(02-14-2012 02:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 02:54 PM)dcCid Wrote:  How is this not relevant to the discussion? On one hand you are saying that someone’s beliefs should be factored into what they have to do, and on the other hand you are saying it is not relevant.

I do not know if birth control should be lumped in with preventive care to begin with.

Its not relevent because what is happening here is the government forcing one private group of people to buy a specific product from the others. Honestly this goes beyond the objections of the catholic church.

Quote:But if it is then it needs to be included for all businesses that serve the public.

Why? Why should the government force workplaces to do anything that goes beyond workplace safety?

Lib's want government in every part of our lives except when they don't. Contraception isn't a right. Neither is health insurance. The "RIGHT" to practice my religion WITHOUT government interference IS.

This really isn't that hard.

Quote:Its not relevent because what is happening here is the government forcing one private group of people to buy a specific product from the others. Honestly this goes beyond the objections of the catholic church.

Then argue against it on that basis. I won't agree with your stance, but at least you'd have an ideological leg to stand on.

Quote:Lib's want government in every part of our lives except when they don't. Contraception isn't a right. Neither is health insurance. The "RIGHT" to practice my religion WITHOUT government interference IS.

This really isn't that hard.

You're conflating 'the right to practice your religion' to mean 'i do not have to follow united states laws and regulations if my religion deems i shouldn't'. This has consistently been shot down by the supreme court, and rightfully so, lest you wish sharia law to take hold.

The simple fact is this, these are businesses being forced to follow regulations that all other businesses are. If you have a problem with those regulations, that's fine; that's an argument which has it's merits and, can be both logically and rationally argued for. *HOWEVER*, I find the pretext of claiming religious persecution in cases like this to be utterly disgusting as it's a blatant attempt at taking advantage of peoples religious beliefs to further your own political agenda. It's pathetic, vile, and that's where this religious vitriol should be aimed at, not this non-issue.

(02-14-2012 03:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:Its not relevent because what is happening here is the government forcing one private group of people to buy a specific product from the others. Honestly this goes beyond the objections of the catholic church.

Then argue against it on that basis. I won't agree with your stance, but at least you'd have an ideological leg to stand on.

Quote:Lib's want government in every part of our lives except when they don't. Contraception isn't a right. Neither is health insurance. The "RIGHT" to practice my religion WITHOUT government interference IS.

This really isn't that hard.

You're conflating 'the right to practice your religion' to mean 'i do not have to follow united states laws and regulations if my religion deems i shouldn't'. This has consistently been shot down by the supreme court, and rightfully so, lest you wish sharia law to take hold.

The simple fact is this, these are businesses being forced to follow regulations that all other businesses are. If you have a problem with those regulations, that's fine; that's an argument which has it's merits and, can be both logically and rationally argued for. *HOWEVER*, I find the pretext of claiming religious persecution in cases like this to be utterly disgusting as it's a blatant attempt at taking advantage of peoples religious beliefs to further your own political agenda. It's pathetic, vile, and that's where this religious vitriol should be aimed at, not this non-issue.

I'm not catholic. My wife has been on the pill for 20 years. This isn't a religious fight for me. It's a religious freedom fight. Forcing Muslims to offer pork or restricting their ability to pray during the call to prayer is the same thing. Both are wrong. Again...this really isn't that hard but your attempt to make this about people's partisanship is ignorant.

BIE, I think you need to look at this from the perspective that birth control...I mean the lack thereof...has an inherent cost to all of us in our insurance policies. Much like the costs we already pay for the uninsured and unhealthy that drives the entire cost up. And the catholic church crosses the line into the non religious area when they deal with health care plans, etc.

That's the reason why we also have an auto insurance mandate. Without it, it would be disastrous on the roads.

I know you cons hate to ever admit that the government knows anything...but as much as your ilk hate to admit it, those squiggly light bulbs save you money and work just as well

Quote:I'm not catholic. My wife has been on the pill for 20 years. This isn't a religious fight for me. It's a religious freedom fight. Forcing Muslims to offer pork or restricting their ability to pray during the call to prayer is the same thing. Both are wrong. Again...this really isn't that hard but your attempt to make this about people's partisanship is ignorant.

No, it's akin to forcing muslims to pay taxes, part of which go towards food stamps that can be redeemed for pork products; and that argument, like yours, is laughable.

Again, you're simply trying to manipulate a larger contingent of people to support your views, by preying on their religious beliefs, and you have no qualms about it. It's despicable.

(02-14-2012 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I know you cons hate to ever admit that the government knows anything...but as much as your ilk hate to admit it, those squiggly light bulbs save you money and work just as well

What a beautiful example...because you're completely wrong. The bulbs cost more money to consumers, and are dangerous to the environment b/c of the Hg they release. (I know, you heard differently on TV. And those newscasters have IQ's of 70-75, how could they be wrong?)

Similarly, the gov't has no business being involved in health insurance, except to enforce legally binding contracts.

UCF is clueless about "following laws of the land" b/c the laws he references are thus proven to be in violation of the Constitution. Ergo, they are not valid laws.

Quote:UCF is clueless about "following laws of the land" b/c the laws he references are thus proven to be in violation of the Constitution. Ergo, they are not valid laws.

I'm not arguing the constitutional validity of these laws, that would require far more time and effort than i am able to give right now (studying for damn organic chem test ), but that it in no way is an infringement of their constitutional right of freedom of religion.

(02-14-2012 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  BIE, I think you need to look at this from the perspective that birth control...I mean the lack thereof...has an inherent cost to all of us in our insurance policies. Much like the costs we already pay for the uninsured and unhealthy that drives the entire cost up. And the catholic church crosses the line into the non religious area when they deal with health care plans, etc.

That's the reason why we also have an auto insurance mandate. Without it, it would be disastrous on the roads.

I know you cons hate to ever admit that the government knows anything...but as much as your ilk hate to admit it, those squiggly light bulbs save you money and work just as well

1. I don't have to carry insurance if I have the title.

2. In my house they last about 3 months and cost three times as much. So in my case they cost more and don't last.

3. Why should the government tell me what kind of light bulb to buy?

4. The government know lots of stuff...like how to tax us into poverty, take that money and give it to people who don't want to work and force us to pay a fee if we don't want health insurance.

You do realize income taxes are at a historical low, yes?

(02-14-2012 03:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:I'm not catholic. My wife has been on the pill for 20 years. This isn't a religious fight for me. It's a religious freedom fight. Forcing Muslims to offer pork or restricting their ability to pray during the call to prayer is the same thing. Both are wrong. Again...this really isn't that hard but your attempt to make this about people's partisanship is ignorant.

No, it's akin to forcing muslims to pay taxes, part of which go towards food stamps that can be redeemed for pork products; and that argument, like yours, is laughable.

Again, you're simply trying to manipulate a larger contingent of people to support your views, by preying on their religious beliefs, and you have no qualms about it. It's despicable.

No. This analogy is stupid.

They are/were FORCING a religious institution to offer contraception even though it goes against their religion and always has even though contraception isn't a right.

Now they are considering FORCING insurance companies to offer it for free. So now they can tell a private enterprise what products to offer and they must offer them at no price. Your ignorance is offensive.

(02-14-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You do realize income taxes are at a historical low, yes?

You do realize there is more than one form of tax, yes?

(02-14-2012 04:02 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You do realize income taxes are at a historical low, yes?

You do realize there is more than one form of tax, yes?

Yes, and the majority of the others are sharply regressive.

(02-14-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You do realize income taxes are at a historical low, yes?

You do realize that maximum corporate tax rates are the highest in the developed world, and that maximum personal rates are above the average for developed countries, right? And you realize that I can move a factory from Michigan to Poland a whole lot easier than I can move that factory from Michigan to 1994, right? So therefore the comparison with other countries is far more relevant than the comparison with prior years, right?

