Obama announces that insurance co's, not churches, will have to pay for contraceptives

[hadit]

I'm sure that's what the voices you hear on your radio say. I'd like some documentation, since I find it hard to believe.

Have you ever heard a democrat refer to the SS fund when he talks about reducing the deficit or balancing the budget?

I googled this claim and, surprise, find it mentioned only on partisan blogs and in opinion pieces. Nothing documented. I was a grown man and provider at the time and don't remember anything of the sort, which may explain why evidence supporting it is scarce. If what you speculate comes true, tax and spend is a damn sight more responsible than borrow and spend.

Not if it results in the same outcome. Under tax and spend, you end up with a vastly larger government and debt required to feed it. Certainly less responsible.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Have you ever heard a democrat refer to the SS fund when he talks about reducing the deficit or balancing the budget?

If I had I wouldn't be asking for a source for that claim.

Not if it results in the same outcome. Under tax and spend, you end up with a vastly larger government and debt required to feed it. Certainly less responsible.

Under tax and spend you pay the bills as they come in. Under borrow and spend you defer true payment for others to pay later. The latter is mortgaging our children's future for current expenses and that's despicable.

If taxes were tied to actual spending, it wouldn't take long before taxpayers would say "enough" to extra spending. When the costs are hidden from taxpayers by artificially low rates and the difference is borrowed, as we've been doing for the past 30 years, there's no motivation in the electorate to curtail it. People don't know how much things really cost because they're not paying for it - future generations will and will also suffer a reduced living standard because of it.

That isn't the kind of America I want for future generations.

[hadit]

If I had I wouldn't be asking for a source for that claim.

Dude, the fact that you have NOT heard them refer to it is what I'm talking about. They claim a certain number for the deficit, but don't alert you that the number includes money from the SSTF.

Under tax and spend you pay the bills as they come in.

You're giving democrats far too much credit. Their version of tax and spend is to spend $1.00+ for every additional $1.00 in revenue. Increase revenue, and they spend even more, which maintains and grows the deficit. You never close the loophole.

Under borrow and spend you defer true payment for others to pay later. The latter is mortgaging our children's future for current expenses and that's despicable.

Under tax and spend the same thing happens. The problem is that the debt and bloated size of government is much worse because you're spending much more.

If taxes were tied to actual spending, it wouldn't take long before taxpayers would say "enough" to extra spending.

I agree wholeheartedly.

When the costs are hidden from taxpayers by artificially low rates and the difference is borrowed, as we've been doing for the past 30 years, there's no motivation in the electorate to curtail it. People don't know how much things really cost because they're not paying for it - future generations will and will also suffer a reduced living standard because of it.

That isn't the kind of America I want for future generations.

And I agree with that as well. The wise prescription, therefore, is to curtail massive government overspending, eliminate baseline budgeting, and require full disclosure of every spending bill before it's voted on. At the very least, that would make what government spends a matter of very public record. People have to understand that there simply is no free lunch. We cannot, for example, sustain Oh-crap! care, which, in order to present a false fiscal picture, used 10 years of income to fund 6 years of payouts in the first decade.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Dude, the fact that you have NOT heard them refer to it is what I'm talking about. They claim a certain number for the deficit, but don't alert you that the number includes money from the SSTF.

So you, and you alone, say. Document it.

You're giving democrats far too much credit. Their version of tax and spend is to spend $1.00+ for every additional $1.00 in revenue. Increase revenue, and they spend even more, which maintains and grows the deficit. You never close the loophole.

So you say. Let's try it and see what happens. What we've been experimenting with for the past 30 years has dug a quite a large hole. Let's try something else and see if we can't start filling it back in.

Under tax and spend the same thing happens. The problem is that the debt and bloated size of government is much worse because you're spending much more.

That doesn't follow. Taxing vice borrowing doesn't increase debt. Taxing responsibly at this stage could even begin to reduce debt.

We've got to start somewhere and Obama's doing that. First the affluent will start paying more. They've been the recipients of the nation's largess all this time, reaping the benefits of the social and economic systems we all support, so that certainly seems fair enough, even to some of them. After all, they have the most to gain by maintaining this golden goose and the most to lose if it fails.

Then we start working down the ladder with the next bracket, and then the next until we ease ourselves back to the pre-Bush unaffordable-tax-cut days. Until we reconnect taxation to expenses, we'll never get out of this hole.

[hadit]

So you, and you alone, say. Document it.

I'm supposed to document the absence of something? That's ridiculous. Better for you to document the many times democrats have noted that they are including SSTF money in their deficit figures. IOW, they don't, which is my point.

So you say. Let's try it and see what happens. What we've been experimenting with for the past 30 years has dug a quite a large hole.

