64 replies to this topic

[salsabob]

The question is still unanswered: How much of someone else's life and property do I have a right to?

Is theft immoral?
If theft is re-named "progressive redistribution" and done by government agents under threat of force does that make it moral?

How much of someone else's life and property do I have a right to?

Well, if your holding/using your govt's currency (either paper/coin in your pocket or the electronic form in your bank or brokerage accounts), you apparently have the right to hold a great deal of others' life and property that have and continue to make that possible for you to do so. It comes with the territory. One is welcome to vote with their feet, but basically you'll find that while the color of the currency changes you have the same situation everywhere else - well, at least now that the French have cleared out the northern part of Mali. Maybe you could fit in with some northern Pakistan tribe? Bring ammo though, I don't think they trade in beads or seashells there any more either.

[colion]

IRS: Cheapest "Affordable" Government Healthcare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family...
In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under the "Affordable Healthcare Act" the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

At this point nobody knows with any with any degree of certainty how much Obamacare premiums will be as so many unknown factors have yet to be determined. Insurance companies are warning agents that the increase in premiums will be substantial (http://www.forbes.co...-sticker-shock/), reflecting such things as the number who will choose not to be insured, lawsuits in progress, etc.

In this regard, healthcare acturies say that the government is underestimating the number of healthy under 30 or so crowd who will choose to not be insured until they need insurance and then take it out. Of course, these people will probably drop insurance once they are healthy. This will raise premiums for all as a result of the community rating system required for all insurance policies.

In addition, given that the IRS has no power to collect the relatively small penalty (or tax in SCOTUS-speak) except by withholding refunds or going to court (not likely for a small amount) many in this group will probably decide to not pay the penalty. Roll in the effect of most states choosing not to run the exchanges, lawsuits known to be in preparation or in progress (e.g., Oklahoma, Catholic Church, etc.), physicians and hospitals one way or the other not being available to Medicare/Medicaid patients (already happening as hospitals close in rural and high Medicare/Medicaid areas and physicians either retire or go into practices that are not Medicare/Medicaid intensive), reflecting decreased payments and increased expenses (regulations/paperwork), etc. and it should be interesting to watch the grand scheme tie itself in knots and perhaps even go into self-destruct mode. At the very least, I suspect that it will be painful for many.

[voltaire]

IRS: Cheapest "Affordable" Government Healthcare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family...
In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under the "Affordable Healthcare Act" the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

At this point nobody knows with any with any degree of certainty how much Obamacare premiums will be as so many unknown factors have yet to be determined. Insurance companies are warning agents that the increase in premiums will be substantial (http://www.forbes.co...-sticker-shock/), reflecting such things as the number who will choose not to be insured, lawsuits in progress, etc.

In this regard, healthcare acturies say that the government is underestimating the number of healthy under 30 or so crowd who will choose to not be insured until they need insurance and then take it out. Of course, these people will probably drop insurance once they are healthy. This will raise premiums for all as a result of the community rating system required for all insurance policies.

In addition, given that the IRS has no power to collect the relatively small penalty (or tax in SCOTUS-speak) except by withholding refunds or going to court (not likely for a small amount) many in this group will probably decide to not pay the penalty. Roll in the effect of most states choosing not to run the exchanges, lawsuits known to be in preparation or in progress (e.g., Oklahoma, Catholic Church, etc.), physicians and hospitals one way or the other not being available to Medicare/Medicaid patients (already happening as hospitals close in rural and high Medicare/Medicaid areas and physicians either retire or go into practices that are not Medicare/Medicaid intensive), reflecting decreased payments and increased expenses (regulations/paperwork), etc. and it should be interesting to watch the grand scheme tie itself in knots and perhaps even go into self-destruct mode. At the very least, I suspect that it will be painful for many.

If you don't like what the government is doing, vote for the other party or form another party.

After all the majority has voted for the policies you don't like.

When Britain was ruling of course you had no say, but now you can vote for someone you like or even stand yourself if you have support.

Where's the tyranny in "government of the people BY the people"?

Would the armed forces take over? Can't see it.

So there is no need for guns against your own government.

For your protection is another question!

[colion]

My comment, Voltaire, was not about whether or not I liked Obamacare but rather about some of the problems associated with its implimentation. Whether or not it is good legislation and whether or not Obama and company are good for the country are another matter.

[Rogerdodger]

The question is still unanswered: How much of someone else's life and property do I have a right to?

