POLITICAL THREAD

[Willy4UK]

And yes Soros does have full fledged connections to voting machines.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Did Prince Phillip die or not...I'm seeing conflicting stories on SM.

 

[Mashburned]

I mean it's so stupid it's genius. Al gore is genius.

But afaik, Bitcoin gained its fame as untraceable "currency" used for illegal purchases on Silk Road. People would convert and trade real money for this e-currency that was a string of code. There were sweatshops of kids, or automated programs constantly creating Bitcoin code and making no telling how much stupid quick cash trading the shit.

That stuff made its way to big media America and I'm pretty sure some prominent retailers even accepted Bitcoin at one time.

As the great Biggie Smalls and Method Man famously rapped - "F the e-world, dont ask me for shit. Everything you get you gotta work hard for it!".

 

[fuzz77]

That's a nice straw man, but conservatives aren't opposed to gay marriage. Conservatives want to preserve the Constitution and what that stands for. Conservatives believe that government has no place in telling private citizens what they can and can't do as long as they are not violating the rights of another citizen. That leaves a pretty wide range of behaviors that should be legal.

So you are now claiming that conservatives did not fight the rulings allowing same sex marriage?
Please confirm before I present you a mountain of factual evidence to the contrary.

 

[fuzz77]

Incentives. Give tax breaks for being healthy.

What do tax breaks do for people who pay no federal taxes? (about 50% of the population)

 

[Willy4UK]

What do tax breaks do for people who pay no federal taxes? (about 50% of the population)

You mean, the people on welfare who are the ones more likely to drive up healthcare cost because they are fat and lazy? Probably nothing.

 

[fuzz77]

You mean, the people on welfare who are the ones more likely to drive up healthcare cost because they are fat and lazy? Probably nothing.

People on welfare already have healthcare. I'm talking about the working poor who work in $15/hr and less jobs.

I realize that it's tough for you not to be a smartass but it's a legitimate question that many don't consider.

 

[fuzz77]

How were they liberal? By using their faith as a moral compass?

Bill, faith...i.e. religion was used both to justify and to argue against slavery. BTW, faith is the moral compass that many liberals and conservatives use to justify their decisions. Just as faith is used on both sides of the abortion and gay rights arguments. Methodist and Presbyterians have differing opinions on matters vs Baptist and Pentecostals.

 

[Brushy Bill]

 

[JohnKBA]

On the topic of healthcare - I've been at my company a long time, but just discovered that health care premiums are based on income here. The more you make, the higher your premiums are.

So I have a couple of questions.

1) Is this common?
2) If so, isn't that a form of "Obamacare" within the private sector? I'm paying more so that someone below me on the food chain can pay less, and conversely, those above me on the food chain are paying more so I can pay less.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Obama publicly backs Macron in the FRENCH Presidential election, but hey Russian influence/Putin is the devil and whatnot.

 

[Brushy Bill]

On the topic of healthcare - I've been at my company a long time, but just discovered that health care premiums are based on income here. The more you make, the higher your premiums are.

So I have a couple of questions.

1) Is this common?
2) If so, isn't that a form of "Obamacare" within the private sector? I'm paying more so that someone below me on the food chain can pay less, and conversely, those above me on the food chain are paying more so I can pay less.

1) I have no idea
2) That is the whole frigging point. Private vs Public!!!

 

[JohnKBA]

Yep lets murder a future human because the mother may be miserable for a few weeks. Apparently that's what a life is worth nowadays.

That's not what I meant and you know it. My whole point here is that there is no reason a woman would carry a baby to term, then decide nah, eff it, I'm done with this shit.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Don't those people already get a low income tax break (bonus)? I've heard of people that after filing their taxes, getting everything they paid in back, they also got a bonus of free money.

For example, someone files their tax returns and is set to get back $2000, the government gives them a low income bonus and adds on another $1000(?) to what they're already getting back.

So my question is, if those people are already getting tax breaks and bonuses, then why do they need even more?

 

[JohnKBA]

Don't those people already get a low income tax break (bonus)? I've heard of people that after filing their taxes, getting everything they paid in back, they also got a bonus of free money.

For example, someone files their tax returns and is set to get back $2000, the government gives them a low income bonus and adds on another $1000(?) to what they're already getting back.

So my question is, if those people are already getting tax breaks and bonuses, then why do they need even more?

My ex wife has shown zero income on her return for the last several years (the payments I make to her are child support and property division, neither of which are deductible for me nor income for her) and yet she gets refunds every year. Not sure how that works but we've had plenty of scraps over it.

 

[fuzz77]

That's a nice straw man, but conservatives aren't opposed to gay marriage. Conservatives want to preserve the Constitution and what that stands for. Conservatives believe that government has no place in telling private citizens what they can and can't do as long as they are not violating the rights of another citizen. That leaves a pretty wide range of behaviors that should be legal.

