kallend 2,148 #301 December 30, 2009 It's so simple even you can understand: Don't buy a house --> pay more tax Don't buy health insurance --> pay more tax... 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
rehmwa 2 #302 December 30, 2009 Quote Perhaps you could explain the relevance to the subject. Perhaps you could float upside down on a shell and drink rum-based cocktails ((((ok, to be obtuse - gov's job is expanded to social welfare that equals laws to put groups into little randomly defined stereotype groups and then either take money from that group or to preferentially give money to that group - depending on what's in fashion or who has more pull. Since we still have to pay the bills, any arbitrary credit to one group has to be made up somehow - and that means taking more from someone else to cover the short - the only net way to reduce a total budget is to spend less. Or, and this is the ironic part - to stop transferring money from one group to the other and allow the overall economy to improve to increase net intake. Just like a business)))) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #303 December 30, 2009 QuoteJust like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit.... 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
airdvr 210 #304 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteJust like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit. So Barack will get a huge bonus?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #305 December 30, 2009 Quote It's so simple even you can understand: Don't buy a house --> pay more tax Don't buy health insurance --> pay more tax wow, I'm so confused - I so expect you two to be on opposite sides of this particular rather nitpicky discussion since it relates to tax credits for special groups (normally a left position) vs treating everyone the same (normally a rightie position) in short - yes, Mike, there's no specific/delineated/expressing defined line item tax added for this stuff. Stop being obtuse. This is how the government screw us. yes, John, if one group gets a credit, then anyone not taking, or not eligible, for that credit has to pay more since the credit takers aren't carrying an equal load of the tax burden. No know that, liberals revel in it. It's a tax ratcheting mechanism that could be considered as added tax which would reflect in a higher general rate. Or at least a lost opportunity for a credit. you both win, we all lose. thanks for all the fish ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #306 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteJust like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit. So Barack will get a huge bonus? Every recent Prez except Clinton.... 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
turtlespeed 226 #307 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteJust like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit. So Barack will get a huge bonus? The CEO in this case is the senate - you have heard the term President and CEO - in this case the President is not the CEO - just the Puppet.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #308 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Just like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit. So Barack will get a huge bonus? The CEO in this case is the senate - you have heard the term President and CEO - in this case the President is not the CEO - just the Puppet. Must be why the Senate is called "The Executive Branch"... 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
rehmwa 2 #309 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteJust like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit. absolutely - you think scammers that achieve the White House want to work for that puny salary? they ALL get rich on it. Barack is from Chicago, he'll likely cash in even bigger since he was indoctrinated by pros. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #310 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Just like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit. So Barack will get a huge bonus? The CEO in this case is the senate - you have heard the term President and CEO - in this case the President is not the CEO - just the Puppet. Must be why the Senate is called "The Executive Branch" No - but The Executive branch is more like an Executive Assistant than an executive leadership. Or maybe we are waiting for the Kings to bow to him now?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #311 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Just like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit. So Barack will get a huge bonus? The CEO in this case is the senate - you have heard the term President and CEO - in this case the President is not the CEO - just the Puppet. Must be why the Senate is called "The Executive Branch" No - but The Executive branch is more like an Executive Assistant than an executive leadership. Or maybe we are waiting for the Kings to bow to him now? Was your math teacher also your civics teacher? I expect it was the same one that taught thermal sciences and statistics to mnealtx too.... 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
turtlespeed 226 #312 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Just like a business. Then we'd pay the CEO (President) huge $multi-million bonuses for running a massive deficit. So Barack will get a huge bonus? The CEO in this case is the senate - you have heard the term President and CEO - in this case the President is not the CEO - just the Puppet. Must be why the Senate is called "The Executive Branch" No - but The Executive branch is more like an Executive Assistant than an executive leadership. Or maybe we are waiting for the Kings to bow to him now? Was your math teacher also your civics teacher? I expect it was the same one that taught thermal sciences and statistics to mnealtx too. Why are you always so condescending? Why are you incapable of conducting a civil conversation without being pompous? Is this just the liberal way of throwing a constant temper tantrum? Did you have some deep seeded family issues you need to vent? WTF? And yes, the POTUS has turned his office and what it stands for into a Joke. HE has turned the executive branch into an Executive's ASSISTANT branch. A puppet cannot control himself, and Obama has showed the world that he is only a puppet.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #313 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote You do realize that neither passage contradicts what I posted, right? Quote No. But, not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads, yet they still require insurance according to state law, making your assertion false w/r/t Florida law. According to your statement here you are saying that a car not driven on a public road is required to be registered and therefor insured. Read what I wrote again. It does not say that cars not driven on public roads need to be registered. It says that not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads. Any vehicle that is registered, whether or not it is driven on public roads, is required to be insured. Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced?"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
kallend 2,148 #314 December 30, 2009 ... 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
kallend 2,148 #315 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You do realize that neither passage contradicts what I posted, right? Quote No. But, not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads, yet they still require insurance according to state law, making your assertion false w/r/t Florida law. According to your statement here you are saying that a car not driven on a public road is required to be registered and therefor insured. Read what I wrote again. It does not say that cars not driven on public roads need to be registered. It says that not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads. Any vehicle that is registered, whether or not it is driven on public roads, is required to be insured. Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? Cool that you admit there IS a requirement. (Enforcement is another matter entirely.)... 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
rushmc 23 #316 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You do realize that neither passage contradicts what I posted, right? Quote No. But, not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads, yet they still require insurance according to state law, making your assertion false w/r/t Florida law. According to your statement here you are saying that a car not driven on a public road is required to be registered and therefor insured. Read what I wrote again. It does not say that cars not driven on public roads need to be registered. It says that not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads. Any vehicle that is registered, whether or not it is driven on public roads, is required to be insured. Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? Cool that you admit there IS a requirement. (Enforcement is another matter entirely.) Mr Twister shows his ugly head yet againYou do have fun twisting meanings and such dont youAnd in either case your posting yet another strawman. You care to answer the question?"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
turtlespeed 226 #317 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? Cool that you admit there IS a requirement. (Enforcement is another matter entirely.) Mr Twister shows his ugly head yet againYou do have fun twisting meanings and such dont youAnd in either case your posting yet another strawman. You care to answer the question? It is not about enforcement. It is not necessary to register a vehicle (At least in Texas and Florida) if it is not used on public roads. There is no enforcement needed. Why would you want to try to enforce something there is no "requirement" for?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #318 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? Cool that you admit there IS a requirement. (Enforcement is another matter entirely.) Mr Twister shows his ugly head yet againYou do have fun twisting meanings and such dont youAnd in either case your posting yet another strawman. You care to answer the question? It is not about enforcement. It is not necessary to register a vehicle (At least in Texas and Florida) if it is not used on public roads. There is no enforcement needed. Why would you want to try to enforce something there is no "requirement" for? I agree but I was responding to the other post that says FL has a requirment that if the vehicle is registred it has to be insured. I was saying if it is never driven on public roads even IF that is true, how would that requirment be enforced and why would anybody want to insure it ??? And I speak of liability only here because that is the only insurance a state requires."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
Southern_Man 0 #319 December 30, 2009 Quote Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? In Virginia (which I guess is a somewhat similar law, not sure what particular insurance coverage is required w/ registration), you have to certify that the vehicle is insured when you first register it. I don't know if they check that or not. However, you have to maintain insurance and any insurance company is required to report to the state when you drop coverage. If you drop coverage while it is still registered you are subjected to fines and penalties. So, there is an enforcement mechanism separate from you actually driving on a public road."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #320 December 30, 2009 QuoteQuote Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? In Virginia (which I guess is a somewhat similar law, not sure what particular insurance coverage is required w/ registration), you have to certify that the vehicle is insured when you first register it. I don't know if they check that or not. However, you have to maintain insurance and any insurance company is required to report to the state when you drop coverage. If you drop coverage while it is still registered you are subjected to fines and penalties. So, there is an enforcement mechanism separate from you actually driving on a public road. Ok That is not done here in Iowa that i know of I wonder if you certified that the vehicle was not going to be on public streets if you would still need coverage And maybe you would not even need to register it??"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
kallend 2,148 #321 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You do realize that neither passage contradicts what I posted, right? Quote No. But, not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads, yet they still require insurance according to state law, making your assertion false w/r/t Florida law. According to your statement here you are saying that a car not driven on a public road is required to be registered and therefor insured. Read what I wrote again. It does not say that cars not driven on public roads need to be registered. It says that not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads. Any vehicle that is registered, whether or not it is driven on public roads, is required to be insured. Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? Cool that you admit there IS a requirement. (Enforcement is another matter entirely.) Mr Twister shows his ugly head yet againYou do have fun twisting meanings and such dont you Just quoted your own words at you. If there's any twisting, you're doing it.... 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
rushmc 23 #322 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You do realize that neither passage contradicts what I posted, right? Quote No. But, not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads, yet they still require insurance according to state law, making your assertion false w/r/t Florida law. According to your statement here you are saying that a car not driven on a public road is required to be registered and therefor insured. Read what I wrote again. It does not say that cars not driven on public roads need to be registered. It says that not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads. Any vehicle that is registered, whether or not it is driven on public roads, is required to be insured. Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? Cool that you admit there IS a requirement. (Enforcement is another matter entirely.) Mr Twister shows his ugly head yet againYou do have fun twisting meanings and such dont you Just quoted your own words at you. If there's any twisting, you're doing it. You just cant help yourself but to play the ass can you"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
Southern_Man 0 #323 December 30, 2009 Quote Ok That is not done here in Iowa that i know of I wonder if you certified that the vehicle was not going to be on public streets if you would still need coverage And maybe you would not even need to register it?? No, you can just not register it, or turn in your plates if the car is no longer going to be driven on public streets."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #324 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You do realize that neither passage contradicts what I posted, right? Quote No. But, not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads, yet they still require insurance according to state law, making your assertion false w/r/t Florida law. According to your statement here you are saying that a car not driven on a public road is required to be registered and therefor insured. Read what I wrote again. It does not say that cars not driven on public roads need to be registered. It says that not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads. Any vehicle that is registered, whether or not it is driven on public roads, is required to be insured. Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? Cool that you admit there IS a requirement. (Enforcement is another matter entirely.) Mr Twister shows his ugly head yet againYou do have fun twisting meanings and such dont you Just quoted your own words at you. If there's any twisting, you're doing it. You just cant help yourself but to play the ass can you So quoting YOUR words is "playing the ass". Nice to know you have such a poor opinion of your own words. I'll remember that for a future occasion.... 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
rushmc 23 #325 December 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You do realize that neither passage contradicts what I posted, right? Quote No. But, not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads, yet they still require insurance according to state law, making your assertion false w/r/t Florida law. According to your statement here you are saying that a car not driven on a public road is required to be registered and therefor insured. Read what I wrote again. It does not say that cars not driven on public roads need to be registered. It says that not all registered vehicles are driven on public roads. Any vehicle that is registered, whether or not it is driven on public roads, is required to be insured. Not really. If the car is never driven on public streets there would be no way to enforce the requirement to have insurance. If you think otherwise tell me how it would be enforced? Cool that you admit there IS a requirement. (Enforcement is another matter entirely.) Mr Twister shows his ugly head yet againYou do have fun twisting meanings and such dont you Just quoted your own words at you. If there's any twisting, you're doing it. You just cant help yourself but to play the ass can you So quoting YOUR words is "playing the ass". Nice to know you have such a poor opinion of your own words. I'll remember that for a future occasion. Well this is a good start cause at least you admit playing the ass now"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
