The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[HellToupee]

Sometimes listening to Sarah Palin is . Her word vomit on the Megan Kelley show is nonsensical and very funny

I think she is stoned. Her eyes are glassy and she has that dry mouth

What do you think is the biggest item she has shoved up her butt? I'll be it puts a large cucumber to shame.

No fan of Palin or many pols for that matter but why the sexual put down? I don't get it

 

[otello]

From page 8 of the SC decision:

The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2).

 

[MaxThreshold]

"The base stayed home" is one of the biggest lies that conservatives tell themselves in order to justify the results of the last two national elections. It's true that in red states like Louisiana and Idaho, many in the base stayed home- why shouldn't they? The result was assured. But in the key battleground states like Florida and Ohio, the Republican/conservative base was extremely energized, and they did NOT stay home. But they lost anyhow.

Conservatives need to face reality: they lost not because of the candidate, or because of trickery, or because the public didn't understand the message of conservatism: they lost because the American public understood their message and rejected it. And they're going to continue to lose national elections until that message is modified. If conservatives continue in their attempt to kick out all centrists in the Republican party, or if they bolt to form their own party based on Tea Party principles, the results will be even worse.

I never said that I thought those elections would have turned out any differently than they did. I'm quite aware that the majority of the American populace has rejected Constitutional republicanism (little 'r') in favor of an ever expanding, centralized, European-style welfare state.

That doesn't mean I and those like me are ever going to reject our values in favor of what we consider a vastly inferior system and fundamentally flawed word view. History will record who is right.

No they have not. The majority of Americans still want much more individual freedoms than the European type state will ever allow.

But what they also don't want are extreme solutions, like shutting down the government, or not raising the debt ceiling. They don't want extremists telling women that when they're raped they can't have an abortion. They don't want extremist ANYTHING.

Moderate Republicans are fighting the good fight to keep government limited, to promote free trade, to fight against excessive regulations and taxation when it becomes too high. These are all struggles that can be won in the long run, but you're not helping us. By behaving like a martyr (which you're not) you're only helping the other side.

You keep right on telling yourself that while continuing to sell the children of this nation into debt slavery and while turning a blind eye to the increasingly invasive activities of the Internal Revenue Service, the National Security Agency, and Department of Health and Human Services which now has the power to fine or imprison Americans if they refuse to engage in a private insurance transaction. Freedom my ###.

Are you actually suggesting that somebody will be imprisoned for not purchasing Obamacare?

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2013/09/23/countdown-to-obamacare-the-penalties-for-uninsured-americans

Effective Jan. 1, 2014, Obamacare requires all eligible individuals, including children, to have health insurance. Failure to be insured can trigger a penalty fee of $95 per adult and $47.50 per child in 2014. If you have individual coverage but your dependent children aren't insured, you can still face penalties on them.

No one knows how many Americans will be without health insurance in 2014. A 2012 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about 30 million Americans will not have insurance in 2016, and roughly 6 million of them will face penalties. The penalties for individuals are expected to increase each year, and the uninsured will have to pay either a fee or percent of household income (whichever is greater).


In 2014, the fee is $95 per adult or 1 percent of household income.

In 2015, the fee is $325 per adult or 2 percent of household income.

In 2016, the fee is $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of household income.

The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of Obamacare for DHHS. What do you think they're going to do if someone refuses to pay the fines, say, "Pretty please with sugar on top?" What if someone has no financial assets for the IRS to seize?

Payroll deduction.

Let's try this again: What if someone has no financial assets for the IRS to seize?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of Obamacare for DHHS. What do you think they're going to do if someone refuses to pay the fines, say, "Pretty please with sugar on top?" What if someone has no financial assets for the IRS to seize?

Payroll deduction.

I think payroll deduction would qualify as a levy, which the IRS is barred from doing (for the Obamacare tax).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Payroll deduction.

Let's try this again: What if someone has no financial assets for the IRS to seize?

Whether a person has assets to seize is irrelevant because the IRS is barred from seizing them (for the Obamacare tax).

 

[fatness]

Interesting stuff here.

The Post-Shutdown GOP Civil War in 23 Quotes

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "We're not going to go through the shutdown again. People have been too traumatized by it. There's too much damage…We're not going to shut down the government again. I guarantee it."

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.): "This party is going nuts."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.): "On our side of the aisle, we've wasted two months focused on something that was never going to happen. I won't say that I did, but a number of folks did. What we could have been doing all this time is focused on those mandatory changes that all of us know our country needs, and we’ve blown that opportunity. I hate to say it.”

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.): Called Republicans advocating for the shutdown "lemmings with suicide vests…They have to be more than just a lemming. Because jumping to your death is not enough."

----------------------------------

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.): Said that the agreement will "get us into Round 2. See, we're going to start this all over again.”

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho): "I'm more upset with my Republican conference, to be honest with you…If anybody should be kicked out, it's probably those Republicans—and not Speaker Boehner—who are unwilling to keep the promises they made to American people."

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kans.): "I would say the surrender caucus is the whiner caucus, and all they do is whine about the battle, as if they thought being elected to Washington was going to be an easy job."

Erick Erickson, editor in chief of RedState: "We must advance. Two Republicans in the Senate caused this fight that their colleagues would have surrendered on more quickly but for them. Imagine a Senate filled with more. We have an opportunity to replace Mitch McConnell in Kentucky with a better conservative. We should do that…as more Americans watch Obamacare fail them through the Republican primary season, conservatives will be able to put the focus on Republicans who funded Obamacare instead of fighting it. Whether they like it or not, Republicans in Congress will find their names on ballots in 2014. They cannot hide or escape fate."

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.): "Absolutely, I think [the shutdown and debt ceiling fight were] worth it! It's been worth it because what we did is we fought the right fight."

