1) requiring businesses to have a 1099 tax form written for any supplier that they make a purchase from. I don't recall if this has a minimum purchase, but I don't believe it did. Our accountant charges $30 per 1099 they fill out. We have found that our accountant is fairly cheap where taxes and such are concerned. If you think of how much some of these other places are charging, that can rack up quite a bill very fast. And with the way the economy is going, many small businesses are struggling to stay alive as it is. Many won't be able to afford for this.
2) Requiring all people to take on health care, and if you can't, you get slapped with a huge fine. I'm sorry, but I refuse to take health care. I rarely get sick, and am in fairly good health as of now. I would never go to a doctor anyways, because I really dislike going to them. And if I don't pay the fee, I get sent to jail. As it stands right now, I barely have the money to get through my bills each month, on top of groceries and gas money. I can't afford the health care plan.
At the moment, that is all I have, I don't have the rest of my notes on it with me. Those are the 2 biggest things though, as those effect me greatly without me being able to really do anything besides vote in people who might be able to reverse some of the damages that could be done by this tax law.
I also find it very interesting that they didn't give people the opportunity to really read through the law before having it pulled from the internet and then they voted on it. And to have done it behind closed doors? That is a huge red flag to me, saying there are other things in this law that is not good for the people.
Thanks for clarifying that, Dan. Based on those points I could certainly see your objections.
They had to do it between closed doors because Republicans refused to have any part in the crafting process. They virulently refused to even debate anyting related to health care, and surprise, we get a primarily liberal bill. You also seem to be completely ignoring the fact that people would be fucking dying without this bill. People, including fucking children, with cancer, leukemia, and other fatal diseases who don't have money would not be alive much longer without the provisions in this bill. I don't like the mandate either, but you're also forgetting that was a Republican idea to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to get insurance.
I'm not old enough to vote or anything, so I don't really follow.
And DShiznit should be arrested for language. Had my mama been watching when I read that...
DShiznit, so to summarize your argument in more objective language, you consider it in the best interest of the many to guarantee health for the few at slight to moderate to substantial cost to the many, depending on each individual's means?
DShiznit wrote:
They had to do it between closed doors because Republicans refused to have any part in the crafting process. They virulently refused to even debate anyting related to health care, and surprise, we get a primarily liberal bill. You also seem to be completely ignoring the fact that people would be a dying without this bill. People, including a children, with cancer, leukemia, and other fatal diseases who don't have money would not be alive much longer without the provisions in this bill. I don't like the mandate either, but you're also forgetting that was a Republican idea to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to get insurance.
That argument would be a good one, pending the fact that the health care bill didn't already say that they can and will pull medical treatment on terminally ill patients.
The reason the Republicans wouldn't go in to argue about it because the entire bill is bad.
To be quite honest, I probably would have been in support of something resembling the healthcare plan that Obama first proposed, where the government would essentially compete in the insurance market, to prevent price fixing and ensure that the insurance companies didn't collude to screw over everyone else. But what came out of the legislature was an abomination.
elfprince13 wrote:
To be quite honest, I probably would have been in support of something resembling the healthcare plan that Obama first proposed, where the government would essentially compete in the insurance market, to prevent price fixing and ensure that the insurance companies didn't collude to screw over everyone else. But what came out of the legislature was an abomination.
^ This. Very this.
Its getting closer to election time. I'm beginning to fell though that the Tea Party is screwed. There ideas are being attacked. Like the oil thing. BP has had 2 incidents, and the natural gas explosion. (It was ELF if you ask me. ELF is an Eco-Terrorist Group) And then the whole border thing is being covered up. NM really sucks. There has been tons of murders, rapes, and **** going on. People on my street have been killed during the night here. Border stuff is top on my list. But it doesn't make the news. Anyway, Tea Party is Screwed in the election because the East and West Coast radicals are attacking them, and that's where the votes are. Not poor NM and Texas, by the drug wars, away from city life.
Actually, if you look county-by-county, other than in New England, Democrats are concentrated almost exclusively in the big metropolitan areas.