Effective tax rates may be lower. But that's because both corporations and wealthy individuals make use of loopholes to lower their tax obligations. And many of those loopholes involve doing things that are bad for the US economy, like moving jobs overseas.

What I don't understand is this. Jobs are moving overseas because of many factors, including capital flight to avoid US taxation. But proposals to raise taxes somehow assume that more capital flight won't result from higher tax rates. If greedy capitalists are moving jobs overseas to avoid paying taxes at a rate of 35%, changing that rate to 38% is not going to cause them to do anything but move even more jobs overseas. Or do you see a way to get to a different result?

Lowering and flattening rates, eliminating loopholes, and broadening the tax base is the way to increase tax revenues at the same time we improve our competitive standing in the world. Two blue-ribbon bipartisan panels--Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin--both studied this issue extensively and reached that same conclusion. And neither party has lifted a finger to act on either of those recommendations.

(02-14-2012 03:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:UCF is clueless about "following laws of the land" b/c the laws he references are thus proven to be in violation of the Constitution. Ergo, they are not valid laws.

I'm not arguing the constitutional validity of these laws, that would require far more time and effort than i am able to give right now (studying for damn organic chem test ), but that it in no way is an infringement of their constitutional right of freedom of religion.

Well, I guess if you say so...

And you have my sympathies about organic.

(02-14-2012 04:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You do realize income taxes are at a historical low, yes?

You do realize that maximum corporate tax rates are the highest in the developed world, and that maximum personal rates are above the average for developed countries, right? And you realize that I can move a factory from Michigan to Poland a whole lot easier than I can move that factory from Michigan to 1994, right? So therefore the comparison with other countries is far more relevant than the comparison with prior years, right?

Effective tax rates may be lower. But that's because both corporations and wealthy individuals make use of loopholes to lower their tax obligations. And many of those loopholes involve doing things that are bad for the US economy, like moving jobs overseas.

What I don't understand is this. Jobs are moving overseas because of many factors, including capital flight to avoid US taxation. But proposals to raise taxes somehow assume that more capital flight won't result from higher tax rates. If greedy capitalists are moving jobs overseas to avoid paying taxes at a rate of 35%, changing that rate to 38% is not going to cause them to do anything but move even more jobs overseas. Or do you see a way to get to a different result?

Lowering and flattening rates, eliminating loopholes, and broadening the tax base is the way to increase tax revenues at the same time we improve our competitive standing in the world. Two blue-ribbon bipartisan panels--Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin--both studied this issue extensively and reached that same conclusion. And neither party has lifted a finger to act on either of those recommendations.

Source?

(02-14-2012 10:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 04:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You do realize income taxes are at a historical low, yes?

You do realize that maximum corporate tax rates are the highest in the developed world, and that maximum personal rates are above the average for developed countries, right? And you realize that I can move a factory from Michigan to Poland a whole lot easier than I can move that factory from Michigan to 1994, right? So therefore the comparison with other countries is far more relevant than the comparison with prior years, right?

Effective tax rates may be lower. But that's because both corporations and wealthy individuals make use of loopholes to lower their tax obligations. And many of those loopholes involve doing things that are bad for the US economy, like moving jobs overseas.

What I don't understand is this. Jobs are moving overseas because of many factors, including capital flight to avoid US taxation. But proposals to raise taxes somehow assume that more capital flight won't result from higher tax rates. If greedy capitalists are moving jobs overseas to avoid paying taxes at a rate of 35%, changing that rate to 38% is not going to cause them to do anything but move even more jobs overseas. Or do you see a way to get to a different result?

Lowering and flattening rates, eliminating loopholes, and broadening the tax base is the way to increase tax revenues at the same time we improve our competitive standing in the world. Two blue-ribbon bipartisan panels--Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin--both studied this issue extensively and reached that same conclusion. And neither party has lifted a finger to act on either of those recommendations.

Source?

OECD. They have the tables online. Go to their webpage.