I Wear Pants;622720 wrote:So anywhere we think Al-Qaeda is we have the right to invade?

(No, you didn't say that, I'm merely asking if that's your opinion)

No. I am speaking in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and those nations that may oppose us in seeking those responsible. Congress initially declares war on the nation of Afghanistan for harboring those responsible and refusing to turn them over. Diplomatic representatives of the USA make it clear to the surrounding states that we seek peace with them.

The executive branch should communicate to these nations that harboring these fugitives that propagated an act of war against the USA would be treated as an act of war by our government. It should be made clear by our diplomats that the president will hold them accountable as well and has the balls to go to congress and declare them as an enemy at war.

We have the right to invade only if congress gives the president the authority to do so under their review. And in my opinion they should make it constitutionally clear and congress should declare that their is an official state of war at some point. War is possible with any state that would harbor the perpetrators of 9/11.

As Roosevelt pointed out in his declaration of war that a state of war had already existed with the Japanese attack. So would it be with congressional approval of the president to commence hostilities on those he sees responsible for 9/11. During WWII we found ourselves invading several countries we did not officially declare war on because the enemy was occupying and in control of it.

In the case of those responsible for 9/11 they could seek haven in other nations yet would not be considered occupiers, neither would they be in control. If the government that they sought refuge in gave them safe haven against our diplomatic pleas to turn them over in this case that would be an act of war.

If we had declared such a state against Afghanistan and those responsible were seeking refuge in a said neighboring state, as long is their is no immediate military need the matter should be brought before congress and an authorization to invade that nation to apprehend the individuals should be given. Preferably a formal declaration of war. Because it is what it is. The formality gives it more power and bite. Not weakened by politics. So it should be. Especially in matters of war.

I will never understand the mindset that criticizes the use of government to invade countries friendly to those who are hostile to the United States while applauding the use of that same government to impede and infringe on the liberties and freedoms of its own citizenry.

believer;622755 wrote:I will never understand the mindset that criticizes the use of government to invade countries friendly to those who are hostile to the United States while applauding the use of that same government to impede and infringe on the liberties and freedoms of its own citizenry.

Post of the week, and it's only Monday!! Get a beer.

Well, here we go the House is starting the debate on the repel. Guess what the name of the bill is? That's right its called "To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010". Funny stuff, unless you take a look at the language on what they want to replace it with. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/January/18/health-law-repeal-replace-document.aspx Yes, we go back to the past. That was working really well.

Here is an interesting non partisan cost projection that might wake some people up.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2011/January/011111frakt.aspx

Wasn't there a provision in the bill that prohibited several doctor owned hospitals from being built? Seems to me that I read that somewhere. Will have to look that up later today to verify the truth of it.

Here's a little tidbit that Reid, Pelosi, Barry, Gibbs, Maher, Olbermannnn, Madcow, Brokaw, Katie, Wolfie, F Chuck, and heir Krugman conveniently forgot to tell us when this bill "we need to pass to find out what's in it" was whizzing its way down the Capitol -

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

I realize it's a partisan website, so I'm certain we'll hear all about that. But is it true? Will there be a stealth "sales tax" of 3.8% on the sales of homes starting AFTER the next presidential election?

BGFalcons82;642571 wrote:Here's a little tidbit that Reid, Pelosi, Barry, Gibbs, Maher, Olbermannnn, Madcow, Brokaw, Katie, Wolfie, F Chuck, and heir Krugman conveniently forgot to tell us when this bill "we need to pass to find out what's in it" was whizzing its way down the Capitol -

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

I realize it's a partisan website, so I'm certain we'll hear all about that. But is it true? Will there be a stealth "sales tax" of 3.8% on the sales of homes starting AFTER the next presidential election?

Been discussed before.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

Bigdogg;642602 wrote:Been discussed before.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

I don't remember the discussion previously. Sorry I'm not up on my OC history lessons.

I read the Snopes piece and I find it interesting it was done 4-10-10, or just a week or so after Obamakare was passed. I find it odd that we are still finding out what's in the bill nearly a year after it was passed, but the Snopes gang had it all figured out almost immediately.

I have read it and while not every American is affected, it does affect those that have paid off their mortgage and are selling their "mansions" that are above the obscene price of $250,000...the new threshold for the evil rich, not "millionaires". It is a new tax. It is levied on those that have had the foresight to pay their debts and pay off their mortgages with AFTER TAX dollars. Then they are subject to an additional tax because they are evil rich bastards and their home is worth more than $250,000. This is a tax levied on people that have already paid tax on the money used to buy the property. I shouldn't be surprised....it's very similar to the Death Tax wherein the money belongs to the government, not to the people. It makes me ill.

BGFalcons82;642674 wrote:I don't remember the discussion previously. Sorry I'm not up on my OC history lessons.

I read the Snopes piece and I find it interesting it was done 4-10-10, or just a week or so after Obamakare was passed. I find it odd that we are still finding out what's in the bill nearly a year after it was passed, but the Snopes gang had it all figured out almost immediately.

I have read it and while not every American is affected, it does affect those that have paid off their mortgage and are selling their "mansions" that are above the obscene price of $250,000...the new threshold for the evil rich, not "millionaires". It is a new tax. It is levied on those that have had the foresight to pay their debts and pay off their mortgages with AFTER TAX dollars. Then they are subject to an additional tax because they are evil rich bastards and their home is worth more than $250,000. This is a tax levied on people that have already paid tax on the money used to buy the property. I shouldn't be surprised....it's very similar to the Death Tax wherein the money belongs to the government, not to the people. It makes me ill.

I am not positive but the way I read it was if, sale price - purchase price = more than 250,000, then the tax is applied on the remainder. This is the first I have read or heard of this though.

revgat;642959 wrote:I am not positive but the way I read it was if, sale price - purchase price = more than 250,000, then the tax is applied on the remainder. This is the first I have read or heard of this though.

Yes, this is a tax on investments that earn more than $250k. If you bought your home for $100K in 1980 and sold it today for $450K, you'd pay a 3.8% tax on the $100K gain over the $250K per person that is excluded. This isn't likely to affect many people, though it certainly is a new tax.

[video=youtube-bY92mcOdk][/video]

He says it right there that it will happen over time.

Tobias Fünke;642981 wrote: He says it right there that it will happen over time.

Well, since R's don't believe a word he says anyway, it doesn't matter haha.

Actually, that quote is from 2007 and 2003, pretty different than all of his statements last year and in 2009.
Policy makers can change and reform their opinion.

fan_from_texas;642971 wrote:Yes, this is a tax on investments that earn more than $250k. If you bought your home for $100K in 1980 and sold it today for $450K, you'd pay a 3.8% tax on the $100K gain over the $250K per person that is excluded. This isn't likely to affect many people, though it certainly is a new tax.

OK, I agree with your assessment and the odds of homes rising in value over 30 years is not far-fetched, although the past 3 or 4 years may make it seem so.

So I ask the followup question to anyone that enjoys defending the socialists in charge....what does selling a home or a property have to do with health care? This part definitely affects people making less than $250K per year, in clear violation of Barry's sworn oath to not raise taxes on such folks during the Obamakare debates.

BGFalcons82;643082 wrote:OK, I agree with your assessment and the odds of homes rising in value over 30 years is not far-fetched, although the past 3 or 4 years may make it seem so.

So I ask the followup question to anyone that enjoys defending the socialists in charge....what does selling a home or a property have to do with health care? This part definitely affects people making less than $250K per year, in clear violation of Barry's sworn oath to not raise taxes on such folks during the Obamakare debates.

Did I miss something on the news tonight? Did we have a revolution? Obama' policies are more Bush lite.

For your review here is the definition of socialism:

In Marxist theory, socialism, or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism. Socialism is a mode of production where economic activity is based on directly maximizing use-value through conscious economic planning, where monetary relations in the form of exchange-value and wage labor cease to exist out of obsolescence. Socialism is characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership (with the state being re-organized under socialism) and self management.[1]

BGFalcons82;643082 wrote:OK, I agree with your assessment and the odds of homes rising in value over 30 years is not far-fetched, although the past 3 or 4 years may make it seem so.

So I ask the followup question to anyone that enjoys defending the socialists in charge....what does selling a home or a property have to do with health care? This part definitely affects people making less than $250K per year, in clear violation of Barry's sworn oath to not raise taxes on such folks during the Obamakare debates.

Selling a home has nothing to do with healthcare. It's an unrelated mechanism existing solely to fund. There is no tie.

This will affect some people who make less than $250K per year, though it will be a small group of people.

I took his "promise" to relate only to income taxes, not to taxes in general, but reasonable people can differ.

ptown_trojans_1;642995 wrote:Actually, that quote is from 2007 and 2003, pretty different than all of his statements last year and in 2009.
Policy makers can change and reform their opinion.

Deep down in your gut, do you believe Obama, Frank, Kerry, etc. - that they have "changed and reformed" their opinions?
All of them at the federal/powerful levels... they have all changed their minds?

Do you believe it, Ptown?

Oh, and please be honest! LOL

CenterBHSFan;643218 wrote:Deep down in your gut, do you believe Obama, Frank, Kerry, etc. - that they have "changed and reformed" their opinions?
All of them at the federal/powerful levels... they have all changed their minds?

Do you believe it, Ptown?

No, but it doesn't matter because it was not the legislation that was passed nor will any of them be in office in 10-15-20 years to take that "next" step.
I separate the statements into two classes, 1. In 03 and 07 by what they wanted to happen and 2. After 2009 by what they knew could be compromised and what they could actually get.

CenterBHSFan;642476 wrote:Wasn't there a provision in the bill that prohibited several doctor owned hospitals from being built? Seems to me that I read that somewhere. Will have to look that up later today to verify the truth of it.

I was right. Good read!

ObamaCare Will Effectively Bar New Physician-Owned Hospitals - Investors.com