BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-02-2014, 12:31 AM   #89
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Nothing else makes any sense at all. Tax rates are meaningless. Total taxes are meaningless. Somehow, you have to compare the amount of tax revenue to the size of the economy. Nothing else makes any sense, unless you're trying to grind a political axe. Your suggestion is?

Both Obama and Clinto were referring to tax rates. Their point was that the system was too complex, placing the burden of corporate taxes on smaller companies who can not play the game as well as large ones. You actually think they were talking about reducing tax revenue? That would make them good guys in your eyes. But it was just about lowering the rates while removing deductions, etc. Not lowering taxes, just making the system more fair. To quote Clinton from the article you cited:

"... we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay."

The idea that Reagan "sank Iran's navy" is yet another right wing con job that's been played on you. In retaliation for an attack, the US Navy sank 3 gunboats. We were trading shots with Iran throughout that period, but it hardly shut Iran up. It only served as _incentive_ for them to pursue nuclear weapons. To this day Iran sees nuclear weapons as their only protection against us.

Reagan gave them even more incentive. The most serious damage he did do was to shoot down an Iranian airliner, supposedly mistaking it for a fighter jet. I guess our air systems were so bad they couldn't tell the difference between an Airbus A300 with 290 civilians on board, and an F-14.

So, far from deterring Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, Reagan's actions spurred them on. Got any more ideas?
Did you read the Politifact article? Did you read Obama's quote? Did you look at the links?

Again, to compare simple GDP to taxes paid doesn't incorporate many significant factors, such as various governments control of the means of production, employment taxes paid/not paid by employers, offshore earnings, and much more.

As far as the Iranians - whatever.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2014, 11:03 AM   #90
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 461
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Did you read the Politifact article? Did you read Obama's quote?
Yes. Did you? He's making precisely the same argument as Clinton, as quoted from your other article above.

"Over the years," he said, "a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change."

Do you actually think that he's talking about lowering tax revenues? That would be news. Or just about making the system more fair, while maintaining revenues? Seems obvious to me.

I know you've been bombarded with stories about our "high tax rates" from the right wing media. But, it's a con job, those theoretical numbers have no real world relevance. Ask GE. Or many other corporations.

"General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and stacked."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ts_609137.html

According to the tax rate, they should have paid 5 billion. A number which has no real world relevance. Our actual taxes are relatively low. As GE can tell you.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 04-02-2014 at 11:26 AM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2014, 12:55 PM   #91
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Yes. Did you? He's making precisely the same argument as Clinton, as quoted from your other article above.

"Over the years," he said, "a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change."

Do you actually think that he's talking about lowering tax revenues? That would be news. Or just about making the system more fair, while maintaining revenues? Seems obvious to me.

I know you've been bombarded with stories about our "high tax rates" from the right wing media. But, it's a con job, those theoretical numbers have no real world relevance. Ask GE. Or many other corporations.

"General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and stacked."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ts_609137.html

According to the tax rate, they should have paid 5 billion. A number which has no real world relevance. Our actual taxes are relatively low. As GE can tell you.
In 2008, GE execs gave 5x to Obama's election campaign what they gave to McCain's. In 2009, Obama appointed the CEO of GE as his top outside advisor on his Economic Advisory Recovery Board, and later as the head of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

From the Huffington Post:

Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric Co. tapped by President Barack Obama as his next top outside economic adviser, will be asked to guide the White House as it attempts to jump-start lackluster job creation and spur a muddled recovery.

Immelt’s firm stands as Exhibit A of a successful and profitable corporate America standing at the forefront of the recovery. It also represents the archetypal company that’s hoarding cash, sending jobs overseas, relying on taxpayer bailouts and paying less taxes than envisioned. . . .

As the administration struggles to prod businesses to create jobs at home, GE has been busy sending them abroad. Since Immelt took over in 2001, GE has shed 34,000 jobs in the U.S., according to its most recent annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But it’s added 25,000 jobs overseas.