Okay, let's cut spending back to sustainable levels.

Let's try something else and see if we can't start filling it back in. That doesn't follow. Taxing vice borrowing doesn't increase debt. Taxing responsibly at this stage could even begin to reduce debt.

The key word there is "responsibly". They're not trying to do that. They're utilizing fear and class warfare rhetoric to get higher taxes that punish the successful, but won't touch the deficit.

We've got to start somewhere and Obama's doing that.

Interesting that you want to credit him with doing that when he's been responsible for the biggest debt explosion we've EVER had. IOW, he caused the damage he's now pretending to fix.

First the affluent will start paying more.

Which won't touch the deficit.

They've been the recipients of the nation's largess all this time, reaping the benefits of the social and economic systems we all support, so that certainly seems fair enough, even to some of them. After all, they have the most to gain by maintaining this golden goose and the most to lose if it fails.

Which won't touch the deficit.

Then we start working down the ladder with the next bracket, and then the next until we ease ourselves back to the pre-Bush unaffordable-tax-cut days. Until we reconnect taxation to expenses, we'll never get out of this hole.

Right. The middle class is where the money really is, and if you want a lot of it, that's who you have to tax. Now, if you want to go back to pre-Bush-tax-cut days and want to balance the budget, you're going to have to cut spending back to those days as well. I, however, sense a great deal of reluctance to do that. But without that, you won't ever balance the budget. If you let the currect crop of democrat goons get their hands on more revenue, you're simply going to get even more spending, more bloated, wasteful government, and more debt.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Okay, let's cut spending back to sustainable levels.

Despite all the rhetoric, meaningful spending cuts aren't politically possible.

The key word there is "responsibly". They're not trying to do that. They're utilizing fear and class warfare rhetoric to get higher taxes that punish the successful, but won't touch the deficit.

Those who you frame as victims are the ones with the most to lose if our economy tanks. They should welcome the opportunity to save it. And more revenue means less deficit.

Interesting that you want to credit him with doing that when he's been responsible for the biggest debt explosion we've EVER had. IOW, he caused the damage he's now pretending to fix.

As has been pointed out, getting well costs a helluva lot more than getting sick did.

Which won't touch the deficit.

Speculation on your part. We didn't have such a deficit when taxes were much higher than they are today.

Right. The middle class is where the money really is, and if you want a lot of it, that's who you have to tax. Now, if you want to go back to pre-Bush-tax-cut days and want to balance the budget, you're going to have to cut spending back to those days as well. I, however, sense a great deal of reluctance to do that. But without that, you won't ever balance the budget. If you let the currect crop of democrat goons get their hands on more revenue, you're simply going to get even more spending, more bloated, wasteful government, and more debt.

It's not reluctance to cut spending, it's political reality. No elected official who wants to keep his job is going to take anything away from his constituents. It would be political suicide and a futile gesture. He'd be replaced immediately by a candidate who would not only promise to restore the cuts, but add to the benefit or program for good measure. This isn't a solution.

We're stuck with the bills for what we've already spent and what we've committed to. The only way to pay them is to increase revenue and that hasn't materialized by cutting taxes. The alternative is to raise them back up to levels where we had a handle on our finances.

Again with your boilerplate cliché about Democrats and their spending. They don't spend any more than Republicans do, it's just on items you don't approve of. The Republican majority in both chambers of congress and President George Bush managed to turn a $263.2B budget surplus into a $400B deficit in just four short years with their tax cuts/spend, spend, spend agenda. We may never recover from that spending binge. That has a lot to do with making our economy so sick, and is responsible for the high cost of making it well again.

Point fingers equally when it comes to spending, realize that it's impossible to significantly cut spending, and understand that raising taxes above these unsustainable, unaffordable levels today is our only option. The generation-long tax holiday is over. We're starting at the top and working down until we get our house in order. I pity you youngsters who think that the only tax environment you've ever known is the norm. I assure you it is not. There's good reason why taxes have never been set this arbitrarily low before and why we're in the mess we're digging ourselves out of, in part, because of it.

In a nutshell, brace yourselves. You're going to have to support your families and prepare for you dotage the way we had to, and higher taxes are the least of your problems with that.

[Vader]

No it's not. Tooth problems and the flu are things that happen to you. Having sex is a voluntary action. Contraception is not treatment.

Says the republicanazi party. Everybody else calls it preventative treatment. You are WRONG. Accept it and move on.

[Vader]

A totally voluntary condition. It's not disease treatment.

Look at all the nazi party memebers thanking you for you INCORRECT statement.

[Notalibtard]

Says the republicanazi party. Everybody else calls it preventative treatment. You are WRONG. Accept it and move on.

WTF..all you got is nazi this and nazi that, you are a nazi nazi

[Vader]

Irrelevent. The question remains, does the president have the authority to force religious institutions to act against their religious beliefs or not? That's what it comes down to.



Fine. In a free country, you can't force someone else to directly fund or participate in something they have religious objections against. You might as well decree that everyone must purchase poverty insurance and every poverty insurance company must then provide pork chops to the poor every Tuesday.

The president is preventing religious zealots from forcing thier bullshit religious dogma on others. If they can't do otherwise, all religious-affiliated hospitals, clinics, ect... need to be closed. Then there is no argument.

Bottom line --- KEEP YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF.

[Vader]

WTF..all you got is nazi this and nazi that, you are a nazi nazi

Be quite ... you anti-American liberty theif.

[Notalibtard]

Be quite ... you anti-American liberty theif.

I am quite..alive. Do you want me to be quiet? nope, no way. nazi nazi

[9ball8]

Ah, here it is: http://www.sba.gov/content/insurance...ents-employers
Quote: "Businesses with employees are required by law to pay for certain types of insurance: workers' compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, and, depending on where the business is located, disability insurance." Therefore, the Catholic Church could avoid the contraception conflict by dropping health care insurance for all employees.

4+ pages of sometimes bitter exchange, and the problem is solved via the above link. Go figure.

[hadit]

WTF..all you got is nazi this and nazi that, you are a nazi nazi

He doesn't even know what he's saying any more. He just has a few macros set up that he mindlessly repeats.

[hadit]

Ah, here it is: http://www.sba.gov/content/insurance...ents-employers
Quote: "Businesses with employees are required by law to pay for certain types of insurance: workers' compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, and, depending on where the business is located, disability insurance." Therefore, the Catholic Church could avoid the contraception conflict by dropping health care insurance for all employees.

4+ pages of sometimes bitter exchange, and the problem is solved via the above link. Go figure.

But there's a problem with that. Oh-crap! care requires all employers to provide health insurance for their employees or pay stiff fines.

[hadit]

Look at all the nazi party memebers thanking you for you INCORRECT statement.

Pregnancy is voluntary. Has no one ever explained to you how it happens?

[hadit]

The president is preventing religious zealots from forcing thier bullshit religious dogma on others. If they can't do otherwise, all religious-affiliated hospitals, clinics, ect... need to be closed. Then there is no argument.

Bottom line --- KEEP YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF.

Wrong. The president is forcing his morals on others by forcing them to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I'm supposed to document the absence of something? That's ridiculous.

A broken promise is easily documented, if indeed it occurred.

Richard Nixon swore, "I am not a crook". Not true, and the absence of his innocence is well-documented.

G H W Bush promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Then he had to raise taxes. It was a broken promise, well-documented.

Congressional Republicans backed G W Bush's tax cuts because, according to their economists, it would increase revenue. Didn't happen, and well-documented.

Defense Sec'y Donald Rumsfeld promised that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, going so far as to say, "We know where they are." A broken promise, and well-documented.

If congressional Democrats promised Reagan that they'd cut spending if he cut taxes, then didn't follow through, it would be documented. I can't find any record of that happening. Can you? If not, the most reasonable explanation is that it didn't happen and you've fallen for revisionist history propaganda.

[hadit]

A broken promise is easily documented, if indeed it occurred.

Richard Nixon swore, "I am not a crook". Not true, and the absence of his innocence is well-documented.

G H W Bush promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Then he had to raise taxes. It was a broken promise, well-documented.

Congressional Republicans backed G W Bush's tax cuts because, according to their economists, it would increase revenue. Didn't happen, and well-documented.

Defense Sec'y Donald Rumsfeld promised that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, going so far as to say, "We know where they are." A broken promise, and well-documented.

If congressional Democrats promised Reagan that they'd cut spending if he cut taxes, then didn't follow through, it would be documented. I can't find any record of that happening. Can you? If not, the most reasonable explanation is that it didn't happen and you've fallen for revisionist history propaganda.

We've been arguing two different things. I've been talking about the way democrats use SSTF money to make the budget look better but don't tell you they are. You've been talking about the promise democrats made to Reagan to get the tax increases in TEFRA passed. Reagan talked about it in his book, "An American Dream". Get your copy and look at the bottom of page 314 and the top of page 315. Tell you what, show me some democrats from that era saying they did NOT make such a deal with Reagan.

[Powerboss]

I think this demonstrates several things.

1) Leftists don't like the religious liberty clause in the Constitution.
2) Leftists don't like the Constitution.
3) When the Constitution gets in the way of their agenda, they trample on it.
4) Their ideas of "Equality" are far, far, far more important than the idea of "Individual Liberty", "free conscience" and even "choice".