georgerussia

You only save on taxes when one of you doesn't work. If you both work, you're paying less taxes comparing to filing jointly, and you'll also lose more perks (like IRA contribution etc) because the limit for the combined income is usually less than a limit on an individual income multiplied by two. Last year our marriage cost us more than extra 5k in taxes than if we weren't married and filed separately - so visit a CPA before getting married :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And the news picture for "banned samurai swords" seems to show katana (may be wakizashi as the full length is not visible, but unlikely). I wonder if Ireland Minister of Justice knows the difference. It also sounds quite useless to ban only a single type of a sword. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Based on this amendment, most people in Kill Bill should not be allowed to carry a sword. Uma Thurman is not hot. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The connection between the god and the bible seems to be hardwired inside your brain. But as soon as you understand that this connection is artificial and it's not required, you'll see it yourself that "belief" in evolution and belief in god have no connections, and you could easily "believe" in both. This would only mean the bible is full of shit, which is obvious to everyone who has ever read it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It used to be that you do not marry, or have children, until you can afford it. We called it "personal responsibility". Now it seems like the people just get married or have children, and then blame the government that they cannot afford it - and some even expect 40% raises just because they got married??? Fuck them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

What? Are you saying this is illegal for a male to live with three females, or vice versa? I have no idea what is JAG or UCJM. The obvious solution is not to provide any subsidies to any married people. After all, what the government has with your "vows under God"? And the laws are changing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It was exactly the same with gay sex until just six years ago. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Are you talking about the fact, or about the government recognition? If about the fact, why would you prevent it? To me it's not really different from gay marriage - if a group of consented adults want to live and have sex together, why should the government prevent it? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This actually happened in Russia right after the revolution in 1917. Before only the church could perform marriages. Then the new government made it the law that only government-made marriages (they also invented a new word for it) are recognized by the government. No church marriage is recognized in Russia after that, so when religious people marry, they usually have stop by the government office on the way from church, and sign the papers. They also put a stamp into your ID - long time ago you were required to have this stamp or marriage certificate for things like double-booking a hotel room. However I doubt it will ever happen in US. Too many religious nuts there who want everyone else to be religious nuts. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The largest estimates I've seen claim that 50% of non-payers in local ERs are illegal immigrants, so at worst the bill would reduce it twice - by ensuring that the rest of the population would have insurance (paid for them or paid by taxpayers), and the hospitals and ERs will get paid. Once people have insurance, there is less reason for them to go to ER and wait 30 hours - when they could go to urgent care clinic and want 2 hours. So, at the end, there will be less freeloaders in ERs. The bill indeed is not trying to address the problem of providing service to illegal immigrants - but so far I haven't seen any reasonable proposal myself which would have any chance to pass, and would actually work. The main goal of the bill is to force those who can afford to pay for insurance to pay for it instead of paying for a new rig and claiming they cannot afford it now. And I agree with you. I see the problem here as well. But what else you can do? Even here there are quite a few people who consider it fine that they are skydiving (i.e. have money to pay for jumps, reserve repacks, new rig, travel to boogies etc), and buying alcohol, but somehow they're too poor to afford cheap high-deductible insurance. Of course it would be much better if everyone would be responsible. We'd have much less laws here. But unfortunately it doesn't work anywhere. I do not know what numbers were in US, but in Russia only 3% of the drivers had the liability insurance until it became the law. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Basically the bill requires everyone who receives taxable income in U.S. and is subject to federal taxation to either have health insurance, or pay a "tax" fine. This includes illegal immigrants as well, if they pay taxes (and some do). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, but this is not something provided by the bill. It has been a while for quite long time, and there is little could be done unless the existing law changes the way that any illegal immigrant arriving in ER gets a free bus ticked to Mexico. Disagree. The most important thing the bill does is to ensure that those who have income, but prefer not to buy health insurance, would be forced to buy it, and will not go uninsured. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

They will be able get coverage by paying a full price (without government subsidy), or pay cash for services as they can do right now. Why wouldn't you provide coverage for those who paid for it? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Looking on some hardcore Christians I'd rather say God's failure. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Now look on the nerdgirl's photo and tell us how you feel about it? Does it still look offensive? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's a good point. And to prevent tampering, the evidence should be made public! Every American has right to personally ensure there are no chastity belts. Of course the guns won't be allowed, and we'd have to raise taxes to cover our expenses :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

How? He just fucked them, he didn't put chastity belts on them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The point is to show those who are offended something to be truly offended on, and leave the classic award-winning photo alone. Like lightning rod. That's exactly the reason Encyclopedia Dramatica has this page. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But he doesn't have relationship with men (or maybe he's still in closet). At least he is consistent with what he preaches - unlike a lot of other politicians. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And if you ARE offended, look on this. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I was told that if you don't kiss another man (into the lips), it's not gay sex! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Same as for the people who believe in the Bible - should we agree with their core beliefs, and refer to their ancestors as dirt (for a man) and male rib (for a woman)? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You probably believe that the main reason Obama is trying to pass HR3200 is to access your IRS records, as he has no other means to access them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'm glad you replied to the most important part of the discussion, which clearly shows your narrow minded thinking. Please read the bill itself before you throw in another propaganda. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'll repeat my question: did you read the bill yourself, or you're spreading false propaganda? This is important, because I like to discuss the bill itself, not some propaganda you heard or read somewhere. Take some responsibility, and READ the bill you criticize! Since you obviously didn't read it yourself, here's a part for you: SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES. ... `(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to-- `(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, `(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer, `(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)), `(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer, `(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and `(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available. `(B) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.'. First, do you know why your favorite propaganda sites did not quote the section by name and only by number? Because its name includes the word "subsidy", which might force some people to actually think about it. And yes, if you claim that you cannot afford healthcare and the government must subsidy you, it's obvious that the government wants to make sure that you cannot afford it because your income is low, not because you spent your money on something else. If you're not going to apply for subsidy, as you say, I do not see how it affects you. Second, the details provided are pretty specific, and reasonable. Even "other information" specifies that it should be related to "indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof)". It is not like the Health Comissioner will get your whole transcripts. And the section B) restricts how this information could be used. Please quote a bill. As I said, I'm not interested in arguing with the opinion of your neighbor or your pastor. I'd like to discuss the bill. Well, you can sue the government, and in fact it has been done multiple times. You can also sue a private company (but in both cases your chance to win something worth suing would imho be close to zero) Then you shouldn't care about your tax records, as you're not going to be receiving a subsidy. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *