davjohns

It's a completely different concept. You get a deduction for having children or paying a mortgage, but the tax avoidance doesn't equal the cost by a long shot. You would be better off financially without the children, and sometimes without the house. Now, you are being 'fined', have nothing to show for it, and it is called a tax. I'm toying with this analogy. Suppose you home school your children. The school loses money because your children are not part of the head count that determines how much money they get. So, we pass a law that says you pay an additional tax for not enrolling your children in public school. Are we ok with that? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Any "reward" for one guy, just means the others have to pick up the slack (i.e., you are forcing your neighbors to subsidize your car purchase). So it's still a punishment for those that choose to not go after the reward. What business does the government have for offering a reward for doing something, anyway? It's not their business. However = I agree this is DRAMATICALLY upping the interference factor, it's a much more BLATANT implementation of the concepts. I'm very worried that both parties will be able to springboard off of this to force the public to act and think and live by their arbitrary social standards. I fully agree. I have long spoken against deductions of any sort. It is just 535 people who don't know me, trying to tell me how to live my life. I was just pointing out that this new assertion is a game changer. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I imagine Ron will be the only one from the original cast at the funeral. Gotta be rough on him. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

She had a cute face, too. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I missed the solo jumper. Must have had small headlights. ETA: Sure enough! I went back and looked. The diver behind the tandem had bumpers! I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

With a preference for killing worshipers of other gods, condemning queers to eternal damnation, and making absolutely positively sure that poor people don't get medical care on your dime? Nice lord you serve there. Blues, Dave Sometimes you can't fix stupid, Dave. Come on, guys. That was out of line. Pretty well every mainstream religion condemns killing and/or does not promote killing for religious reasons. There are gay and lesbian ministers in the Christian faith and many others. And the healthcare issue is not a religious issue at all. I have my own issues with organized religion, but this broad brush, insulting and distorting condemnation doesn't give me any faith in atheists having a good answer either. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Didn't we already have that? Last I checked, you could claim tax credits for GoodSense upgrades to your home, or buying a hybrid car, i.e. spending money on things deemed good for society. If healthcare coverage is deemed similarly good for society, how is providing a tax exemption for purchasing it different? Blues, Dave Because there is no tax exemption. Those other things give you a choice. You didn't have to upgrade your home. You might not have the money right now. You didn't have to buy that car. You had the choice of spending your money on things that are deemed good for society. Now, you are required to spend that money regardless of your assessment of your household budget, needs or desires. It's the difference between a carrot and a stick. If I offer you a reward for doing something, you have the freedome to choose. If I offer you punishment, you can choose, but I can up the punishment until you must comply or die (fiscally in this instance). I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor." Our Founding Fathers paid the price for the United States of America. By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist Copyright 2000 Boston Globe On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted 12-0 -- New York abstained -- in favor of Richard Henry Lee's resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." On July 4, the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson -- heavily edited by Congress -- was adopted without dissent. On July 8, the Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Philadelphia. On July 15, Congress learned that the New York Legislature had decided to endorse the Declaration. On Aug. 2, a parchment copy was presented to the Congress for signature. Most of the 56 men who put their name to the document did so that day. And then? We tend to forget that to sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death. To publicly accuse George III of "repeated injuries and usurpations," to announce that Americans were therefore "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown," was a move fraught with danger -- so much so that the names of the signers were kept secret for six months They were risking everything, and they knew it. That is the meaning of the Declaration's soaring last sentence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Most of the signers survived the war; several went on to illustrious careers. Two of them became presidents of the United States, and among the others were future vice presidents, senators, and governors. But not all were so fortunate. Nine of the 56 died during the Revolution, and never tasted American independence. Five were captured by the British. Eighteen had their homes -- great estates, some of them - looted or burnt by the enemy. Some lost everything they owned. Two were wounded in battle. Two others were the fathers of sons killed or captured during the war. "Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." It was not just a rhetorical flourish. We all recognize John Hancock's signature, but who ever notices the names beneath his? William Ellery, Thomas Nelson, Richard Stockton, Button Gwinnett, Francis Lewis -- to most of us, these are names without meaning. But each represents a real human being, some of whom paid dearly "for the support of this Declaration" and American independence. Lewis Morris of New York, for example, must have known when he signed the Declaration that he was signing away his fortune. Within weeks, the British ravaged his estate, destroyed his vast woodlands, butchered his cattle, and sent his family fleeing for their lives. Another New Yorker, William Floyd, was also forced to flee when the British plundered his property. He and his family lived as refugees for seven years without income. The strain told on his wife; she died two years before the war ended. Carter Braxton of Virginia, an aristocratic planter who had invested heavily in shipping, saw most of his vessels captured by the British navy. His estates were largely ruined, and by the end of his life he was a pauper. The home of William Ellery, a Rhode Island delegate, was burned to the ground during the occupation of Newport. Thomas Heyward Jr., Edward Rutledge, and Arthur Middleton, three members of the South Carolina delegation, all suffered the destruction or vandalizing of their homes at the hands of enemy troops. All three were captured when Charleston fell in 1780, and spent a year in a British prison. "Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia raised $2 million for the patriots' cause on his own personal credit. The government never reimbursed him, and repaying the loans wiped out his entire estate. During the battle of Yorktown, his house, which had been seized by the British, was occupied by General Cornwallis. Nelson quietly urged the gunners to fire on his own home. They did so, destroying it. He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave. Richard Stockton, a judge on New Jersey's supreme court, was betrayed by loyalist neighbors. He was dragged from his bed and thrown in prison, where he was brutally beaten and starved. His lands were devastated, his horses stolen, his library burnt. He was freed in 1777, but his health had so deteriorated that he died within five years. His family lived on charity for the rest of their lives. In the British assault on New York, Francis Lewis's home and property were pillaged. His wife was captured and imprisoned; so harshly was she treated that she died soon after her release. Lewis spent the remainder of his days in relative poverty. And then there was John Hart. The speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, he was forced to flee in the winter of 1776, at the age of 65, from his dying wife's bedside. While he hid in forests and caves, his home was demolished, his fields and mill laid waste, and his 13 children put to flight. When it was finally safe for him to return, he found his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779. The men who signed that piece of parchment in 1776 were the elite of their colonies. They were men of means and social standing, but for the sake of liberty, they pledged it all -- their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thomas Jefferson at eighty-three years of age felt that he would not live through the summer of 1826, but he hoped to live through July 4th (the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence). Both he and John Adams died on July 4, 1826 after long and distinguished careers. They had earlier been friends, then political enemies, and by the end of their lives had maintained a steady correspondence. Adams’ last words were “Thomas Jefferson still survives” not knowing that Jefferson had expired earlier that day in Virginia. Jefferson‘s last words were: “Is it the Fourth? I resign my spirit to God, my daughter, and my country.” I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thanks for the reminder, Normiss. Every year, I re-read and encourage others to read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. They're not very long. Excellent and well through out documents by men who had suffered much. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

This is the only tax I can think of that requires that you do nothing. Most taxes are on your actions: purchases, income, transport, etc. You can avoid them by doing nothing. This one taxes you for not doing what the government wants. Usually, you just don't get a deduction if you decided to go a different route. IE: don't buy a house; don't get a deduction...don't have kids; don't get a deduction. In this case, you pay a tax for NOT obeying the government. No criminal intent. No civil disobedience. You just failed to purchase a product. Like I pointed out earlier, it would make perfect sense to tax people now for failing to show up to the government fitness training; failing to show up to annual exams with weigh-in; failing to maintain government approved body composition; etc. You can now be taxed for your lack of action as well as your actions. Nothing is off limits. With penalties, there has to be some sort of due process. You can appeal a fine for not submitting your tax returns on time. But a tax? Very hard. The IRS employs the judges, owns the courts and writes the rules. It can be done, but it is much harder. No need for criminal prosecution now with all of its messy rights and protections. Just tax it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Good article. I agree with it. The barn door is open. I don't think anything will come through until after the election, but then it might get interesting. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Get women's razors. They have a larger head and make it much more difficult to knick yourself. ALWAYS do it in the shower. And don't get creative. Just strip it all off and keep it off every time you shower. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Hmmmm....wonder why I don't? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I like what I've read about the guy, but he's wrong. Settled by the SCOTUS. It's a tax. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It doesn't matter what I think, at this point. It;s a tax. As a matter of law. I've already written that. But I see no limitation to its usw. Exactly. That was my point above. You can now be compelled to do anything through use of taxation. If you don't want to do it, we just raise the tax to a level you cannot bear. There are no limits to taxation that I can think of. Theoretically, you could be taxed beyond 100% with no legal recourse. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think the Supremes dubbing it a tax has settled the argument. Now, individuals can be taxed for failing to buy a product. Selective taxation based on actions other than purchases. Interesting. I'm reminded that France considered taxing obesity a few years back. Seems reasonable to me. How far out are we? How about a tax for being overweight, not showing up for your 3x per week exercise sessions, smoking, drinking and all other things that might increase the cost of your healthcare? Seems the first thing we need to do is eliminate the tax deduction for children. Each one costs the healthcare system more money. Maybe we should start taxing children? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Nope, but there IS a pattern. Each divorce happened when each woman was 33. Which caused me to check. Many have forgotten he was married to Mimi Rogers before Nicole. Cheated on Mimi with Nicole first. Guess what age Mimi was when they filed for divorce? Yup. 33. He has an age limit. Future wives should take note. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I tried to find the text of the KSW that Tom mentions. Apparently the Keep Scientology Working document is a letter from Brother Hubbard that lays out some guiding principles. I couldn't find it...interesting. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I haven't joined in this discussion until now, and still don't intend to take much of a stand... 2,000 pages of legislation? It's hard to believe it lays out a clear process whose effects can be predicted and debated. I'm pretty sure nobody here has read the document, so all debate is likely based on snippets from the document or (more likely) statements made by others (who are also unlikely to have read the document). Let's face it, how many of the legislators who voted on it actually read it? I'm guessing it is a round number (0). What I know from the history of government is that it is likely to result in less freedom and more taxation. Each synopsis of the legislation that I have seen seems to support this general estimate. It is possible this document finally solves a major problem in this country and equitably provides for all...but since it came from a body that can't balance a budget, can't pass a budget before execution, etc....it seems a long shot. I'll take a wait and see approach, but I don't expect anything positive. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

"Boch said the money will go toward paying for ammunition for the youth camp. Police spokeswoman Melissa Stratton was not amused, according to the Sun-Times." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll agree that all Mormons I have known were incredible people with strong family orientations. I haven't met any scientologists, but did note Tom in the video talking about how scientologists have all the answers and need to butt into everyone else's lives. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I once heard a theory on why human males have such unprotected reproductive organs. The location is clearly against evolutionary theory, since it places the male in a position of weakness in a fight for survival. The theory is that the human females looked at the clear liability and figured he must have other strong characteristics to make up for it. Perhaps some religions are like that. The more ridiculous they appear, the more alluring they are. Something that silly that has survived for any length of time must have something more to it? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Comedy material according to Alan Shore. http://youtu.be/vr3DwrPNA6g I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Looks like they had six people in a circle just before breaking away. That's if you count the tandem as one. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.