ObamaCare, MotherF*&%er!!!!

[Night Strike]

Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.


Scotty, you'll never go to school again. Yet, you as a taxpayer are forced to fund the education of other children. Don't see you frothing at the mouth about that program. Or literally every other program, just because you don't agree to a war doesn't mean you can just deduct that from your tax. Programs doesn't have to directly affect you for it to be beneficial, and that's such a selfish, blinkered and narrow minded perspective.As Medefe and other repeatedly pointed out increasing the access to contraceptives is beneficial and cost-saving to the entire community.



This is as much about Victorian prudishness and attitude to sex as it is about perceived government spending.

So why, in 2012, are women suddenly unable to pay for their own contraceptives when they've been buying them for themselves for the nearly 100 years they've been around? Why must people buy their own contraceptives AND buy for others who refuse to buy their own?

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

It would go under the general welfare part I assume.

Also, it's because suddenly in 2012, a study has come out and shown that it's clearly more cost-efficient to subsidise the cost of contraceptives rather than the entire cost of a child's welfare. That cost, of educating and caring for a child would be pushed onto the state and it's more cost-efficient to subsidise contraceptives instead. For another fucking time, this is efficient budget-wise.

That's specific welfare, not general welfare. And if contraceptives are so much better for a company's budget, they would choose to provide it without governmental mandates. These mandates are for the government to force their views on people who disagree with contraceptives and to earn votes through handouts from another constituency.

Is it OK to force people to pay taxes for road improvements if they don't drive or have a car?

Is it OK to force people to pay taxes for schools if they don't have children?

Hospitals if they never get sick?

Military spending if they are pacifists?

The list goes on..........

The government doesn't have to provide any money for hospitals, but the others are roles of different levels of government based on either specific Constitutional provisions or providing for the general welfare of the country. They aren't specific handouts to certain people based on their sexual organs.

[Metsfanmax]

The government doesn't have to provide any money for hospitals, but the others are roles of different levels of government based on either specific Constitutional provisions or providing for the general welfare of the country. They aren't specific handouts to certain people based on their sexual organs.

This discussion of this being specific to women is a red herring, and I'm ashamed that liberals keep using it, because it's a terrible argument; it allows the conservative side to focus on something that is not the main issue. The argument for contraception is so much stronger than just the individual health of the woman, although it's obviously a relevant factor. Having access to contraception obviously affects men, too. No one needs to be afraid to say that they would like to plan their pregnancies to occur at a time that makes sense for them, and we should be encouraging proper family planning using contraception, rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support. This is a clear example of where collective support can lead to a better society, by allowing it to be easier for families to only bring children into the world when they can support them.

[thegreekdog]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

[Lootifer]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Aside to main topic: This is one of the double edged swords I cant figure out; how do you ensure ever kid has a decent start in life (i.e. they get to live in acceptable conditions, a safety net specifically for the kids, etc) without indirectly encouraging reproduction?

[thegreekdog]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Aside to main topic: This is one of the double edged swords I cant figure out; how do you ensure ever kid has a decent start in life (i.e. they get to live in acceptable conditions, a safety net specifically for the kids, etc) without indirectly encouraging reproduction?

That's a gigantic question for which you'll probably get a million different answers.

My basic argument is that the government has no business preparing children for having a decent start.

[WILLIAMS5232]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Aside to main topic: This is one of the double edged swords I cant figure out; how do you ensure ever kid has a decent start in life (i.e. they get to live in acceptable conditions, a safety net specifically for the kids, etc) without indirectly encouraging reproduction?

to help kids have a decent awareness of how to make their way through life, i would prefer a more community based approach, rather than a large umbrella type method such as the federal govt. just assuming that one type of fix for a certain problem will fix every individual problem kind of sounds spooky to me. while you may bring the statistics down, you'll never fix the problem. i would be more agreeable to letting communities work their own way out of problems rather than forcing them to depend on a higher power that has no real knowledge of the person/people they are trying to help.

i would say ti's really impossible to ensure that every kid has a decent start in life.
the people that are now having unwanted babies because they cannot afford birth control and have no desire to support them through childhood, would ( in my opinion ) be very unlikely to actually use birth control if given the opportunity. basically i really think they just don't care. it goes along with most other things too. the line between what is needed and what is wanted is getting very very gray. and i just can't help but think that program after program is just having funds shoveled in because we're too busy sitting on the couch eating taco bell watching dancing with the stars. when we should instead be eating a fresh meal from the family garden sitting at the table as a family.

i know it sounds silly, but that's what i think.

[Metsfanmax]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

[thegreekdog]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

[Lootifer]

That's a gigantic question for which you'll probably get a million different answers.

My basic argument is that the government has no business preparing children for having a decent start.

And my argument would be that a neutral body who is funded involuntarily such as a central government is the only entity capable of ensuring it happens. (please dont mistake this as me supporting existing legislation and processes).

I believe equality of opportunity should be funded invountarily; it's something we should all contribute to, but left to our own devices we wouldnt [in my opinion].

[thegreekdog]

That's a gigantic question for which you'll probably get a million different answers.

My basic argument is that the government has no business preparing children for having a decent start.

And my argument would be that a neutral body who is funded involuntarily such as a central government is the only entity capable of ensuring it happens. (please dont mistake this as me supporting existing legislation and processes).

I believe equality of opportunity should be funded invountarily; it's something we should all contribute to, but left to our own devices we wouldnt [in my opinion].

My response would be that either (a) children should be cared for by the state until they are of adult age or (b) people will take advantage of your system (like they do now!).

To put it bluntly, we've had a public education system in the United States since the 1960s or thereabouts, have poured billions of dollars in increasing increments into that system and are now producing worse students. So, is it safe to say government doesn't do a good job of raising children when parents don't do a good job either? This is an interesting thing that gets ignored a lot, but there are a lot of federal social programs that work (in that less people are on it now than before). There are others that don't work for the opposite reason. As an aside, the Repocrats never mention these things because if the programs are not working, we would want the funding gone and if programs were working we wouldn't want to put more money in.

[Nobunaga]

Watch the video.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100311739

[Night Strike]

Watch the video.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100311739

Good. States need to continue to fight against these unfunded mandates from the federal government and reassert their 10th amendment rights.

[AndyDufresne]

Watch the video.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100311739

Watch the video.




--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

Ironically, if you have money.. you are free not to have children. If you need help for healthcare, either get it through your employer or through a goverment program, then you don't.

Yet... haven't several here essentially argued that people with money are the ones who should be having the kids?

[Night Strike]

$1 Trillion Obamacare Tax Hike Hitting on Jan. 1
On January 1, regardless of the outcome of fiscal cliff negotiations, Americans will be hit with a $1 trillion Obamacare tax hike.

Obamacare contains twenty new or higher taxes. Five of the taxes hit for the first time on January 1. In total, Americans face a net $1 trillion tax hike for the years 2013-2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The five major Obamacare taxes taking effect on January 1 are as follows:

The Obamacare Medical Device Tax: Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will increase the cost of your health care – making everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive.

The Obamacare Flex Account Tax: The 30-35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the next ten years. (Currently, the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap.)

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are several million families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.

The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income: This is a new, 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:




Capital Gains


Dividends


Other*

2012


15%


15%


35%

2013+ (current law)


23.8%


43.4%


43.4%

The table above also incorporates the scheduled hike in the capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent, and the scheduled hike in dividends rate from 15 to 39.6 percent.

The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions: Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans. This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.

The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike: The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits. Under this tax hike, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate instead. This is a direct marginal income tax hike on small business owners, who are liable for self-employment tax in most cases. The table below compares current law vs. the Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike:




First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee


All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed


1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

http://www.atr.org/trillion-obamacare-tax-hike-hitting-jan-a7393