The Tea Party Patriots: "The Senate deal is a complete sellout. Speaker Boehner and the House should stand firm and reject this deal to reign [sic] in the Executive branch's power before it is too late…The House 'Leadership' must stop playing 'flinch' with themselves, and instead, play hardball with the White House, the Senate, and the House."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): "The American people rose up and spoke with an overwhelming voice and at least at this stage Washington isn't listening to them…But this battle will continue."

 

[MaxThreshold]

Interesting stuff here.

The Post-Shutdown GOP Civil War in 23 Quotes

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "We're not going to go through the shutdown again. People have been too traumatized by it. There's too much damage…We're not going to shut down the government again. I guarantee it."

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.): "This party is going nuts."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.): "On our side of the aisle, we've wasted two months focused on something that was never going to happen. I won't say that I did, but a number of folks did. What we could have been doing all this time is focused on those mandatory changes that all of us know our country needs, and we’ve blown that opportunity. I hate to say it.”

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.): Called Republicans advocating for the shutdown "lemmings with suicide vests…They have to be more than just a lemming. Because jumping to your death is not enough."

----------------------------------

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.): Said that the agreement will "get us into Round 2. See, we're going to start this all over again.”

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho): "I'm more upset with my Republican conference, to be honest with you…If anybody should be kicked out, it's probably those Republicans—and not Speaker Boehner—who are unwilling to keep the promises they made to American people."

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kans.): "I would say the surrender caucus is the whiner caucus, and all they do is whine about the battle, as if they thought being elected to Washington was going to be an easy job."

Erick Erickson, editor in chief of RedState: "We must advance. Two Republicans in the Senate caused this fight that their colleagues would have surrendered on more quickly but for them. Imagine a Senate filled with more. We have an opportunity to replace Mitch McConnell in Kentucky with a better conservative. We should do that…as more Americans watch Obamacare fail them through the Republican primary season, conservatives will be able to put the focus on Republicans who funded Obamacare instead of fighting it. Whether they like it or not, Republicans in Congress will find their names on ballots in 2014. They cannot hide or escape fate."

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.): "Absolutely, I think [the shutdown and debt ceiling fight were] worth it! It's been worth it because what we did is we fought the right fight."

The Tea Party Patriots: "The Senate deal is a complete sellout. Speaker Boehner and the House should stand firm and reject this deal to reign [sic] in the Executive branch's power before it is too late…The House 'Leadership' must stop playing 'flinch' with themselves, and instead, play hardball with the White House, the Senate, and the House."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): "The American people rose up and spoke with an overwhelming voice and at least at this stage Washington isn't listening to them…But this battle will continue."

Meh. Don't care. Not too long ago we all thought the Democrats were done for. This stuff goes in cycles and were just in the bad cycle right now.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I haven't encountered this imprisonment shtick before. It's fascinating.

Usually when you don't pay your taxes jail is an option. This case it isn't. For now.

Is this a tax? Or a fine?

If it was a fine then it would be unconstitutional per John turncoat Roberts.

If it is a tax and you don't pay your taxes...I don't understand how there cannot eventually be repercussions.

It is a tax. The repercussions are that you won't get a refund until it's paid.

Typically what happens with the IRS is if you are "short" one year it all gets rolled into what you owe the following year and there are no provisions where they care where the shortfall originated and the penalty would be the same as if you just decided not to pay your taxes.

I'm fairly certain that they keep all the years separate. If you still owe them money for any previous year, you won't get a refund until it's paid off. But it's not like your 2012 obligation becomes part of your 2013 obligation. The accounting is separate for each year, and each payment you make is designated for a particular year. I believe the payer gets to pick the year that a given payment is counted toward, though. So if you owe $100 for the Obamacare tax in 2014, and $100 for your income tax in 2015, when you send a $100 payment in 2016, you can specify that it's for 2015 rather than 2014. So the 2014 tax just remains unpaid, and nothing else happens until you are owed a refund that you won't get, because the IRS will apply any future refund amounts to your 2014 liability (and any other liabilities) until it's paid off.

For example, if they say you owe $100 from last year (in 2015 for 2014) and there is some tax refund that is supposed to go out, they will just deduct that $100 from your credit (or absorb your credit entirely if you owe more).

Yes. In other words, no jail time. (That would be unconstitutional.)

Except the refunds are not applied to past liabilities. I had outstanding taxes due and lost my refunds, they did not act as "discounts" to past years. That's the whole point, go ahead and don't pay the penalty tax but it will catch up to you eventually. Not only will you be paying the obamacare penalty tax but you will be charged fines/penalties and interest on top of that often times costing you a multiple then had you just paid for the obamacare penalty tax in the first place.

I should clarify "refunds" I meant when they have the tax rebates/stimulus.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Except the refunds are not applied to past liabilities. I had outstanding taxes due and lost my refunds, they did not act as "discounts" to past years.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Refunds are not forfeited. They are either given to the taxpayer or they are used to reduce the taxpayer's outstanding liabilities.

That's the whole point, go ahead and don't pay the penalty tax but it will catch up to you eventually. Not only will you be paying the obamacare penalty tax but you will be charged fines/penalties and interest on top of that often times costing you a multiple then had you just paid for the obamacare penalty tax in the first place.

Interest, I can believe. Do you have a reliable link regarding fines?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Except the refunds are not applied to past liabilities. I had outstanding taxes due and lost my refunds, they did not act as "discounts" to past years.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Refunds are not forfeited. They are either given to the taxpayer or they are used to reduce the taxpayer's outstanding liabilities.

That's the whole point, go ahead and don't pay the penalty tax but it will catch up to you eventually. Not only will you be paying the obamacare penalty tax but you will be charged fines/penalties and interest on top of that often times costing you a multiple then had you just paid for the obamacare penalty tax in the first place.

