rushmc 18 #1 March 10, 2015 QuoteBefore the Hobby Lobby case, the court system told the University of Notre Dame it had to comply with the contraception mandate of ObamaCare – even if doing so violated the Catholic university’s collective conscience. But in a ruling by the Supreme Court Monday, the case was sent back to the lower court with instructions that the court must decide the case based on the Hobby Lobby ruling. Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Mark Rienzi said, “This is a major blow to the federal government’s contraception mandate. For the past year, the Notre Dame decision has been the centerpiece of the government’s effort to force religious ministries to violate their beliefs or pay fines to the IRS. As with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government’s narrow view of religious liberty.”"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #2 April 27, 2015 rushmcQuoteBefore the Hobby Lobby case, the court system told the University of Notre Dame it had to comply with the contraception mandate of ObamaCare – even if doing so violated the Catholic university’s collective conscience. But in a ruling by the Supreme Court Monday, the case was sent back to the lower court with instructions that the court must decide the case based on the Hobby Lobby ruling. Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Mark Rienzi said, “This is a major blow to the federal government’s contraception mandate. For the past year, the Notre Dame decision has been the centerpiece of the government’s effort to force religious ministries to violate their beliefs or pay fines to the IRS. As with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government’s narrow view of religious liberty.” Good news QuoteSupreme Court Throws Out Obamacare Contraception Ruling http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/supreme-court-throws-out/2015/04/27/id/640936/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,076 #3 April 27, 2015 Hi rush, QuoteGood news Not in my opinion. Joycelyn Elders once said that the Republican Party loved the fetus but hated the child. Yuppers, Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #4 April 27, 2015 JerryBaumchenHi rush, QuoteGood news Not in my opinion. Joycelyn Elders once said that the Republican Party loved the fetus but hated the child. Yuppers, Jerry Baumchen Joycelyn Elders?? Typical political bs talk"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 640 #5 April 27, 2015 Sure, ignore her credentials entirely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #6 April 27, 2015 normiss Sure, ignore her credentials entirely. You do it all the time However Regardless of credentials, the following is a political statement Quote Joycelyn Elders once said that the Republican Party loved the fetus but hated the child "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 640 #7 April 27, 2015 So you're just going to dismiss history. Again. Surprise face-> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 April 27, 2015 rushmc ***Sure, ignore her credentials entirely. You do it all the time However Regardless of credentials, the following is a political statement Quote Joycelyn Elders once said that the Republican Party loved the fetus but hated the child At what point on any subject will you ever accept the reality in front of you..... Even with the blinders you wear.... you have to realize all the bleating about social issues is all todays GOP has left... they certainly are unwilling to support anything that supports middle America or families.. or children once born into this world... The Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower died about 1975...... and its been replaced with a sick caricature of fascism for the very few at the top of the pile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #9 April 28, 2015 Amazon ******Sure, ignore her credentials entirely. You do it all the time However Regardless of credentials, the following is a political statement Quote Joycelyn Elders once said that the Republican Party loved the fetus but hated the child At what point on any subject will you ever accept the reality in front of you..... Even with the blinders you wear.... you have to realize all the bleating about social issues is all todays GOP has left... they certainly are unwilling to support anything that supports middle America or families.. or children once born into this world... The Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower died about 1975...... and its been replaced with a sick caricature of fascism for the very few at the top of the pile. I think it's more of an oligarchy than anything else, Jeanne. The distribution of wealth is alarmingly narrow these days, and it's seemingly concentrated in the hands of the few, along with a rapidly-shrinking middle class. I believe that democracy itself is at stake, because when there are the rich few and the struggling many, that's not a democracy - it's a banana republic. There can be no democracy without self-government, and that cannot happen without a healthy middle class to keep things in balance. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #10 April 28, 2015 QuoteI think it's more of an oligarchy than anything else, Jeanne. The distribution of wealth is alarmingly narrow these days, and it's seemingly concentrated in the hands of the few, along with a rapidly-shrinking middle class. I believe that democracy itself is at stake, because when there are the rich few and the struggling many, that's not a democracy - it's a banana republic. There can be no democracy without self-government, and that cannot happen without a healthy middle class to keep things in balance. Warren Buffet uses that same reasoning for increased taxes on the very wealthy. Unfortunately he gets made fun of. I strongly agree with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #11 April 29, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteI think it's more of an oligarchy than anything else, Jeanne. The distribution of wealth is alarmingly narrow these days, and it's seemingly concentrated in the hands of the few, along with a rapidly-shrinking middle class. I believe that democracy itself is at stake, because when there are the rich few and the struggling many, that's not a democracy - it's a banana republic. There can be no democracy without self-government, and that cannot happen without a healthy middle class to keep things in balance. Warren Buffet uses that same reasoning for increased taxes on the very wealthy. Unfortunately he gets made fun of. I strongly agree with you. Warren Buffet for higher taxes? you mean the rich guy that does not pay his own taxes? His words might have some meaning if he actually paid his legal share. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #12 April 29, 2015 marks2065 *** Quote I think it's more of an oligarchy than anything else, Jeanne. The distribution of wealth is alarmingly narrow these days, and it's seemingly concentrated in the hands of the few, along with a rapidly-shrinking middle class. I believe that democracy itself is at stake, because when there are the rich few and the struggling many, that's not a democracy - it's a banana republic. There can be no democracy without self-government, and that cannot happen without a healthy middle class to keep things in balance. Warren Buffet uses that same reasoning for increased taxes on the very wealthy. Unfortunately he gets made fun of. I strongly agree with you. Warren Buffet for higher taxes? you mean the rich guy that does not pay his own taxes? His words might have some meaning if he actually paid his legal share. Thank you for making my point Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #13 April 29, 2015 marks2065***QuoteI think it's more of an oligarchy than anything else, Jeanne. The distribution of wealth is alarmingly narrow these days, and it's seemingly concentrated in the hands of the few, along with a rapidly-shrinking middle class. I believe that democracy itself is at stake, because when there are the rich few and the struggling many, that's not a democracy - it's a banana republic. There can be no democracy without self-government, and that cannot happen without a healthy middle class to keep things in balance. Warren Buffet uses that same reasoning for increased taxes on the very wealthy. Unfortunately he gets made fun of. I strongly agree with you. Warren Buffet for higher taxes? you mean the rich guy that does not pay his own taxes? His words might have some meaning if he actually paid his legal share. That would make him a tax cheat. Is that what you are suggesting? Or is he someone who legally benefits from tax laws specifically written to benefit the very wealthy who, by some strange coincidence, are also massive political donors.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #14 April 29, 2015 kallend******QuoteI think it's more of an oligarchy than anything else, Jeanne. The distribution of wealth is alarmingly narrow these days, and it's seemingly concentrated in the hands of the few, along with a rapidly-shrinking middle class. I believe that democracy itself is at stake, because when there are the rich few and the struggling many, that's not a democracy - it's a banana republic. There can be no democracy without self-government, and that cannot happen without a healthy middle class to keep things in balance. Warren Buffet uses that same reasoning for increased taxes on the very wealthy. Unfortunately he gets made fun of. I strongly agree with you. Warren Buffet for higher taxes? you mean the rich guy that does not pay his own taxes? His words might have some meaning if he actually paid his legal share. That would make him a tax cheat. Is that what you are suggesting? Or is he someone who legally benefits from tax laws specifically written to benefit the very wealthy who, by some strange coincidence, are also massive political donors. I my opinion that would be one definition of a tax cheat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #15 April 29, 2015 wayneflorida*********QuoteI think it's more of an oligarchy than anything else, Jeanne. The distribution of wealth is alarmingly narrow these