Previous 0 - 8
Actually, the constitutionality of whether the tax is constitutional based on the fact is was NOT initiated in the House was never explored. Specifically because the bill NEVER CALLED IT A TAX. However, now that the Supreme Court has weighed in and deemed the MANDATE constitutional based on the fact that IT IS A TAX, opens the door for a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the TAX based on the bill being initiated in the Senate.
continued... In keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity, and that members not on active duty should avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear to imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement, the following policy shall apply: A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not March or ride in a partisan political parade.
I haven't seen every post on here, so I may have missed it, but it appears that most commenting have missed the legality, or question thereof, of what was actually done by Active Duty Service Members at what could easily be considered a political or politically paritisan event. DOD Directive 1344.10 dated 19 FEB 2008 and titled 'Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces' section 4 (Policy) states:
Correction... auto insurance is more expensive for men THAN women.
Just to touch on one point made in your ramble. There is a reason premiums for health insurance are higher for women than men. They COST MORE. It's no different than the fact that auto insurance is more expensive for men and women. You see, these companies didn't pull some arbitrary number out of a hat, unlike politicians (see minimum wage). Instead, they actually did the math and figured out the costs involved. You are extremely short-sighted. If I'm insurance company 'A', and the fed's told me that men and women must pay the same amount for 'fairness', do I (1) Lower women's monthly premiums, or (2) raise men's monthly premiums? Hmmm....
But my understanding was that this was nothing more than a request for a list of legalized aliens to purge voter rolls of those ineligible. I guess it still boggles my mind as to what would constitute a rational argument against providing this list.
Does anyone know what the Fed's argument was for NOT wanting to do this?
In response to:

A Primer on Obamanomics

JT_Navy Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 4:37 AM
By the way, using the federal government's estimate of receipts for fiscal year 2012 under the CURRENT tax rates, this would give us a balanced budget.
In response to:

A Primer on Obamanomics

JT_Navy Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 4:29 AM
To all those that believe we should return to the rates that we were at during the last year of the Clinton presidency, I am willing to compromise. According to whitehouse.gov, federal outlays (spending) during fiscal year 2000 (President Clinton's final year in office) were approximately 1.788 trillion dollars. It was also the last year the federal government reported a surplus. I would be willing to see a bill signed that returned ALL tax rates to FY 2000 levels if, AND ONLY IF, the bill included a limit on federal spending to those same levels inflation adjusted. Using Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers would put federal spending around 2.4 trillion dollars. I can live with that.
Previous 0 - 8