So I'm not at all sure what Obama is thinking.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2014, 02:23 PM   #92
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,164
iTrader: (0)

Not that it pertains much to what you guys are talking about, but my problem with the taxes i'm paying is not that they are so high but that those taxes paid are largely wasted and abused. Waste, fraud and abuse runs rampant through our governments, at ALL levels.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-08-2014, 07:42 AM   #93
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Thought this was interesting, in light of this thread:

http://www.infowars.com/federal-snip...ilming-cattle/

A "First Amendment-Free" zone? I don't recall that anywhere in anything...
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-08-2014, 08:11 AM   #94
fecurtis
Captain
 
Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

Posts: 828
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Thought this was interesting, in light of this thread:

http://www.infowars.com/federal-snip...ilming-cattle/

A "First Amendment-Free" zone? I don't recall that anywhere in anything...
Here's a helpful life tip, infowars.com is a bullshit source for anything.

As for "first amendment-free" zones, it's likely referring to "protest zones", which are actually real. Basically what those are, are designated zones where people are free to protest peacefully. This is designed to keep people from having the brilliant idea of, say, protesting in the middle of I-95 during rush hour.
__________________
2014 BMW 335i M-Sport | Estoril Blue II | 8AT | MPPK | MPE
fecurtis is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-08-2014, 09:11 AM   #95
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis View Post
Here's a helpful life tip, infowars.com is a bullshit source for anything.

As for "first amendment-free" zones, it's likely referring to "protest zones", which are actually real. Basically what those are, are designated zones where people are free to protest peacefully. This is designed to keep people from having the brilliant idea of, say, protesting in the middle of I-95 during rush hour.
As I read the article, it's basically a ripoff of an article in the local paper of the area (link is embedded in the Infowars article). I'm not real familiar with Infowars, but can't imagine they are a "bullshit source for anything," any more than any other media outlet.

The article states that the offenders were standing on the side of an interstate highway out in the middle of nowhere, and the BLM had snipers and dogs trained on them - seems a bit over-the-top??
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-08-2014, 01:32 PM   #96
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 461
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I'm not real familiar with Infowars, but can't imagine they are a "bullshit source for anything," any more than any other media outlet.
Well they're not BS if you believe:

NASA faked the moon landings (part of a plot to cover up the deaths of "thousands" of astronauts)
The US government did the Oklahoma City bombing, not Tim McVey
of course, 9/11 was a government plot
Jesse Ventura is America's only hope to avoid tyranny

etc. etc. Don't get them started on cell phones, Wifi and "smart" electric meters.

I will agree they're not all that different from Fauxnews <grin>.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 04-08-2014 at 01:58 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-08-2014, 05:40 PM   #97
fecurtis
Captain
 
Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

Posts: 828
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
As I read the article, it's basically a ripoff of an article in the local paper of the area (link is embedded in the Infowars article). I'm not real familiar with Infowars, but can't imagine they are a "bullshit source for anything," any more than any other media outlet.

The article states that the offenders were standing on the side of an interstate highway out in the middle of nowhere, and the BLM had snipers and dogs trained on them - seems a bit over-the-top??
One simply provides biased and at times misleading news, the other panders to conspiracy theorists.

As for dogs and snipers trained on people, I'd have to read it from a more reputable source to even believe it.
__________________
2014 BMW 335i M-Sport | Estoril Blue II | 8AT | MPPK | MPE
fecurtis is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-09-2014, 07:37 PM   #98
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...style&ir=style

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#axzz2yRCKBRvt

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62317

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevad....google.com%2F

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...ght-feds-land/

Seems it's not just crackpots reporting this now, or "faux news" (that's so clever!).

About 85% of Nevada is federal land, yet they still want to take this guy's land to protect a turtle. Sounds like this guy got conned.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 12:32 AM   #99
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 461
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Seems it's not just crackpots reporting this now. Sounds like this guy got conned.
Really? It sounds like that to you?

To me it sounds like a guy who thinks he can just ignore any laws he doesn't like. Use what is admittedly not his land however he likes. Quoting from your sources.

"For two decades, Bundy has waged a one-man range war with federal officials over his cattle’s grazing on 150 square miles of scrub desert overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. Since 1993, he’s refused to pay BLM grazing fees. He claims he “fired the BLM,” vowing not to give one dime to an agency that’s (according to him) plotting his demise."

"I abide by almost zero federal laws."

"Bundy racked up more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees over the years while disregarding several court orders to remove his animals."

The fact is he's grazing cattle on land he doesn't own, refuses to pay grazing fees, and refuses to stop, even though he took his case to court, and lost. If everyone ignored laws like that, we'd have total anarchy. Not exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to create. He's served as his own lawyer in court, possibly because no attorney would think he has a case.

Even the local cattle organization is not supporting him.

"So far, the Nevada Cattlemen's Association (NCA), which represents some 700 ranchers in the state, is taking a hands-off stance on Bundy's protest.

In a statement, the association noted that Bundy's case had been reviewed by a federal judge, and that a legal decision had been rendered to remove the cattle. The statement said that NCA "does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts."

Even if Mr. Bundy doesn't. He's made inflammatory statements about "doing whatever is necessary to protect my property". Said he wants his fellow ranchers to join him in a "range war".

Law enforcement would be totally incompetent if they didn't come prepared to protect themselves.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 04-10-2014 at 12:59 AM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 01:12 AM   #100
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Seems it's not just crackpots reporting this now. Sounds like this guy got conned.
Really? It sounds like that to you?

To me it sounds like a guy who thinks he can just ignore any laws he doesn't like. Use what is admittedly not his land however he likes. Quoting from your sources.

"For two decades, Bundy has waged a one-man range war with federal officials over his cattle’s grazing on 150 square miles of scrub desert overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. Since 1993, he’s refused to pay BLM grazing fees. He claims he “fired the BLM,” vowing not to give one dime to an agency that’s (according to him) plotting his demise."

"I abide by almost zero federal laws."

"Bundy racked up more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees over the years while disregarding several court orders to remove his animals."

The fact is he's grazing cattle on land he doesn't own, refuses to pay grazing fees, and refuses to stop, even though he took his case to court, and lost. If everyone ignored laws like that, we'd have total anarchy. Not exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to create. He's served as his own lawyer in court, possibly because no attorney would think he has a case.

Even the local cattle organization is not supporting him.

"So far, the Nevada Cattlemen's Association (NCA), which represents some 700 ranchers in the state, is taking a hands-off stance on Bundy's protest.

In a statement, the association noted that Bundy's case had been reviewed by a federal judge, and that a legal decision had been rendered to remove the cattle. The statement said that NCA "does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts."

Even if Mr. Bundy doesn't. He's made inflammatory statements about "doing whatever is necessary to protect my property". Said he wants his fellow ranchers to join him in a "range war".

Law enforcement would be totally incompetent if they didn't come prepared to protect themselves.
Apparently his family has been grazing the land since the 1800's without an issue until recently, when the Feds started charging fees, and forcing them off due to the tortoise. He did also say "I follow all Nevada laws - I don't follow any Federal laws." I agree with you that there are other ways to protest, but it appears that the Feds have been encroaching for some time, and he's tired of fighting them. From the sound of it, I can't blame him.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 01:50 AM   #101
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 461
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Apparently his family has been grazing the land since the 1800's without an issue until recently, when the Feds started charging fees,

I agree with you that there are other ways to protest, but it appears that the Feds have been encroaching for some time, and he's tired of fighting them. From the sound of it, I can't blame him.
Really? You don't blame him? OK, lets try out his "legal argument". The analogy below is exact.

Someone lives outside the city on a road with a speed limit of 65. The city spreads out, development happens and the speed limit changes to 45. He keeps driving 65 because "my family did it and I've always done it". He gets a ticket, goes to court and gives the argument that his family and him have been driving 65 on that road for years. He then refuses to pay the fine, and barricades himself in the house, asking for his neighbors to support him against the government, by whatever means necessary.

That's OK by you? The government has encroached on his rights by changing the speed limit? You don't blame the guy for not obeying the law? The cops wouldn't be right to go after him and approach the house with great caution?

Total BS. No wonder he represented himself in court. No wonder the Nevada Cattleman's Association doesn't support him.

The way this country works, the only way it can work, is that people obey the law. And they don't get to choose to obey only the laws they like.

By the way, the Feds have been charging fees for that land for something over 17 years. Which is how long he's been refusing to pay. That's "recently"?

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 04-10-2014 at 02:07 AM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 08:22 AM   #102
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Really? You don't blame him? OK, lets try out his "legal argument". The analogy below is exact.

Someone lives outside the city on a road with a speed limit of 65. The city spreads out, development happens and the speed limit changes to 45. He keeps driving 65 because "my family did it and I've always done it". He gets a ticket, goes to court and gives the argument that his family and him have been driving 65 on that road for years. He then refuses to pay the fine, and barricades himself in the house, asking for his neighbors to support him against the government, by whatever means necessary.

That's OK by you? The government has encroached on his rights by changing the speed limit? You don't blame the guy for not obeying the law? The cops wouldn't be right to go after him and approach the house with great caution?

Total BS. No wonder he represented himself in court. No wonder the Nevada Cattleman's Association doesn't support him.

The way this country works, the only way it can work, is that people obey the law. And they don't get to choose to obey only the laws they like.

By the way, the Feds have been charging fees for that land for something over 17 years. Which is how long he's been refusing to pay. That's "recently"?
Or – you and your family have been living in peace and harmony for the past 130 years, in a particular state. Along come the Feds, and require you to purchase your health insurance according to their guidelines, which include coverage that you don’t agree with, and don’t need. Your policy is cancelled, and the price skyrockets for one with greatly increased deductibles, that you purchase through their website, where they are making money.

Or – you are attending a state University, and get your student loans from the local bank. Along come the Feds, and “nationalize” the Student Loan program, so you now have to go to the Feds to get your loan. Overnight, the Feds are making $45B/yr on this program. The rates increase, and the qualification requirements increase the cost to you.

Or – you live in a border state like Arizona, where your family has lived for generations. The Feds decide that they will no longer enforce the border, and your land and property is trashed by the unchecked flow of illegals and drug dealers coming across the border. Your family is threatened, and your neighbors are murdered, yet the Feds refuse to enforce anything, because they don't like those laws.

Or - you don't live in a border state. You have lived here for generations, and the Feds decide that they will stop deporting people who are here illegally. Instead, you will be charged fees (taxes) for their healthcare, education, and other social services. If/when they commit crimes, they are not prosecuted, nor are they deported. In fact, the Feds are using some of the fees you pay them, to arm themselves against you.

And in these cases, your neighbors/colleagues are too afraid to protest, because they feel they will be targeted as well, and persecuted by other agencies like the IRS. What course of action would you take?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>

Last edited by bbbbmw; 04-10-2014 at 08:38 AM.
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 11:40 AM   #103
fecurtis
Captain
 
Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

Posts: 828
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Or – you and your family have been living in peace and harmony for the past 130 years, in a particular state. Along come the Feds, and require you to purchase your health insurance according to their guidelines, which include coverage that you don’t agree with, and don’t need. Your policy is cancelled, and the price skyrockets for one with greatly increased deductibles, that you purchase through their website, where they are making money.

Or – you are attending a state University, and get your student loans from the local bank. Along come the Feds, and “nationalize” the Student Loan program, so you now have to go to the Feds to get your loan. Overnight, the Feds are making $45B/yr on this program. The rates increase, and the qualification requirements increase the cost to you.

Or – you live in a border state like Arizona, where your family has lived for generations. The Feds decide that they will no longer enforce the border, and your land and property is trashed by the unchecked flow of illegals and drug dealers coming across the border. Your family is threatened, and your neighbors are murdered, yet the Feds refuse to enforce anything, because they don't like those laws.

Or - you don't live in a border state. You have lived here for generations, and the Feds decide that they will stop deporting people who are here illegally. Instead, you will be charged fees (taxes) for their healthcare, education, and other social services. If/when they commit crimes, they are not prosecuted, nor are they deported. In fact, the Feds are using some of the fees you pay them, to arm themselves against you.

And in these cases, your neighbors/colleagues are too afraid to protest, because they feel they will be targeted as well, and persecuted by other agencies like the IRS. What course of action would you take?
I like this post, as you read down the "examples" get more and more mind numbing paranoid and ridiculous. I'll waste my time to go through and explain why each one is ridiculous:

Quote:
you and your family have been living in peace and harmony for the past 130 years, in a particular state. Along come the Feds, and require you to purchase your health insurance according to their guidelines, which include coverage that you don’t agree with, and don’t need. Your policy is cancelled, and the price skyrockets for one with greatly increased deductibles, that you purchase through their website, where they are making money.
You're still buying insurance plans from private providers, so the government is not making money...unless you just paid the fine to not get health insurance (also a viable option if you really didn't want health insurance). Even then, those don't amount to much revenue and the entire idea is to create incentive to actually BUY health insurance. It's not the greatest thing by any means, but neither is the fact that MY premiums go up every year partially due to the fact that these people without insurance decide to go see a doctor or visit a ER and not pay their bill. The costs get passed on to the rest of us who do actually pay for these services.

Quote:
Or – you are attending a state University, and get your student loans from the local bank. Along come the Feds, and “nationalize” the Student Loan program, so you now have to go to the Feds to get your loan. Overnight, the Feds are making $45B/yr on this program. The rates increase, and the qualification requirements increase the cost to you.
lol student loans aren't nationalized. Private banks just choose not to compete because they can't offer rates as low as the government. If you were ever getting student loans from a local bank vs. the government then you've been doing it wrong. Rate increases are also just as likely with loans from a private bank if they were still offering student loans.

Quote:
Or – you live in a border state like Arizona, where your family has lived for generations. The Feds decide that they will no longer enforce the border, and your land and property is trashed by the unchecked flow of illegals and drug dealers coming across the border. Your family is threatened, and your neighbors are murdered, yet the Feds refuse to enforce anything, because they don't like those laws.
Yes because this is likely....

Quote:
Or - you don't live in a border state. You have lived here for generations, and the Feds decide that they will stop deporting people who are here illegally. Instead, you will be charged fees (taxes) for their healthcare, education, and other social services. If/when they commit crimes, they are not prosecuted, nor are they deported. In fact, the Feds are using some of the fees you pay them, to arm themselves against you.
This doesn't even warrant a response. Full blown nonsense here. Let me try:

OR - The Federal Government decides to enslave civilization and become a completely totalitarian society. They become all powerful and they anoint some guy named Snow as President. To remind his people of his power, he makes people from each state (from hence forth known as districts, condensed from 50 to just 12) place two children to fight to the death in a carefully crafted arena where only one emerges the victor, using fear to keep his people in check. His breath also smells like blood for added sinister effect.
__________________
2014 BMW 335i M-Sport | Estoril Blue II | 8AT | MPPK | MPE

Last edited by fecurtis; 04-10-2014 at 11:51 AM.
fecurtis is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 12:08 PM   #104
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 461
iTrader: (0)

Smile

+1. I'll add my bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
<utter nonsense>
So you're saying you can violate the law if you don't like it? Or if it's a new law? Or if it was passed by legislators you don't like? You certainly seem to be implying that, both by the above post, and by continuing to support Mr. Bundy, even when you now know the actual facts.

And then it's OK to issue thinly veiled threats of violence to law enforcement about what you'll do if they simply do their duty, and enforce the law?

If so, I'll concede there's no point arguing with you. You're simply not my idea of a good citizen, who settles these things at the ballot box, or in court.

Not by violating valid law repeatedly, refusing to accept the consequences set out by a lawful court, and threatening violence, as Mr. Bundy did. I don't think he's the Founding Fathers idea of a good citizen, either.

We can debate whether a specific law is a good one. But Mr. Bundy's conduct is totally unacceptable to me, and law enforcement's response has been, if anything, admirably restrained, considering what they're dealing with. Personally, I don't think those things are up for debate, as your original post tried to do.

Clearly repudiate Mr. Bundy, and I'll continue the discussion. But don't and I'm out of here. There is simply no point.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 04-10-2014 at 12:35 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 06:10 PM   #105
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Or – you and your family have been living in peace and harmony for the past 130 years, in a particular state. Along come the Feds, and require you to purchase your health insurance according to their guidelines, which include coverage that you don’t agree with, and don’t need. Your policy is cancelled, and the price skyrockets for one with greatly increased deductibles, that you purchase through their website, where they are making money.