So there is no need for guns against your own government.

I guess the framers of the Constitution didn't get your memo.

Why is government (Homeland Security) stockpiling guns, hollow-point ammo?
Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Edited by Rogerdodger, 04 February 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[colion]

Piers Morgan gets a lesson on gun control, tyranny, etc. Classic left-right debate.

Piers Morgan defends gun control

Edited by colion, 04 February 2013 - 02:51 PM.

[salsabob]

If you don't like what the government is doing, vote for the other party or form another party.

After all the majority has voted for the policies you don't like.

When Britain was ruling of course you had no say, but now you can vote for someone you like or even stand yourself if you have support.

Where's the tyranny in "government of the people BY the people"?

Would the armed forces take over? Can't see it.

So there is no need for guns against your own government.

For your protection is another question!

What should be obviously funny is these clowns believe they can posses firepower to take on the US govt. Most of them are old dudes that would have a heart attack humping an ammo case to their homemade bunker somewhere in who-cares backward America.

What's not funny at all is that, when you tease back the onion to its core, what they're saying is its okay to take a shot at one of our servicemen. I bet dollars-to-donuts, they probable carry one of those patriotic support-the-troops magnetic ribbons on the back of their Hummer.

These guys live in magic pony land. But, they can be dangerous like the guy who shot the bus driver and took the 5 y.o. down in his bunker.

Edited by salsabob, 04 February 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

The question is still unanswered: How much of someone else's life and property do I have a right to?

Greedy Musicians and Actors Preceded Athletes in Fleeing 70 Percent Taxes
It was the Beatles who sang, “There's one for you, nineteen for me” in the song Tax Man in 1966 leading the way for rock stars from the British Invasion to give up their British Citizenship to save millions in taxes.

Don't forget Robin Hood who "stole" from the rich (who got their wealth from oppressive taxation) and gave it back to the oppressed taxpayers.
Don't forget the French revolution.
Eventually even the French had their fill of it.

How much of someone else's life and property do I have a right to?
Please tell me.
I have some catching up to do.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 04 February 2013 - 09:44 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Beatle slavery:
"If you drive a car, I'll tax the street.
If you drive to city, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat.
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet,"
– George Harrison, Beatles' "Taxman," 1966.
"'Taxman' was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes," said the late George Harrison, the Beatles guitarist. "It was and still is typical."
For their chief competitors, the Rolling Stones, the crushing taxation in the UK in the 1970s forced the band to leave their homeland, England, to seek refuge in France and record the aptly titled "Exile on Main Street." Like Napoleon Bonaparte on Elba, the Stones were forced into Mediterranean exile.
The history of the Beatles and the Stones relative to taxation has direct bearing on the modern-day open debate on just how government is too much government and exactly how much taxation is too much taxation. The leader of the free world has called upon the rich to pay their "fair share," but what exactly is the definition of fair share? And what constitutes "rich" in Obama's America? The devil is in the details.
Is 98 percent fair? "Preposterous" you say? Not if you review the history of the United Kingdom prior to the rise of Margaret Thatcher.
The "progressive" tax regime of former UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson was simply staggering, a top rate for income tax of 83 percent + a 15 percent surcharge on "un-earned income" (investments and dividends), bringing the marginal rate of 98 percent (no typo). Reportedly, 750,000 British taxpayers were liable for a 98 percent tax rate in 1974. Is there a fine line between taxation and almost total confiscation, and when is that line crossed?
No one will ever accuse the members of the Beatles and the Stones of being conservative warriors for limited government and Lafferite low taxation to jump-start economic growth. The Stones in particular proved that the real wealthy or the so-called wealthy have options. They can move to lower tax states (e.g. Texas and Florida come immediately to mind) or even to other nations. They may not want to do it, but again they may not have any other choice.


Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you,
nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
(Taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes
(Taxman)
'Cause I'm the taxman Yeah,
I'm the taxman And you're working for no one but me
(Taxman)

If it sounds a bit like slavery
Be thankful I don't take it all
I'm the taxman And you're working for no one but me
(Taxman)

And you can't just walk away:
Chicago mulls tax -- on sneakers!

Edited by Rogerdodger, 04 February 2013 - 10:12 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

2 hours ago:
Michael Isikoff NBC News Exclusive

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens without a trial or conviction!

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence "
The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.
It also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.

White Paper PDF

Edited by Rogerdodger, 04 February 2013 - 11:48 PM.