Exactly! It's the people who don't know what the **** is going on in the world that get the vote! It pisses me off that the rural people are being murdered in their beds, but the metro people keep voting in the democrats, who don't give a a what's going on in the country or small towns! (sorry for the passion there....)
adept wrote:
Exactly! It's the people who don't know what the **** is going on in the world that get the vote! It pisses me off that the rural people are being murdered in their beds, but the metro people keep voting in the democrats, who don't give a a what's going on in the country or small towns! (sorry for the passion there....)
What rural people are getting murdered in their beds? I think it's widely agreed that urban areas have much higher violent crime rates than rural areas, no? Feel free to correct me if that's a misapprehension.
elfprince13 wrote:
Here are their main political stances, as per the "Contract from America"
Quote:
1. Adopt a single-rate tax system: Adopt a single-rate tax system by rewriting the Internal Revenue Code. (64.9%)
2. Permanently repeal recent tax increases: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)
3. Authorize drilling of American petroleum reserves: Authorize the use of American petroleum reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign oil. (55.5%)
4. Reject Environmental Policy of emissions trading: Reject the "Cap and Trade" system of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which provides economic incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (72.20%)
5. Limit annual growth of Federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
6. Audit federal agencies by creating a "blue ribbon" task force: Create a "blue ribbon" task force to audit federal agencies and programs, "assess their Constitutionality"(traditionally the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Justice), and promote fiscal efficiency. (63.37%)
7. Repeal recent Health Care Reform legislation: Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)
8. Constitutional Amendment requiring a super-majority for tax code modification: Amend the constitution to require a congressional super-majority (2/3 of votes) for tax code modification. (69.69%)
9. Earmark moratorium and super-majority requirement: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the federal budget is balanced, and then require super-majority (2/3 of votes) to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
10. Require all future legislation to pass a "Constitutionality Test": Require all future legislation to identify the Constitutional provision that makes bill legal (traditionally the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Justice). (82.03%)
Of these, only 3 and 4 really bother me, though the changes to tax law will also require a significant cut for the DoD budget, to react to the curtailed budget, which I think most of them would be opposed to. The other really negative side of their politics is revealed through polls (and not officially supported party policy, if such a thing exists within the Tea Party), which show Tea Party supporters to be significantly more likely than the rest of the population to harbor racial resentments, ...
I have a problem with several of those.
1. Sounds good in theory, but the economic implications are *huge* for the worse. You would have to set the tax rate to the current lowest level, which would cripple tax income without actually solving any problems.
2. You can't permanently repeal anything, that's just idiotic. Likewise, the reductions were only for the rich. Those shouldn't be renewed, and instead there should be cuts for the lower middle class (temporarily, maybe for a couple of years, not permanently) - which is the group that carries this country. Middle class is extremely important, far more than the rich (and I say this as someone who is about to be placed into the highest tax bracket, btw).
3. Eh... yes and no. A global authorization is a horrible idea, but they could authorize more places.
4. Short sighted and stupid
5. Another thing that sounds good in theory, but would require enough exceptions to make it useless (emergency situations, bailouts, we go to war, etc...)
6. Task forces and committees never do anything but use money and waste time.
7. Skipping for now, might come back to it.
8. Taxes aren't a constitutional amendment, giving them that same process would be idiotic.
9. Sounds like an awesome way to get nothing done ever. It also sounds like these supposedly educated people have no freaking clue what the process is anyway, otherwise they wouldn't propose this crap.
10. The simple fact of the matter is that the world today is *nothing* like the world of 1787. The founding fathers were very smart, yes, but they weren't gods. They made mistakes. And not only that, but the world changes. It's a safe bet that if the founding fathers drew up the constitution in the modern age that it would be different.
Likewise, it's all a matter of interpretation anyway. And again, there already IS a constitutionality check - that's the supreme court's job. What, do they want to take away power from the DoJ and give it to the house and senate? Sounds like a great way to screw up the balance of power even more. Morons.
adept wrote:
Exactly! It's the people who don't know what the **** is going on in the world that get the vote! It pisses me off that the rural people are being murdered in their beds, but the metro people keep voting in the democrats, who don't give a a what's going on in the country or small towns! (sorry for the passion there....)
lol what? If anything, the opposite is true. Rural people are the ones isolated from the world.
The healthcare bill became what it is BECAUSE Republicans refused to even debate on it. Enough with the circular logic. If it became an abomination, it did so BECAUSE Democrats were forced to push through whatever they could, and it turned out to be unsatisfying for everyone. That being said, even an attempt to save lives(which the current legislation does try, if in a rather half-as
sed fashion) is better than nothing. Maybe it's because I'm a bleeding-heart liberal who cares about human lives more than money.
Also, even if you have legitimate problems with the healthcare bill, Republicans want to put back in place the
same fixes after repealing it, presumably so they can take credit for those ideas:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39336621 link fixed for you
If you don't like the idea of healthcare reform, when it comes to our two parties, you're choosing between a douche and a turd.
DShiznit wrote:
The healthcare bill became what it is BECAUSE Republicans refused to even debate on it. Enough with the circular logic. If it became an abomination, it did so BECAUSE Democrats were forced to push through whatever they could, and it turned out to be unsatisfying for everyone. That being said, even an attempt to save lives(which the current legislation does try, if in a rather half-assed fashion) is better than nothing. Maybe it's because I'm a bleeding-heart liberal who cares about human lives more than money.
No, it's worth than nothing, because it actively obstructs a proper solution.
Quote:
If you don't like the idea of healthcare reform, when it comes to our two parties, you're choosing between a douche and a turd.
I'm not opposed to healthcare reform, though the current situation is absolutely not a reform, but neither do I support either party.
Since when is saving some lives an obstruction to a proper solution for saving all lives? It might not be anywhere near perfect, but there are a significant number of people who are getting treated for dangerous and sometimes fatal conditions today who would not be able to without the legislation we have. I know, because I'm one of them. It's at least a step in the right direction. If understand correctly, there was nothing more they could do with the blatant obstructionism of the other side. Maybe at least we can agree we're basically choosing between two bowls of sh!t, the only difference being the smell.
Look at this SUPER BIASED **** That the press is shoving down peoples faces!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-radio-address-20100926,0,2603044.story
They are trying to screw up everything. These ideas aren't all right, but there NEEDS to be balance. We can't have an extreme govenment like this. You can't have all democrat or all republican, or you get dumb **** like the healthcare bill. Obama sounds like a total a-tator in that article. He's just as bad as McCarthy or Rush! Ah!
The healthcare bill is the result of having both; record obstructionism and refusal to negotiate is what produced that watered-down bj to the special interests. If Republicans had come to the table, offered ideas, talked about how we should do this, and come to some kind of consensus with the democrats, they wouldn't have had to buy votes to get something passed.
DShiznit wrote:
Since when is saving some lives an obstruction to a proper solution for saving all lives? It might not be anywhere near perfect, but there are a significant number of people who are getting treated for dangerous and sometimes fatal conditions today who would not be able to without the legislation we have. I know, because I'm one of them.
Say you could have waited 2, 4, even 6 more years for a really proper solution to the issue that would have helped everyone person in the country who needed medical coverage, instead of getting a solution that helps you now, would you have?
But instead, we have a stinking pile, and we're going to have to shovel it out the door before we can make any real progress towards a proper solution.
Some people can't wait 6 years, including me. If it wasn't for this legislation(which does do some good things worth keeping) I would be kicked off my parents healthcare plan, and would be unable to pay for the expensive appointments and tests needed just to diagnose whatever's been ailing me for the past 2-3 years, much less treat it. If my eye-doctor's hunch is correct, it could be MS, so you see why I need diagnosis and treatment now rather than later. I'll be hard-pressed to finish school if my condition is left untreated, and I'm only guaranteed a high-school education for the next 3 years. Once I turn 21, my compulsory education goes away, as do my aspirations for higher learning and actually making something of myself. There are millions more Americans who are just as bad off as me, if not much, much worse. Waiting 6 years was simply not an option for us. I don't like what we got either(although no one has actually pointed out to me what exactly is so bad about this bill instead of just calling me a communist) and I hope it get's reformed and improved over time. Going right back where we started won't do that, especially if we give Republicans even more power to block everything.
But screw it. If enough idiots really want to put Republicans and Tea-partiers in power, let them. Let the government completely shut-down. Let everything get worse. I've all but given up on reason and debate.