days, and it's seemingly concentrated in the hands of the few, along with a rapidly-shrinking middle class. I believe that democracy itself is at stake, because when there are the rich few and the struggling many, that's not a democracy - it's a banana republic. There can be no democracy without self-government, and that cannot happen without a healthy middle class to keep things in balance. Warren Buffet uses that same reasoning for increased taxes on the very wealthy. Unfortunately he gets made fun of. I strongly agree with you. Warren Buffet for higher taxes? you mean the rich guy that does not pay his own taxes? His words might have some meaning if he actually paid his legal share. That would make him a tax cheat. Is that what you are suggesting? Or is he someone who legally benefits from tax laws specifically written to benefit the very wealthy who, by some strange coincidence, are also massive political donors. I my opinion that would be one definition of a tax cheat. Explain carefully how following the law can be cheating.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #16 April 29, 2015 >I my opinion that would be one definition of a tax cheat. Hmm. Do you refuse to take the personal deduction? Do you not declare mortgage interest, since that is a special-interest loophole? Do you pay a higher rate than required on your capital gains (if any) to avoid that rich-person tax dodge? Paying only what the law says you have to pay doesn't seem like cheating to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #17 April 30, 2015 You Occupy Wall Street types have really got me confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #18 April 30, 2015 wayneflorida You Occupy Wall Street types have really got me confused. I wouldn't call Warren Buffet an Occupy Wall Street type. However, if you understand why Warren Buffet is suggesting the higher taxes on the wealthy, you would also understand why him just voluntarily paying higher taxes by himself wouldn't make any sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #19 April 30, 2015 FWIW, I agree with the moral and ethical point you're trying to make. But don't confuse it with a legal point; and let's aim the (ethical) point where it really lies: at the unholy alliance between the plutocrats and the politicians who craft the tax code. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #20 April 30, 2015 wayneflorida You Occupy Wall Street types have really got me confused. How do you feel about the many Billions that the 1%ers have moved offshore to avoid paying??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,076 #21 April 30, 2015 Hi Jeanne, Quote How do you feel about the many Billions that the 1%ers have moved offshore to avoid paying??? And that was another nail in the electoral coffin of good old Mitt. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #22 April 30, 2015 Andy9o8FWIW, I agree with the moral and ethical point you're trying to make. But don't confuse it with a legal point; and let's aim the (ethical) point where it really lies: at the unholy alliance between the plutocrats and the politicians who craft the tax code. Not that I necessarily agree with laws against "structuring" because of potential abuse when enforcing them and also understanding most or all of those laws are about cash transactions and thus wouldn't apply, many of the extreme cases of wealthy people taking advantage of favorable status of investment income could be see as running afoul of the spirit of such laws. All that to say: you can be a "tax cheat" without violating the law in the same sense that "structuring" would still be "structuring" even if there weren't laws against it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #23 April 30, 2015 JerryBaumchen Hi Jeanne, Quote How do you feel about the many Billions that the 1%ers have moved offshore to avoid paying??? And that was another nail in the electoral coffin of good old Mitt. Jerry Baumchen He was just doing what all the other 1% scumbags who pretend to be flag waving American super patriots but are really chickenhawks and ran like hell when they could have served their country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #24 May 1, 2015 Andy9o8FWIW, I agree with the moral and ethical point you're trying to make. But don't confuse it with a legal point; and let's aim the (ethical) point where it really lies: at the unholy alliance between the plutocrats and the politicians who craft the tax code. You get my point (opinion) about cheating and I am not confusing the two (ethical vs legal). By the way. Is there a criminal statue that accuses a person of cheating, with the word cheating? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #25 May 1, 2015 QuoteIs there a criminal statue that accuses a person of cheating, with the word cheating? I suppose I'd have to research the federal statutes and the statutes of at least 50 states plus D.C. & Puerto Rico. I'll send you my paypal info, you deposit a $3,000 retainer, and when the funds are confirmed I'll get right on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites