-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Get health insurance
- Thread starter jarhead1911A
- Start date
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
It's not a blind link but it also not 100% accurate. I said it before and will say it one more time.
This bill amends the tax code giving the IRS the authority to tax persons that do not have health coverage at any time during the year at a rate of 2.5% of the difference between your adjusted gross income and your exemption amount. For me it comes out to be about $1000 dollars. If I choose to not pay this then I will end up fighting the IRS in court and could have to pay $250,000 in penalties and/or be sentenced to jail.
It is not an all out do it or go to jail as some people are claiming. Now I do not like it but I don't like misinformation being given out either.
It's not a blind link but it also not 100% accurate. I said it before and will say it one more time.
This bill amends the tax code giving the IRS the authority to tax persons that do not have health coverage at any time during the year at a rate of 2.5% of the difference between your adjusted gross income and your exemption amount. For me it comes out to be about $1000 dollars. If I choose to not pay this then I will end up fighting the IRS in court and could have to pay $250,000 in penalties and/or be sentenced to jail.
It is not an all out do it or go to jail as some people are claiming. Now I do not like it but I don't like misinformation being given out either.
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
i read the bill word for word and thats not the take i got from it but hey whatever
i read the bill word for word and thats not the take i got from it but hey whatever
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
jarhead1055 wrote:
Show me the text you read because I didn't find that you go directly to jail.
jarhead1055 wrote:
Show me the text you read because I didn't find that you go directly to jail.
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
i didnt say you would go straight to jail
i didnt say you would go straight to jail
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
That is what the misinformation that is being given out is basically saying. No one is giving out all the middle information.
That is what the misinformation that is being given out is basically saying. No one is giving out all the middle information.
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
The bill is written in code i swear to god, hell go read the patriot act and tell me you understand it as it was written?
The bill is written in code i swear to god, hell go read the patriot act and tell me you understand it as it was written?
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
jarhead1055 wrote:
LOL I hear ya. I don't think anyone can interpret the Patriot Act.
jarhead1055 wrote:
LOL I hear ya. I don't think anyone can interpret the Patriot Act.
Commodore76
Regular Member
imported post
joeroket wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Silly Americans, the Patriot Act wasn't meant to actually be interpreted! Joke's on us!
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
antispam540 wrote:
Treason has specialized definition under the Constitution. Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
However, fair is fair. Ifthe government stretchesmeanings to get away with various unconstitutional legislation, regulations,and so forth, they cannot have any objection to some stretchingin the constitutional definition of treason.
Remember Kelo vs New Haven where the Supreme Court said "for public use" meant private property could be eminently domained over to a private entity if the private entity's use of the property was going mean more tax money? Hundreds of other congressional, judicial, and presidential stretches?
So, obviously the definition of treason must include passing laws that would "work to the benefit of enemies, giving them aid and comfort in just the knowledge that the harmful law was passed." I omitted to quoteabove another part Section 3--that the treasonous act must be witnessed by two witnesses. Or confession in open court.
I think the voting record would fulfill that requirement.
antispam540 wrote:
You might be onto something there.
Treason has specialized definition under the Constitution. Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
However, fair is fair. Ifthe government stretchesmeanings to get away with various unconstitutional legislation, regulations,and so forth, they cannot have any objection to some stretchingin the constitutional definition of treason.
Remember Kelo vs New Haven where the Supreme Court said "for public use" meant private property could be eminently domained over to a private entity if the private entity's use of the property was going mean more tax money? Hundreds of other congressional, judicial, and presidential stretches?
So, obviously the definition of treason must include passing laws that would "work to the benefit of enemies, giving them aid and comfort in just the knowledge that the harmful law was passed." I omitted to quoteabove another part Section 3--that the treasonous act must be witnessed by two witnesses. Or confession in open court.
I think the voting record would fulfill that requirement.