The point of the Constitution was to limit the power of government to it's essential functions in order to protect individual liberty. Our founding fathers recognized that the very existence of government meant that individual liberty was restricted, so their purpose was to limit the federal government as much as possible while still being able to defend the country and provide infrastructure and a legal system. If you look at the growth of government, it has primarily been at the urging of liberals. All of the social programs, by definition, further restrict individual liberty because by necessity they forcibly take from one individual and give to another. The government picks winners and losers. By whose authority do they do that? That certainly is not the action of an entity that values individual liberty. The current healthcare law is a prime example.

Government regulations that limit how much mileage a car must get, how much water a washing machine, shower, commode must use, what light bulb technology must be sold, etc. These all limit individual liberty for the "good of whole". And they are pretty much all pushed through by liberals. Our founding fathers did not believe that government, or any third party, could make decisions that benefited the "good of whole". That was never considered acceptable by the people who founded this country. They did not look at government as a problem solver for society. They expected people to solve problems, not government. Our founding fathers believed that the "good of the whole" was achieved by every individual making decisions in his or her best interest. In other words, the maximum benefit of society is achieved when each individual acts in his or her best interest. No government can act in the best interest of everyone, therefore, the power of the federal government should be restricted to the very basic functions in which it was designed to deliver. A liberal, in the classic sense of the word, would be appalled at the growth of government and how intrusive it has become in our lives.

You seem to confuse conservatives with libertarians. Conservatives have no problem using government to protect their ideas. The war on drugs didn't stem from any liberal. If I choose to smoke pot or snort coke that doesn't affect anyone else any more than if I drink a few shots of Makers. If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy that doesn't affect anyone else but that woman. Not to mention your laughable assertion that conservatives didn't oppose same-sex marriage that affects no one but the couple.

If your business or any factory dumps poison or other pollutants into the river that provides my drinking water or the air that I breathe...that affects me. Does it not affect you?
If you and others create a situation where the nation is forced to go to war with other nations over the use of products like oil...it affects me.
The simple fact is that there is little that one does that does not have some ancillary affect on others.

The founding fathers would also be appalled to find a nation with large standing army consuming so much of our treasury. They preferred state militias over a large standing army. Any conservatives calling for a return to that model?

 

[JohnKBA]

You seem to confuse conservatives with libertarians. Conservatives have no problem using government to protect their ideas. The war on drugs didn't stem from any liberal. If I choose to smoke pot or snort coke that doesn't affect anyone else any more than if I drink a few shots of Makers. If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy that doesn't affect anyone else but that woman. Not to mention your laughable assertion that conservatives didn't oppose same-sex marriage that affects no one but the couple.

If your business or any factory dumps poison or other pollutants into the river that provides my drinking water or the air that I breathe...that affects me. Does it not affect you?
If you and others create a situation where the nation is forced to go to war with other nations over the use of products like oil...it affects me.
The simple fact is that there is little that one does that does not have some ancillary affect on others.

The founding fathers would also be appalled to find a nation with large standing army consuming so much of our treasury. They preferred state militias over a large standing army. Any conservatives calling for a return to that model?

I heard more than a few calling for blood in the streets if Hillary had "stolen" the election. So I'd say at least a portion of them would be ok with that model.

 

[Mashburned]

That's not what I meant and you know it. My whole point here is that there is no reason a woman would carry a baby to term, then decide nah, eff it, I'm done with this shit.

There are tons of reasons, one really dispicable one is if there is something wrong with the child. Hard to fathom, but it's a thing. I've heard it discussed on national media level more than once. If something is wrong with your child, it's your right to keep it or not.

Humans are awful, this subject is awful, and frankly or govt has nothing to do it with. It's scary they are involved with healthcare in any capacity. But here we are.

Watching some news on the healthcare vote this morning - dumb as hell. Republicans are absolutely giddy about doing something they trashed that other side for, and the other side is so salty. And people really think the govt cares about them.

FTBGE

 

[JohnKBA]

There are tons of reasons, one really dispicable one is if there is something wrong with the child. Hard to fathom, but it's a thing. I've heard it discussed on national media level more than once. If something is wrong with your child, it's your right to keep it or not.

Humans are awful, this subject is awful, and frankly or govt has nothing to do it with. It's scary they are involved with healthcare in any capacity. But here we are.

Watching some news on the healthcare vote this morning - dumb as hell. Republicans are absolutely giddy about doing something they trashed that other side for, and the other side is so salty. And people really think the govt cares about them.

FTBGE

I agree that it's a terrible subject. Interjecting politics into it just makes it that much worse.

 

[moe_schmoe]

My ex wife has shown zero income on her return for the last several years (the payments I make to her are child support and property division, neither of which are deductible for me nor income for her) and yet she gets refunds every year. Not sure how that works but we've had plenty of scraps over it.

Yeah, not sure how that works either. Never had the pleasure of an ex wife whom I owe child support, etc... Are you sure those things can't be claimed as income on her taxes? Is she claiming the kid(s) as a dependent behind your back? Also, if she's not employed and has zero income, then why is she even filing a return?

 

[qwesley]

So you are now claiming that conservatives did not fight the rulings allowing same sex marriage?
Please confirm before I present you a mountain of factual evidence to the contrary.

Obama was elected as anti same sex marriage. Hush.

 

[JohnKBA]

Yeah, not sure how that works either. Never had the pleasure of an ex wife whom I owe child support. Are you sure those things can't be claimed as income on her taxes? Is she claiming the kid(s) as a dependent behind your back? Also, if she's not employed and has zero income, then why is she even filing a return?

Yeah, child support is not deductible for me, nor is it income for her. If I was paying her maintenance, that would be, but it was set up as property division instead. I do claim our child as a dependent. Good question on your last point. I have no clue.

 

[fuzz77]

Don't those people already get a low income tax break (bonus)? I've heard of people that after filing their taxes, getting everything they paid in back, they also got a bonus of free money.

For example, someone files their tax returns and is set to get back $2000, the government gives them a low income bonus and adds on another $1000(?) to what they're already getting back.

So my question is, if those people are already getting tax breaks and bonuses, then why do they need even more?

To start with...that first $2000 you're referring to was taken out of their check. That ain't free money...but likely because they know they have zero tax liability they have $0 taken out of their check because it's tough enough to make ends meet on a low income.
Yes, some get an EIC or Earned Income Credit...which goes away for anyone over about $36K. But example...single mom earns $15hr/$28K receives an EIC of $1000. That pays for about 1 month of healthcare plan vs a subsidy that pays 80% of the annual cost. Add that the $1000 was money they were already getting so effectively losing $1000s in benefits. So you're ok with healthcare going from 10% to 35% of someone with $35K income whereas the person with $100K income sees their healthcare effective cost go down?

 

[moe_schmoe]

Good question on your last point. I have no clue.

Yeah, seems odd. If she's getting money back as you say, then she's filing for a specific reason. Maybe there's some sort of bonus for single mothers, and even though she's unemployed with zero income she files to receive that bonus. Could explain why she's filing and how she's receiving money.

 

[moe_schmoe]

To start with...that first $2000 you're referring to was taken out of their check. That ain't free money

No shit? Seriously?

So you're ok with healthcare going from 10% to 35% of someone with $35K income whereas the person with $100K income sees their healthcare effective cost go down?

Never said that. You asked Willy about healthy tax breaks for people who don't make enough money. I simply posted out those people already get several breaks/bonuses, so why do they need one more. The government giving everything to everyone isn't the answer.

 

[fuzz77]

No shit? Seriously?

Then why bring it into the conversation?

 

[Bill Derington]

Bill, faith...i.e. religion was used both to justify and to argue against slavery. BTW, faith is the moral compass that many liberals and conservatives use to justify their decisions. Just as faith is used on both sides of the abortion and gay rights arguments. Methodist and Presbyterians have differing opinions on matters vs Baptist and Pentecostals.

You're confusing reality with the painted picture you want to believe. Abolitionists from the North and South were driven by their religion and faith to oppose slavery, that is an absolute historical fact, they gained no monetary value with the end of slavery. Which is another story on how slavery was fine and dandy in the north until cheap immigrant labor became abundant.

The problem now is people are wanting change just for the sake making a statement.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Then why bring it into the conversation?

You asked @Willy4UK about staying healthy tax breaks for people who don't make enough money and don't pay taxes. I simply pointed out that those people already get several breaks/bonuses that those of us who do pay don't get, so why should it matter if we get one that they don't? And, of course, your answer is for the government to play mommy and give everyone, everything.

 

[fuzz77]

You're confusing reality with the painted picture you want to believe. Abolitionists from the North and South were driven by their religion and faith to oppose slavery, that is an absolute historical fact, they gained no monetary value with the end of slavery. Which is another story on how slavery was fine and dandy in the north until cheap immigrant labor became abundant.

The problem now is people are wanting change just for the sake making a statement.

I still fail to see where that refutes anything I wrote. Faith itself isn't conservative or liberal yet it is used to promote and justify both liberal and conservative causes.

 

[Brushy Bill]

That's not what I meant and you know it. My whole point here is that there is no reason a woman would carry a baby to term, then decide nah, eff it, I'm done with this shit.