Or – you are attending a state University, and get your student loans from the local bank. Along come the Feds, and “nationalize” the Student Loan program, so you now have to go to the Feds to get your loan. Overnight, the Feds are making $45B/yr on this program. The rates increase, and the qualification requirements increase the cost to you.

Or – you live in a border state like Arizona, where your family has lived for generations. The Feds decide that they will no longer enforce the border, and your land and property is trashed by the unchecked flow of illegals and drug dealers coming across the border. Your family is threatened, and your neighbors are murdered, yet the Feds refuse to enforce anything, because they don't like those laws.

Or - you don't live in a border state. You have lived here for generations, and the Feds decide that they will stop deporting people who are here illegally. Instead, you will be charged fees (taxes) for their healthcare, education, and other social services. If/when they commit crimes, they are not prosecuted, nor are they deported. In fact, the Feds are using some of the fees you pay them, to arm themselves against you.

And in these cases, your neighbors/colleagues are too afraid to protest, because they feel they will be targeted as well, and persecuted by other agencies like the IRS. What course of action would you take?
I like this post, as you read down the "examples" get more and more mind numbing paranoid and ridiculous. I'll waste my time to go through and explain why each one is ridiculous:

Quote:
you and your family have been living in peace and harmony for the past 130 years, in a particular state. Along come the Feds, and require you to purchase your health insurance according to their guidelines, which include coverage that you don’t agree with, and don’t need. Your policy is cancelled, and the price skyrockets for one with greatly increased deductibles, that you purchase through their website, where they are making money.
You're still buying insurance plans from private providers, so the government is not making money...unless you just paid the fine to not get health insurance (also a viable option if you really didn't want health insurance). Even then, those don't amount to much revenue and the entire idea is to create incentive to actually BUY health insurance. It's not the greatest thing by any means, but neither is the fact that MY premiums go up every year partially due to the fact that these people without insurance decide to go see a doctor or visit a ER and not pay their bill. The costs get passed on to the rest of us who do actually pay for these services.

Quote:
Or – you are attending a state University, and get your student loans from the local bank. Along come the Feds, and “nationalize” the Student Loan program, so you now have to go to the Feds to get your loan. Overnight, the Feds are making $45B/yr on this program. The rates increase, and the qualification requirements increase the cost to you.
lol student loans aren't nationalized. Private banks just choose not to compete because they can't offer rates as low as the government. If you were ever getting student loans from a local bank vs. the government then you've been doing it wrong. Rate increases are also just as likely with loans from a private bank if they were still offering student loans.

Quote:
Or – you live in a border state like Arizona, where your family has lived for generations. The Feds decide that they will no longer enforce the border, and your land and property is trashed by the unchecked flow of illegals and drug dealers coming across the border. Your family is threatened, and your neighbors are murdered, yet the Feds refuse to enforce anything, because they don't like those laws.
Yes because this is likely....

Quote:
Or - you don't live in a border state. You have lived here for generations, and the Feds decide that they will stop deporting people who are here illegally. Instead, you will be charged fees (taxes) for their healthcare, education, and other social services. If/when they commit crimes, they are not prosecuted, nor are they deported. In fact, the Feds are using some of the fees you pay them, to arm themselves against you.
This doesn't even warrant a response. Full blown nonsense here. Let me try:

OR - The Federal Government decides to enslave civilization and become a completely totalitarian society. They become all powerful and they anoint some guy named Snow as President. To remind his people of his power, he makes people from each state (from hence forth known as districts, condensed from 50 to just 12) place two children to fight to the death in a carefully crafted arena where only one emerges the victor, using fear to keep his people in check. His breath also smells like blood for added sinister effect.
Um - point #3 is indeed happening today, as is point #4. Your facts for the first two are incorrect - the Feds are planning to skim a portion of the monthly premiums collected on the site for overhead, and they nationalized the student loan program.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 06:14 PM   #106
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy
+1. I'll add my bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
&lt;utter nonsense>
So you're saying you can violate the law if you don't like it? Or if it's a new law? Or if it was passed by legislators you don't like? You certainly seem to be implying that, both by the above post, and by continuing to support Mr. Bundy, even when you now know the actual facts.

