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 5:30:16 AM)


No, nothing new or unusual at all, Mark... [X(]

Just the largest tax hike in history, a huge power grab, and the Democrats name on people seeing the feds seize their tax refunds

For a lot of people thats the only money they ever save up, but youre right. Nothing new in the Democrats wanting that and everything else they can get their hands on for their pet Socialist programs

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Thomas, The goal is coverage, not the system we have at present. As it is we allow those that have no insurance to not pay for services.( I guess somehow that doesn't resonate although your stance is normally something akin to personal responsibility)

The mandate, fines those who do not have coverage, nothing new there, is there?

Still the cost is not involved in a Gestapo service out arresting those who decide not to participate.

The IRS withholding refunds is not unusual, child support, student loans and back taxes are all within the realm of confiscation by the IRS if there is a refund involved.





tazzygirl -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 6:40:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No, nothing new or unusual at all, Mark... [X(]

Just the largest tax hike in history, a huge power grab, and the Democrats name on people seeing the feds seize their tax refunds

For a lot of people thats the only money they ever save up, but youre right. Nothing new in the Democrats wanting that and everything else they can get their hands on for their pet Socialist programs

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Thomas, The goal is coverage, not the system we have at present. As it is we allow those that have no insurance to not pay for services.( I guess somehow that doesn't resonate although your stance is normally something akin to personal responsibility)

The mandate, fines those who do not have coverage, nothing new there, is there?

Still the cost is not involved in a Gestapo service out arresting those who decide not to participate.

The IRS withholding refunds is not unusual, child support, student loans and back taxes are all within the realm of confiscation by the IRS if there is a refund involved.




Is the Affordable Care Act really “the largest tax increase in the history of the world,” as Rush Limbaugh so grandiloquently put it? No. It’s not even the largest tax increase in the history of this country.

Or of the past 50 years. Or 20. It’s not even the biggest tax increase scheduled to take effect in the very near future. (That’s the expiration of the George W. Bush tax cuts slated for New Year’s Day.)

[image]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/Obamacare-tax-chart.jpg[/image]

Fortunately, in its 2010 Long-Term Budget Outlook, the Congressional Budget Office resolved this problem, estimating the size of the Affordable Care Act’s tax increase in the year 2020, by which point all the taxes will be fully in effect. So how big is it? One half of one percent of GDP. That’s about the size of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase or George Bush’s 1991 tax increase, and much smaller than Ronald Reagan’s 1982 tax increase.

Still, it’s a big tax increase. The money, though, is not coming from the source that many suspect — or even from one that Republicans necessarily oppose.

This conversation kicked up because the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate a tax rather than a penalty and Republicans saw a political opening. But whatever you think of the mandate, it’s not a big contributor to the law’s new taxes. In 2019, the Affordable Care Act is expected to bring the federal government $104 billion in new revenue. The individual mandate accounts for about $7 billion of that. It’s not a rounding error, but it’s close.

So where does the money come from? The law’s biggest tax increase, at least in the first decade, is a 0.9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax paid by Americans earning more than $200,000 a year. Long-term, however, the largest increase — and certainly the most important one for the future of the health-care system — will be the excise tax on high-value health insurance plans, which begins in 2018.

Few phrases in the English language send readers fleeing as quickly as “excise tax on high-value health insurance plans.” So I’ll try to explain this as quickly and painlessly as possible. It’s a tax on unusually expensive, employer-provided health insurance plans. It begins at $10,200 for an individual plan and $27,500 for a family plan. Above that, there’s a 40 percent tax on the excess premiums. So if your plan is valued at $11,200, your employer will pay a 40 percent tax on the $1,000 surplus.

Over time, the thresholds will rise more slowly than health-care costs, which means the tax grows bigger. But the idea behind the tax isn’t to raise money: It’s to change behavior. The hope is that it will pressure employers and workers to choose less-expensive plans. If it works, additional tax revenue will be generated less by so-called “Cadillac” plans subject to the excise tax than by employers delivering more of their workers’ compensation in the form of taxable wages and less in the form of expensive health-care benefits.

This is actually an attempt to address a core Republican concern: The tax break for employer-provided health insurance, which Republicans believe encourages employers to spend too much on health care while also making it impossible for a health-care system not based on employers to emerge.

Don’t believe me when I say that’s high on the Republican agenda? In 2007, President George W. Bush announced the only major health-care initiative of his eight years in office other than the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. The policy, which went nowhere, sought to “level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job” by ending the unlimited tax break for employer-based insurance in favor of a $15,000 tax deduction for families and a $7,500 tax deduction for individuals to purchase health insurance.

In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain offered a similar plan: He proposed ending the unlimited employer deduction and instead giving every family a $5,000 tax credit and every individual a $2,500 tax credit.

This year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s health-care proposal — although it’s so vague it hardly merits the term — gestures toward the same idea: His Web site says he will “end tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance.”

All of these proposals, including the Affordable Care Act’s excise tax, work in fundamentally the same way, by imposing limits on what is now an unlimited deduction for employer-provided health insurance, thereby encouraging employers to offer cheaper health plans and provide more compensation to workers in the form of taxable wages.

So when Republicans call the Affordable Care Act “the largest tax increase in the history of the world,” they’re not only wrongly supersizing the tax, they’re also attacking a reform that they’ve long supported themselves, in somewhat different configurations.

But President Obama’s campaign deserves the cheap shot. When McCain proposed his health-care plan in 2008, the Obama camp called it, yes, “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/08/the-most-important-tax-increase-in-obamacare/




Hillwilliam -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 6:56:47 AM)

Awwwwwwwww, C'mon tazzy. PLEASE don't tell me that Sanity is full of shit once again.




Hillwilliam -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 6:58:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No, nothing new or unusual at all, Mark... [X(]

Just the largest tax hike in history, a huge power grab, and the Democrats name on people seeing the feds seize their tax refunds



Are you saying that you support the fact that the rest of us taxpayers are supporting the lifestyle of all those freeloaders who refuse to buy medical insurance?

I thought that's what Liberals espoused. Taxpayers supporting their irresponsible lifestyle.[:D]




MrRodgers -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 7:28:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


It was popular in his state, Obamacare is UNpopular

See the difference?

And something like that is more feasible at the state level. EXAMPLE, you dont like draconian controls over your life, move to another state

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Leftists had best hope that the American people quickly forget which party whore unilaterally gave birth to this monster


You mean the GOP's Romney, when he was governor?



Our founding fathers specifically added the commerce clause to prevent just that...states economically competeing with each other. Under the typically corrupt dare I say capitalist banking back in their day state banks issued their own currencies, screwed and defrauded retail and small business lenders and borrowers endlessly.

When Lincoln decided enough was enough, he taxed those banks and their 'currency income' at 50%, created US Treasury notes as a new national currewncy, the 2nd national bank of the US for industrial lending and the coming revolution in manufacturing that had to go of course and just as soon as he was killed.

At Lincolns death, it signaled the death of federal regulation for the whole nation, countless millions suffered and there wasn't any real federal control over the thieves until FDR.




GotSteel -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 7:46:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
No need to enforce Laws. Is that the Conservative mantra?


I've come to the conclusion that having a party who believes that government can't work run government is a self fulfilling prophecy.




Sanity -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 7:52:14 AM)


You know, its OBAMA who has unilaterally decided that the executive branch no longer has to enforce laws with which his administration (or any administration, presumably) disagrees

Such as our laws on immigration...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
No need to enforce Laws. Is that the Conservative mantra?


I've come to the conclusion that having a party who believes that government can't work run government is a self fulfilling prophecy.





Sanity -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 7:53:36 AM)


Next leftists will be clamoring for the return of debtors prisons

Where will it end

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No, nothing new or unusual at all, Mark... [X(]

Just the largest tax hike in history, a huge power grab, and the Democrats name on people seeing the feds seize their tax refunds



Are you saying that you support the fact that the rest of us taxpayers are supporting the lifestyle of all those freeloaders who refuse to buy medical insurance?

I thought that's what Liberals espoused. Taxpayers supporting their irresponsible lifestyle.[:D]





mnottertail -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 7:55:51 AM)

Why do you want to so blatantly lie, with easily disprovable law?  Do you know people can read the ignorant lies you  write and laugh at your insipid stupidity?

Read US v. AZ and apologize for your lack of our nations laws (again)




mnottertail -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 7:58:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Next leftists will be clamoring for the return of debtors prisons

Where will it end

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No, nothing new or unusual at all, Mark... [X(]

Just the largest tax hike in history, a huge power grab, and the Democrats name on people seeing the feds seize their tax refunds



Are you saying that you support the fact that the rest of us taxpayers are supporting the lifestyle of all those freeloaders who refuse to buy medical insurance?

I thought that's what Liberals espoused. Taxpayers supporting their irresponsible lifestyle.[:D]




It will end when the rabid right teabaggers and neocons cease with the military-industrial complex entitlements and death panels and outsorcing prisons and promulgating invasions and borrow and spend and other such idiocy.




Moonhead -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 8:21:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You know, its OBAMA who has unilaterally decided that the executive branch no longer has to enforce laws with which his administration (or any administration, presumably) disagrees

Such as our laws on immigration...

What, so the Kenyan hasn't deported more illegals during one term than the chimp managed during both of his?




Musicmystery -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 8:35:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You know, its OBAMA who has unilaterally decided that the executive branch no longer has to enforce laws with which his administration (or any administration, presumably) disagrees

Such as our laws on immigration...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
No need to enforce Laws. Is that the Conservative mantra?


I've come to the conclusion that having a party who believes that government can't work run government is a self fulfilling prophecy.



That's at least as old as Nixon, probably much older, and as recent as Bush regarding environment and international agreements he didn't happen to like.

How many of you would be happy if the federal government cracked down on permissive state law allowing marijuana, in opposition to federal law?




Hillwilliam -> RE: The ‘New Gestapo’? (7/10/2012 9:18:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Next leftists will be clamoring for the return of debtors prisons

Where will it end

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


Are you saying that you support the fact that the rest of us taxpayers are supporting the lifestyle of all those freeloaders who refuse to buy medical insurance?

I thought that's what Liberals espoused. Taxpayers supporting their irresponsible lifestyle.[:D]



As usual, a simple yes/no question isn't answered and we try to change the subject.[8|]
C'mon, Sanity. Shouldn't those freeloading leftists have to pay for insurance if they're able or do you support them in their endeavor to have us taxpayers pay their medical costs and prop up their lifestyle?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875