Ok

They shouldn't have the option though.

 

[JohnKBA]

Ok

They shouldn't have the option though.

I agree with you on this one.

 

[fuzz77]

You asked @Willy4UK about staying healthy tax breaks for people who don't make enough money and don't pay taxes. I simply pointed out that those people already get several breaks/bonuses that those of us who do pay don't get, so why should it matter if we get one that they don't? And, of course, your answer is for the government to play mommy and give everyone, everything.

Getting a refund for overpayment of taxes isn't a tax break.

My point is that replacing low income subsidies to purchase healthcare insurance with tax breaks to purchase healthcare insurance only helps those who pay enough in taxes to take advantage of those tax breaks and makes it less affordable to those with low incomes.

Look dude, it doesn't affect me one way or the other. I get my healthcare insurance through my employer. But when the low income Trump supporting redneck who is currently getting their Obamacare sees it go away and replaced with something they can't use...reality is going to smack them upside the head. There are many counties in Kentucky where up to 80% of the population has their healthcare through Obamacare. They may well see that go away. The GOP can deal with the political fallout that will follow.

 

[moe_schmoe]

But example...single mom earns $15hr/$28K receives an EIC of $1000. That pays for about 1 month of healthcare plan vs a subsidy that pays 80% of the annual cost.

If she's working a semi decent job that's paying her $15 an hour, then she should be getting healthcare through her employer, not paying out of pocket with her $1000 EIC.

 

[JohnKBA]

Saw Spicer sparring with the Breitbart guy about the wall - for those who are holding Trump's feet to the fire on campaign promises, does repairing some fence cut the mustard vs the wall he was supposed to build? I've got no dog in that fight but curious where Trump's supporters fall on that.

I'm starting to like Spicer more. The guy has a miserable job, but manages to interject some humor into every conference. I couldn't do what he does.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Look dude, it doesn't affect me one way or the other. I get my healthcare insurance through my employer.

And if they're working a $15/hour job, they should, too.

 

[JohnKBA]

If she's working a semi decent job that's paying her $15 an hour, then she should be getting healthcare through her employer, not paying out of pocket with her $1000 EIC.

I agree with this. The majority of our entry level employees are making less than $15 and still get HC through us (and I found out recently we even subsidize it for them) - many of them wouldn't be working here if not for the HC benefits.

 

[moe_schmoe]

I agree with this. The majority of our entry level employees are making less than $15 and still get HC through us (and I found out recently we even subsidize it for them) - many of them wouldn't be working here if not for the HC benefits.

Exactly, other than pay, benefits are the next most important thing people look at when looking for work. He's acting like people who only make $15/hour are all just a bunch of low life, redneck Trump supporters, who couldn't possibly be working at a company that offers great benefits.

 

[moe_schmoe]

does repairing some fence cut the mustard vs the wall he was supposed to build? I've got no dog in that fight but curious where Trump's supporters fall on that.

They way they explained it, the budget this go round only allows for the replacing of current fence and the building of concrete levees along the water ways.

Even though building concrete levees and replacing hundreds of miles of six foot chain link fencing with 20 foot solid steel wall/fence (whatever you want to call it) is a start, I don't think the base will be happy unless in the new budget, September, Trump gets funding to start putting up walls in places where it currently isn't.

Although, people are going to have to just get over the whole brick and mortar thing. Kelly, the DHS and the Border Patrol don't want it. It limits them. They prefer the steel wall that they can see through, and I don't see Trump forcing something on them that they don't want and that limits how good they can do their job.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

They way they explained it, the budget this go round only allows for the replacing of current fence and the building of concrete levees along the water ways.

Even though building concrete levees and replacing hundreds of miles of six foot chain link fencing with 20 foot solid steel wall/fence (whatever you want to call it) is a start, I don't think the base will be happy unless in the new budget, September, Trump gets funding to start putting up walls in places where it currently isn't.

Although, people are going to have to just get over the whole brick and mortar thing. Kelly, the DHS and the Border Patrol don't want it. It limits them. They prefer the steel wall that they can see through, and I don't see Trump forcing something on them that they don't want and that limits how good they can do their job.

I don't think supporters of either side will pay too much attention to the budget...a lot of stupid people out there will buy into whatever few buzz items that come out of it. All Trump admin need to do is quickly put to use that 347 mill on those 20 ft steel beam walls, take tons of great pictures and its a pacifying win. Once the cowards on the hill see that it didn't cause a huge uproar, it will be easier to get more support for the new funds in Sept anyways.

 

[Bill Derington]

I still fail to see where that refutes anything I wrote. Faith itself isn't conservative or liberal yet it is used to promote and justify both liberal and conservative causes.

Slavery wasn't a liberal or conservative viewpoint either.