Interest, I can believe. Do you have a reliable link regarding fines?

Late payment penalties:

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Filing-Past-Due-Tax-Returns

I clarified what I meant by "refunds" I mispoke, I meant when there's a stimulus or tax rebate - I never saw those when I owed back taxes.

 

[Slapdash]

There is just so much crazy in this thread.

And it's only from one side, amiright?

Seems its always posters who attempt to put the "crazy" or "extremists" label on people they disagree are usually the most crazy.

I gave very specific reasons as to why I consider the Tea Party to be extremist. Once again:1. The belief that President Obama is illegitimate: either born in Kenya, or a Muslim, or a Communist, or a terrorist sympathizer, or the antiChrist: whatever the particulars, the common thread here is that he is evil and trying to destroy America (whereas a non-Tea Party Republican would simply consider Obama to be a Democratic politician whom they disagree with on most issues.)

2. The belief that the budget must be balanced without new taxation, and without significant changes to Social Security, Medicare, or defense spending.

3. The belief that shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling would not be especially harmful- or, if they are harmful, that it's worth it to "burn the ####er down" rather than to continue on our current path.

If you believe that I am misrepresenting any of these positions as representative of the Tea Party, please let me know how. If you believe that any of these positions are not extremist, please let me know which one. If you believe that any of these positions are justifiable, please go ahead and attempt to do so.

1. On count 1, the tea party probably considers Obama the most anti-constitutional president ever (no need to go thru the laundry list we all know what they are). Probably a belief shared with many Republicans and some democrats. Verdict on count 1, not extremist.2. On counts 2 and 3, which I consider linked, remember that Nixon himself said in 1971 that international gold convertibility was TEMPORARILY suspended. Why didn't he say PERMANENTLY suspended? Because sound money is important. Sound money is a constitutional idea, it requires a limited government (no fresh new taxes), a relatively balanced budget (some small debt is acceptable) and no ever-rising debt ceiling. If something is declared to be TEMPORARILY suspended, wouldn't you think there are some sort of conditions, once breached, would UNSUSPEND that declaration? How about the national debt going up a trillion a year? Not enough? Two trillion? 5 trillion? Burn the sound money mother down?

Nixon could have just repriced gold but he decided to hold on to it (our reserves might have been totally drained if he didn't suspend gold convertibility or he repriced). He made a judgement call at that time, some would call it crazy, some brilliant, to change things. Putting a stop to hiking the debt is the same type of judgement call. Is now the right time? I dunno. Us little guys probably don't have enough information to understand all the things going on behind he scenes in the monetary world to make the right judgement call at the right time, we never do.

Verdict on counts 2 and 3. No more extremist than Nixon.

Gotta be shtick right?

Nope. These guys are really serious about linking the dollar back to a commodity. They think sound money is a problem while we're experiencing the lowest inflation since the Great Depression.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Interest, I can believe. Do you have a reliable link regarding fines?

Late payment penalties:http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Filing-Past-Due-Tax-Returns

I don't see anything in that link about late payment penalties. I see stuff about late filing penalties.

Even if there were some stuff about late payment penalties that I missed, it would almost certainly be about the late payment of income taxes or payroll taxes, not the late payment of Obamacare taxes. There's nothing about the ACA in there at all.

 

[spreagle]

There is just so much crazy in this thread.

And it's only from one side, amiright?

Seems its always posters who attempt to put the "crazy" or "extremists" label on people they disagree are usually the most crazy.

I gave very specific reasons as to why I consider the Tea Party to be extremist. Once again:1. The belief that President Obama is illegitimate: either born in Kenya, or a Muslim, or a Communist, or a terrorist sympathizer, or the antiChrist: whatever the particulars, the common thread here is that he is evil and trying to destroy America (whereas a non-Tea Party Republican would simply consider Obama to be a Democratic politician whom they disagree with on most issues.)

2. The belief that the budget must be balanced without new taxation, and without significant changes to Social Security, Medicare, or defense spending.

3. The belief that shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling would not be especially harmful- or, if they are harmful, that it's worth it to "burn the ####er down" rather than to continue on our current path.

If you believe that I am misrepresenting any of these positions as representative of the Tea Party, please let me know how. If you believe that any of these positions are not extremist, please let me know which one. If you believe that any of these positions are justifiable, please go ahead and attempt to do so.

1. On count 1, the tea party probably considers Obama the most anti-constitutional president ever (no need to go thru the laundry list we all know what they are). Probably a belief shared with many Republicans and some democrats. Verdict on count 1, not extremist.2. On counts 2 and 3, which I consider linked, remember that Nixon himself said in 1971 that international gold convertibility was TEMPORARILY suspended. Why didn't he say PERMANENTLY suspended? Because sound money is important. Sound money is a constitutional idea, it requires a limited government (no fresh new taxes), a relatively balanced budget (some small debt is acceptable) and no ever-rising debt ceiling. If something is declared to be TEMPORARILY suspended, wouldn't you think there are some sort of conditions, once breached, would UNSUSPEND that declaration? How about the national debt going up a trillion a year? Not enough? Two trillion? 5 trillion? Burn the sound money mother down?

Nixon could have just repriced gold but he decided to hold on to it (our reserves might have been totally drained if he didn't suspend gold convertibility or he repriced). He made a judgement call at that time, some would call it crazy, some brilliant, to change things. Putting a stop to hiking the debt is the same type of judgement call. Is now the right time? I dunno. Us little guys probably don't have enough information to understand all the things going on behind he scenes in the monetary world to make the right judgement call at the right time, we never do.

Verdict on counts 2 and 3. No more extremist than Nixon.

Gotta be shtick right?

Nope. These guys are really serious about linking the dollar back to a commodity. They think sound money is a problem while we're experiencing the lowest inflation since the Great Depression.

I didn't say now is the best time, I said I don't know when is the best time. Maybe a few years ago was the best time. Maybe a few years from now is the best time. Only those on the inside know. I do know that never is not an option. Congress and the president will go to jail for treason if they allow the dollar to crater due to out of control moneyprinting. Wil they go to jail for treason if they default on something? Nope, unless that default leads to dollar collapse.

Things can change very fast. France changed things real fast on gold in 1970s. Quite honestly, China is starting to grouch like France did. Is China serious? Who knows?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Interest, I can believe. Do you have a reliable link regarding fines?

Late payment penalties:http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Filing-Past-Due-Tax-Returns

I don't see anything in that link about late payment penalties. I see stuff about late filing penalties.

Even if there were some stuff about late payment penalties that I missed, it would almost certainly be about the late payment of income taxes or payroll taxes, not the late payment of Obamacare taxes. There's nothing about the ACA in there at all.

Avoid interest and penalties

File your past due return and pay now to limit interest charges and late payment penalties.

I guess we won't know for certain, but I think it is safe to assume if you don't pay your Obamacare penalties you shouldn't expect any future tax rebates and we won't know until 2017 or later aside from interest what kind of penalties you could be facing.

 

[DrJ]

Interesting stuff here.

The Post-Shutdown GOP Civil War in 23 Quotes

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "We're not going to go through the shutdown again. People have been too traumatized by it. There's too much damage…We're not going to shut down the government again. I guarantee it."

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.): "This party is going nuts."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.): "On our side of the aisle, we've wasted two months focused on something that was never going to happen. I won't say that I did, but a number of folks did. What we could have been doing all this time is focused on those mandatory changes that all of us know our country needs, and we’ve blown that opportunity. I hate to say it.”

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.): Called Republicans advocating for the shutdown "lemmings with suicide vests…They have to be more than just a lemming. Because jumping to your death is not enough."

----------------------------------

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.): Said that the agreement will "get us into Round 2. See, we're going to start this all over again.”

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho): "I'm more upset with my Republican conference, to be honest with you…If anybody should be kicked out, it's probably those Republicans—and not Speaker Boehner—who are unwilling to keep the promises they made to American people."

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kans.): "I would say the surrender caucus is the whiner caucus, and all they do is whine about the battle, as if they thought being elected to Washington was going to be an easy job."

Erick Erickson, editor in chief of RedState: "We must advance. Two Republicans in the Senate caused this fight that their colleagues would have surrendered on more quickly but for them. Imagine a Senate filled with more. We have an opportunity to replace Mitch McConnell in Kentucky with a better conservative. We should do that…as more Americans watch Obamacare fail them through the Republican primary season, conservatives will be able to put the focus on Republicans who funded Obamacare instead of fighting it. Whether they like it or not, Republicans in Congress will find their names on ballots in 2014. They cannot hide or escape fate."

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.): "Absolutely, I think [the shutdown and debt ceiling fight were] worth it! It's been worth it because what we did is we fought the right fight."

The Tea Party Patriots: "The Senate deal is a complete sellout. Speaker Boehner and the House should stand firm and reject this deal to reign [sic] in the Executive branch's power before it is too late…The House 'Leadership' must stop playing 'flinch' with themselves, and instead, play hardball with the White House, the Senate, and the House."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): "The American people rose up and spoke with an overwhelming voice and at least at this stage Washington isn't listening to them…But this battle will continue."

Meh. Don't care. Not too long ago we all thought the Democrats were done for. This stuff goes in cycles and were just in the bad cycle right now.

The Democrats will certainly continue to overstep their bounds and there will eventually be a backlash against them as well. The groups that occupied a bunch of parks in New York don't like the way they're being represented either. It's only a matter of time before this comes crashing down on all of the charlatans.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I guess we won't know for certain, but I think it is safe to assume if you don't pay your Obamacare penalties you shouldn't expect any future tax rebates and we won't know until 2017 or later aside from interest what kind of penalties you could be facing.

Here's an article on the subject. It looks like there is no penalty for failing to pay the penalty. Just interest at an annual rate of about 3 percent.

 

[dparker713]

In other words, no jail time. (That would be unconstitutional.)

I do not see how it would be unconstitutional. It is a tax. It is just written in the law that there is no jail time for not paying this tax. That doesn't mean in the future the law couldn't be changed to be enforced exactly like other taxes are.

The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. People are sent to prison all the time for failure to file their taxes.

I've read the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case. It says that Obamacare is constitutional only because, among other things, there is no jail time or other punitive remedies for failure to pay the tax.

And only one Justice stated it was a tax. Now, since he is the Chief Justice, he assigned the opinion to himself, but why exactly the individual mandate is Constitutional is pretty hazy. 4 Justices stated it was permissible under the Commerce Clause and 1 Justice stated it was permissible under the Taxing Power. Its pretty much a cluster#### of an opinion.

 

[Slapdash]

There is just so much crazy in this thread.

And it's only from one side, amiright?

Seems its always posters who attempt to put the "crazy" or "extremists" label on people they disagree are usually the most crazy.

I gave very specific reasons as to why I consider the Tea Party to be extremist. Once again:1. The belief that President Obama is illegitimate: either born in Kenya, or a Muslim, or a Communist, or a terrorist sympathizer, or the antiChrist: whatever the particulars, the common thread here is that he is evil and trying to destroy America (whereas a non-Tea Party Republican would simply consider Obama to be a Democratic politician whom they disagree with on most issues.)

2. The belief that the budget must be balanced without new taxation, and without significant changes to Social Security, Medicare, or defense spending.

3. The belief that shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling would not be especially harmful- or, if they are harmful, that it's worth it to "burn the ####er down" rather than to continue on our current path.

If you believe that I am misrepresenting any of these positions as representative of the Tea Party, please let me know how. If you believe that any of these positions are not extremist, please let me know which one. If you believe that any of these positions are justifiable, please go ahead and attempt to do so.

1. On count 1, the tea party probably considers Obama the most anti-constitutional president ever (no need to go thru the laundry list we all know what they are). Probably a belief shared with many Republicans and some democrats. Verdict on count 1, not extremist.2. On counts 2 and 3, which I consider linked, remember that Nixon himself said in 1971 that international gold convertibility was TEMPORARILY suspended. Why didn't he say PERMANENTLY suspended? Because sound money is important. Sound money is a constitutional idea, it requires a limited government (no fresh new taxes), a relatively balanced budget (some small debt is acceptable) and no ever-rising debt ceiling. If something is declared to be TEMPORARILY suspended, wouldn't you think there are some sort of conditions, once breached, would UNSUSPEND that declaration? How about the national debt going up a trillion a year? Not enough? Two trillion? 5 trillion? Burn the sound money mother down?

Nixon could have just repriced gold but he decided to hold on to it (our reserves might have been totally drained if he didn't suspend gold convertibility or he repriced). He made a judgement call at that time, some would call it crazy, some brilliant, to change things. Putting a stop to hiking the debt is the same type of judgement call. Is now the right time? I dunno. Us little guys probably don't have enough information to understand all the things going on behind he scenes in the monetary world to make the right judgement call at the right time, we never do.

Verdict on counts 2 and 3. No more extremist than Nixon.

Gotta be shtick right?

Nope. These guys are really serious about linking the dollar back to a commodity. They think sound money is a problem while we're experiencing the lowest inflation since the Great Depression.

I didn't say now is the best time, I said I don't know when is the best time. Maybe a few years ago was the best time. Maybe a few years from now is the best time. Only those on the inside know. I do know that never is not an option. Congress and the president will go to jail for treason if they allow the dollar to crater due to out of control moneyprinting. Wil they go to jail for treason if they default on something? Nope, unless that default leads to dollar collapse.

Things can change very fast. France changed things real fast on gold in 1970s. Quite honestly, China is starting to grouch like France did. Is China serious? Who knows?

I don't think anytime is a good time. Money shouldn't be tied to the value of a commodity.

 

[fatness]

In one corner.

In the view of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, House Republicans overreached during the budget impasse by believing "we have one-half of one-third of the power in Washington, therefore we have three-fourths of the ability to get things done." Republicans run the House, but Democrats control the Senate and the White House. Bush, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who was hosting an education conference in Boston, argued that congressional Republicans represent "the mirror opposite" of the successes of GOP governors.

Other party elders, whose calls for compromise were often overshadowed by the tea party in recent weeks, blamed conservative groups such as Heritage Action, the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth. They were influential during the debate, at times promising to help defeat Republicans lawmakers who voted for a compromise with Democrats. "The right is a multiplicity of various groups, some of which aren't even Republicans, but who think they can control the Republican Party," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, condemning tactics he referred to as "radicalness."

Republican strategist Mike Murphy chided what he called "the stupid wing of the Republican Party." "There's tension and there ought to be a questioning of whether we ought to listen to such bad advice," Murphy said when asked about the influence of conservative groups. "We took a huge brand hit. It's self-inflicted. ... I'm glad there are no elections tomorrow."

And in the other corner.

Mitch McConnell's Tea Party Opponent Endorsed By Senate Conservatives Fund

"Matt Bevin is a true conservative who will fight to stop the massive spending, bailouts, and debt that are destroying our country," said Senate Conservatives Fund Director Matt Hoskins in a statement. "He is not afraid to stand up to the establishment and he will do what it takes to stop Obamacare. We know that winning this primary won't be easy. Mitch McConnell has the support of the entire Washington establishment and he will do anything to hold on to power. But if people in Kentucky and all across the country rise up and demand something better, we're confident Matt Bevin can win this race."

Conservative Groups Target GOP Senator's Reelection After He Votes For Budget Deal

Club For Growth PAC and Senate Conservatives Fund, two groups that opposed the Reid-McConnell bill, endorsed the candidacy of state Sen. Chris McDaniel within minutes of each other. The endorsements could be a sign of a coming counterattack by conservative interest groups against Republicans who voted for the deal.

From sea to shining sea.

Sarah Palin doesn't seem discouraged that her candidate lost New Jersey's Senate race or by the pummeling Republicans took during the government shutdown. Now, the former Alaska governor and darling of the Tea Party movement is suggesting conservatives should focus on Senate races in Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi where the Republican incumbent is up for re-election next year. "Friends, do not be discouraged by the shenanigans of D.C.'s permanent political class today," Palin posted on her Facebook page early Thursday, as the federal government reopened and hours after Democrat Cory Booker defeated Republican Steve Lonegan for Senate in New Jersey.

"Be energized," she said. "We're going to shake things up in 2014. Rest well tonight, for soon we must focus on important House and Senate races. Let's start with Kentucky — which happens to be awfully close to South Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi — from sea to shining sea we will not give up. We've only just begun to fight."

 

[fatness]

Tea Party Insult Generator



Things are getting serious now.

 

[Sand]

Nope. These guys are really serious about linking the dollar back to a commodity. They think sound money is a problem while we're experiencing the lowest inflation since the Great Depression.

Here's the funny thing. Democrats are ostensibly for raising taxes on the very rich to counter the fact that they have been the ones to see the most gains in wealth lately. And you regard the fractional reserve system as sound monetary policy.

Well, here's your problem - the fractional reserve system is exactly why the rich are getting richer. Our current president has been a complete hypocrite by espousing both quashing the rich while handing out easy money. Make your choice. If you like the fractional reserve system and the advantages the rich get from it, then either SHUT IT DOWN or quit #####ing.

 

[Slapdash]

Nope. These guys are really serious about linking the dollar back to a commodity. They think sound money is a problem while we're experiencing the lowest inflation since the Great Depression.

Here's the funny thing. Democrats are ostensibly for raising taxes on the very rich to counter the fact that they have been the ones to see the most gains in wealth lately. And you regard the fractional reserve system as sound monetary policy.

Well, here's your problem - the fractional reserve system is exactly why the rich are getting richer. Our current president has been a complete hypocrite by espousing both quashing the rich while handing out easy money. Make your choice. If you like the fractional reserve system and the advantages the rich get from it, then either SHUT IT DOWN or quit #####ing.

You've got it backwards. It is the rich who benefit from overly tight monetary policy we have seen which prevents growth in employment and wages. Policy is tight or easy based on its results for inflation, employment, and economic growth. You are advocating it to be even tighter which further benefits creditors (ie: the rich).

 

[badmojo1006]

Tea Party Insult Generator



Things are getting serious now.

DOUBLE-CROSSING CRONY RINO *******.

 

[fatness]

Some serious political thinking is on display at the Tea Party Express website.

October 4, 2013
Matthew A. from Hinesville, GA writes:
The 28th Ammendment states: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States." On top of that Obama has made it ILLEGAL for the MUSLIMS to participate in this catastrophe of a program DUE TO RELIGIOUS REASONS! I once served a Proud Nation and am now serving a Tyrannical Government... much longer of this******and I'm leaving... Even if I am still a Soldier.

I don't see how you can mention the 28th amendment without mentioning the 31st and 32nd.

 

[Statorama]

From sea to shining sea.

Sarah Palin doesn't seem discouraged that her candidate lost New Jersey's Senate race or by the pummeling Republicans took during the government shutdown. Now, the former Alaska governor and darling of the Tea Party movement is suggesting conservatives should focus on Senate races in Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi where the Republican incumbent is up for re-election next year. "Friends, do not be discouraged by the shenanigans of D.C.'s permanent political class today," Palin posted on her Facebook page early Thursday, as the federal government reopened and hours after Democrat Cory Booker defeated Republican Steve Lonegan for Senate in New Jersey.

"Be energized," she said. "We're going to shake things up in 2014. Rest well tonight, for soon we must focus on important House and Senate races. Let's start with Kentucky — which happens to be awfully close to South Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi — from sea to shining sea we will not give up. We've only just begun to fight."

These are the days when I wish I hadn't sworn off the Palin thing. She is absolutely the gift that keeps on giving.

:GoodTimes:

 

[Dr Oadi]

In other words, no jail time. (That would be unconstitutional.)

I do not see how it would be unconstitutional. It is a tax. It is just written in the law that there is no jail time for not paying this tax. That doesn't mean in the future the law couldn't be changed to be enforced exactly like other taxes are.

The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. People are sent to prison all the time for failure to file their taxes.

I've read the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case. It says that Obamacare is constitutional only because, among other things, there is no jail time or other punitive remedies for failure to pay the tax.

You're never going to win this argument from the other side's point of view if it requires reading.

Id like to read the part about it being constitutional because there is no jail time.Good thing the house version didn't pass.

 

[dparker713]

In other words, no jail time. (That would be unconstitutional.)

I do not see how it would be unconstitutional. It is a tax. It is just written in the law that there is no jail time for not paying this tax. That doesn't mean in the future the law couldn't be changed to be enforced exactly like other taxes are.

The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. People are sent to prison all the time for failure to file their taxes.

I've read the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case. It says that Obamacare is constitutional only because, among other things, there is no jail time or other punitive remedies for failure to pay the tax.

You're never going to win this argument from the other side's point of view if it requires reading.

Id like to read the part about it being constitutional because there is no jail time.Good thing the house version didn't pass.

All recent SCOTUS opinions are available free online.

 

[Dr Oadi]

In other words, no jail time. (That would be unconstitutional.)

I do not see how it would be unconstitutional. It is a tax. It is just written in the law that there is no jail time for not paying this tax. That doesn't mean in the future the law couldn't be changed to be enforced exactly like other taxes are.

The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. People are sent to prison all the time for failure to file their taxes.

I've read the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case. It says that Obamacare is constitutional only because, among other things, there is no jail time or other punitive remedies for failure to pay the tax.

You're never going to win this argument from the other side's point of view if it requires reading.

Id like to read the part about it being constitutional because there is no jail time.Good thing the house version didn't pass.

All recent SCOTUS opinions are available free online.

You dont say. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Page# please.

 

[LinusMarr]

Jeez, is this hippy thread still going?

 

[Henry Ford]

In other words, no jail time. (That would be unconstitutional.)

I do not see how it would be unconstitutional. It is a tax. It is just written in the law that there is no jail time for not paying this tax. That doesn't mean in the future the law couldn't be changed to be enforced exactly like other taxes are.

The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. People are sent to prison all the time for failure to file their taxes.

I've read the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case. It says that Obamacare is constitutional only because, among other things, there is no jail time or other punitive remedies for failure to pay the tax.

You're never going to win this argument from the other side's point of view if it requires reading.

Id like to read the part about it being constitutional because there is no jail time.Good thing the house version didn't pass.

All recent SCOTUS opinions are available free online.

You dont say. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Page# please.

It's peppered throughout the opinion, but page 36 lists reasons it's considered a tax and not a penalty, including the fact that the most punitive punishment associated with collecting it - criminal penalty like jail time - is unavailable.

 

[Dr Oadi]

In other words, no jail time. (That would be unconstitutional.)

I do not see how it would be unconstitutional. It is a tax. It is just written in the law that there is no jail time for not paying this tax. That doesn't mean in the future the law couldn't be changed to be enforced exactly like other taxes are.

The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. People are sent to prison all the time for failure to file their taxes.

I've read the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case. It says that Obamacare is constitutional only because, among other things, there is no jail time or other punitive remedies for failure to pay the tax.

You're never going to win this argument from the other side's point of view if it requires reading.

Id like to read the part about it being constitutional because there is no jail time.Good thing the house version didn't pass.

All recent SCOTUS opinions are available free online.

You dont say. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfPage# please.

It's peppered throughout the opinion, but page 36 lists reasons it's considered a tax and not a penalty, including the fact that the most punitive punishment associated with collecting it - criminal penalty like jail time - is unavailable.

Thank youPage 43

We have already explained that the shared responsibil- ity payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it.

 

[matuski]

The best part of this "OBAMA IS GOING TO LOCK US UP FOR NOT PAYING THE FINES" hysteria and worrying about how they will seize a person's assets... is that it completely misses on an actual valid and reasoned argument for why the fines will not be an effective motivator to get young people on board.

A good, logical criticism of the fine system is smacking the vocal opposition in the face... and I haven't heard it once. This is why the Right can't win an election.

 

[Church of Iggy Pop]

I agree government is subject to corruption and cronyism -- I just find those issues easier to live with than the problems associated with unchecked corporate power. Pick your poison I suppose.

Wow, I think you've distilled the philosophical divide paralyzing American politics right there. Pick your poison.



This post jumped out at me, and I wanted to highlight it.

 

[RCon]

The best part of this "OBAMA IS GOING TO LOCK US UP FOR NOT PAYING THE FINES" hysteria and worrying about how they will seize a person's assets... is that it completely misses on an actual valid and reasoned argument for why the fines will not be an effective motivator to get young people on board.

A good, logical criticism of the fine system is smacking the vocal opposition in the face... and I haven't heard it once. This is why the Right can't win an election.

If you're speaking of the fact that the fine costs far less than insurance would, this argument has been made repeatedly by normal people, just not the jojos and Jim11s of the world.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The best part of this "OBAMA IS GOING TO LOCK US UP FOR NOT PAYING THE FINES" hysteria and worrying about how they will seize a person's assets... is that it completely misses on an actual valid and reasoned argument for why the fines will not be an effective motivator to get young people on board.

A good, logical criticism of the fine system is smacking the vocal opposition in the face... and I haven't heard it once. This is why the Right can't win an election.

If you're speaking of the fact that the fine costs far less than insurance would, this argument has been made repeatedly by normal people, just not the jojos and Jim11s of the world.

Far less?

The annual penalty for not having minimum essential coverage will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per individual or a percentage of the individuals taxable income. For any dependent under the age 18, the penalty is one half of the individual amount.

The flat dollar amount per individual is $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. After 2016, the flat dollar amount is indexed to inflation. The flat dollar penalty is capped at 300% of the flat dollar amount. For example:

o A family of three (two parents and one child under 18) would have a flat dollar penalty of $1737 in 2016;

o A family of four (two parents and two children over 18) would have a flat dollar penalty of $2,085 in 2016 because the 300 % cap would apply.

 

[RCon]

The best part of this "OBAMA IS GOING TO LOCK US UP FOR NOT PAYING THE FINES" hysteria and worrying about how they will seize a person's assets... is that it completely misses on an actual valid and reasoned argument for why the fines will not be an effective motivator to get young people on board.

A good, logical criticism of the fine system is smacking the vocal opposition in the face... and I haven't heard it once. This is why the Right can't win an election.

If you're speaking of the fact that the fine costs far less than insurance would, this argument has been made repeatedly by normal people, just not the jojos and Jim11s of the world.

Far less?

The annual penalty for not having minimum essential coverage will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per individual or a percentage of the individuals taxable income. For any dependent under the age 18, the penalty is one half of the individual amount.

The flat dollar amount per individual is $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. After 2016, the flat dollar amount is indexed to inflation. The flat dollar penalty is capped at 300% of the flat dollar amount. For example:

o A family of three (two parents and one child under 18) would have a flat dollar penalty of $1737 in 2016;

o A family of four (two parents and two children over 18) would have a flat dollar penalty of $2,085 in 2016 because the 300 % cap would apply.

Yeah, far less. Here's a hint: $2085 < $5000+ for insurance.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If you can't afford $5k it doesn't matter jackass.

And in what world is a 40% penalty far less? Just shut it already.

.

 

[matuski]

The best part of this "OBAMA IS GOING TO LOCK US UP FOR NOT PAYING THE FINES" hysteria and worrying about how they will seize a person's assets... is that it completely misses on an actual valid and reasoned argument for why the fines will not be an effective motivator to get young people on board.

A good, logical criticism of the fine system is smacking the vocal opposition in the face... and I haven't heard it once. This is why the Right can't win an election.

If you're speaking of the fact that the fine costs far less than insurance would, this argument has been made repeatedly by normal people, just not the jojos and Jim11s of the world.

I was speaking to the combination of annual cost PLUS the apparent high deductibles.

The two together make it completely worthless for young people.. imho.

Pay the fine once versus the cost of being insured + paying thousands out of pocket prior to the insurance kicking in.

I am actually hoping I am missing something... otherwise all else being equal - this is doomed.

ETA - the poor are completely irrelevant.. it is getting a young healthy person to buy in that makes it all work.

 

[RCon]

If you can't afford $5k it doesn't matter jackass.

And in what world is a 40% far less? Just shut it already.

You really need to stop helping. You have zero clue what you're talking about. Seriously, your understanding of basic economics is on par with Sheldon Cooper's understanding of human emotions and social conventions.

In EVERY world, 40% is "far less". Would you argue that paying $20K for a car is "far less" than paying $50K? Of course you would.

The point isn't whether you can afford $5K or $2K. The point is that the entire pricing mechanism for Obamacare only works if young healthy people buy insurance. If young healthy people choose not to pay $5K for insurance, because paying $2K as a fine costs them far less, then no one is paying the premiums that allow Obamacare and insurance companies to pay costs for older/unhealthy people.

Stop watching Fox News. Stop listening to Rush. Start listening to NPR. Take an economics class at your local community college. Go outside and enjoy the weather. Do anything except pay attention to politics.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

In EVERY world, 40% is "far less". Would you argue that paying $20K for a car is "far less" than paying $50K? Of course you would.

You are a moron. When you pay a $2k penalty you are not getting health insurance.

So yes, paying a 40% penalty is a far cry compared to paying 100% for health insurance they cannot afford.

 

[RCon]

JoJo, I get it, you're a conservative. You can safely ignore liberals who think you're stupid, because you think they're stupid, and they don't know what they're talking about, anyway. But when liberals, moderates, other conservatives, libertarians, and everyone else all tell you that you don't what you're talking about, it should tell you something.

 

[Maelstrom]

People can't do basic math. Look at how many people are in debt, spending over their budget every month, etc. (Again, not talking about the poor, but those that could afford insurance but for one reason or another do not). We'd all like to think consumers are purely rational and calculating when it comes to their finances, but we absolutely know that isn't true.

The threat of a penalty will be enough for those people to adjust their budget to get insurance. And that is what the ACA is banking on. Or they will look at it like JoJo just pointed out and say, why should I pay $2000 for nothing, I'll just figure out how to pay $5000 for insurance.

The disinformation about "going to jail if you can't pay your penalties" shtick is actually likely to help the ACA rather than hurt it, because people will just believe it and go get insurance or will pay their fines. Either one helps the ACA succeed (as much as it can, not arguing the merits of the bill here.)

 

[otello]

So, which TPers in congress up for reelection in 2014 are in danger of losing as a result of this event?

 

[timschochet]

If you can't afford $5k it doesn't matter jackass.

And in what world is a 40% far less? Just shut it already.

You really need to stop helping. You have zero clue what you're talking about. Seriously, your understanding of basic economics is on par with Sheldon Cooper's understanding of human emotions and social conventions.

Jojo's knowledge on these subjects is representative of the Tea Party. That's what I've been trying to tell you Rich- they don't have anything in common with your well thought out conservatism. They may agree with you reflexively on a majority of issues, but if you ever look in depth as to their reasons why they agree or even more importantly, the solutions they offer, you'll be repelled.

 

[timschochet]

Everyone always talks about how when the Whigs broke up, the Republican party was formed. But that's not exactly true- the Republicans were just one splinter group. Another splinter group, far larger at the time, was the American party, also called the "Know Nothings". This was a political party based on populism, dislike of immigrants, and simplistic solutions to complex problems. The parallels between the Tea Party and the Know Nothings are tremendous.

 

[RCon]

If you can't afford $5k it doesn't matter jackass.

And in what world is a 40% far less? Just shut it already.

You really need to stop helping. You have zero clue what you're talking about. Seriously, your understanding of basic economics is on par with Sheldon Cooper's understanding of human emotions and social conventions.

Jojo's knowledge on these subjects is representative of the Tea Party. That's what I've been trying to tell you Rich- they don't have anything in common with your well thought out conservatism. They may agree with you reflexively on a majority of issues, but if you ever look in depth as to their reasons why they agree or even more importantly, the solutions they offer, you'll be repelled.

I understand all that. Voters like him are helpful at the ballot box and in fundraising, but not when the grownups need to determine policy. Everyone understands this.

I don't just think the JoJo's are as prevalent as you think.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't just think the JoJo's are as prevalent as you think.

Does it matter how many when just a half a week ago the reasonable conservatives were arguing with him? When the "independents" were arguing both sides were responsible for this nonsense?Wouldn't things have gone a lot better if "both sides do it" was true and the reasonable folks rallied across political divides three weeks ago rather than after the dust starts to settle?

(Oh yes I'm sure someone will find some anecdotal example where it would have been helpful if the "reasonable" left helped silence the fringe left to put me in my place. 'grats!)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...We'd all like to think consumers are purely rational and calculating when it comes to their finances, but we absolutely know that isn't true.

Anyone who believes the above should never favor free market solutions. Never! If the market does not consist of rational players consistently operating in their own best interest then it can't work to accomplish anything other than the haves exploiting the masses. (Well those few haves eager to exploit the rest would be the exceptions to prove the rule.)

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

JoJo, I get it, you're a conservative. You can safely ignore liberals who think you're stupid, because you think they're stupid, and they don't know what they're talking about, anyway. But when liberals, moderates, other conservatives, libertarians, and everyone else all tell you that you don't what you're talking about, it should tell you something.

Go buy a $50k car, and if you can't afford it, enjoy getting taxed $20k instead. Can't argue with that stupendous logic.

 

[DrJ]

...We'd all like to think consumers are purely rational and calculating when it comes to their finances, but we absolutely know that isn't true.

Anyone who believes the above should never favor free market solutions. Never! If the market does not consist of rational players consistently operating in their own best interest then it can't work to accomplish anything other than the haves exploiting the masses. (Well those few haves eager to exploit the rest would be the exceptions to prove the rule.)

I guess they'd have to be against freedom as a whole as well.