And then it's OK to issue thinly veiled threats of violence to law enforcement about what you'll do if they simply do their duty, and enforce the law?

If so, I'll concede there's no point arguing with you. You're simply not my idea of a good citizen, who settles these things at the ballot box, or in court.

Not by violating valid law repeatedly, refusing to accept the consequences set out by a lawful court, and threatening violence, as Mr. Bundy did. I don't think he's the Founding Fathers idea of a good citizen, either.

We can debate whether a specific law is a good one. But Mr. Bundy's conduct is totally unacceptable to me, and law enforcement's response has been, if anything, admirably restrained, considering what they're dealing with. Personally, I don't think those things are up for debate, as your original post tried to do.

Clearly repudiate Mr. Bundy, and I'll continue the discussion. But don't and I'm out of here. There is simply no point.
I'm surprised at how you turn your opinions into facts, and jump to conclusions based upon them. I actually said I agree with you at one point, and by saying "I don't blame him," did not mean I endorse him or his actions. To be clear, I don't blame him for feeling that the Feds have overreached, and feeling he is being persecuted. But if you want to conclude that I'm planning to dive in a bunker with him, that's your option.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 06:32 PM   #107
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 461
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
they nationalized the student loan program.
No, they didn't. More deliberate misinformation from your far right wing talking heads.

They _added_ an option for students, government student loans. They did not "nationalize", which would have meant taking over the private loan programs. If you want, you can still get a private loan.

Now, the public program is widely considered to be the best.

http://money.cnn.com/101/college-101...ymag/index.htm

Do you _want_ them to not do this well? Is it too much of a disproof of the far right wing mentality that government cannot possibly do anything better than the private sector? It is simply a fact that there are many things the government does better and more cheaply than the private sector. As well as many things that only government can do (like regulating airline safety). i know that distresses Mr. Rush and Mr. Hannity, not to mention pretty much everyone on Fauxnews, but it's true.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 04-10-2014 at 06:45 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 06:42 PM   #108
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 461
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
the Feds are planning to skim a portion of the monthly premiums collected on the site for overhead
Do you have a clue what the "overhead" is on private health insurance? I guarantee you it's far more than any "skimming" the Federal government does. The government doesn't pay their executives anything like what a private insurance company does. Or "skim" the premium for profit.

And, if the Feds did pay for the website out of general revenues, no doubt tha far right would scream about that.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 07:25 PM   #109
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
they nationalized the student loan program.
No, they didn't. More deliberate misinformation from your far right wing talking heads.

They _added_ an option for students, government student loans. They did not "nationalize", which would have meant taking over the private loan programs. If you want, you can still get a private loan.

Now, the public program is widely considered to be the best.

http://money.cnn.com/101/college-101...ymag/index.htm

Do you _want_ them to not do this well? Is it too much of a disproof of the far right wing mentality that government cannot possibly do anything better than the private sector? It is simply a fact that there are many things the government does better and more cheaply than the private sector. As well as many things that only government can do (like regulating airline safety). i know that distresses Mr. Rush and Mr. Hannity, not to mention pretty much everyone on Fauxnews, but it's true.
I guess I misread that about the government taking over the student loan program - too much "faux news" again (I just love that!):

http://content.time.com/time/politic...924128,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us...s/26loans.html

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...21052?mobile=y
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-10-2014, 07:48 PM   #110
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
the Feds are planning to skim a portion of the monthly premiums collected on the site for overhead
Do you have a clue what the "overhead" is on private health insurance? I guarantee you it's far more than any "skimming" the Federal government does. The government doesn't pay their executives anything like what a private insurance company does. Or "skim" the premium for profit.

And, if the Feds did pay for the website out of general revenues, no doubt tha far right would scream about that.
My point was their plan to skim, not how private sector pay compares to public sector. But since you asked:

Calipari - head coach of Univ of Ky Basketball team - $5.5million/yr + bonuses

Janet Napolitano - head of Univ of CA system - $570k + benefits

These are beneficiaries of the student loan program, paid for by student debt.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:14 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST