2017 Republican Thread

[ptatc]

which then requires paying property tax :V edit: especially in western states, water and mineral rights don't necessarily come with land rights

 

basically short of living homeless and cashless, you're not going to be able to avoid paying taxes if you don't want to. That said, ultimately I get the distinction ss2k5 sees there even I don't personally think it's a big deal.

Correct. I was just referencing the having to pay a water tax. I don't through the well. I get the paying taxes part.

 

Although one of my neighbors gets a surplus of electricity through solar and wind power that his net taxes are minimal. A farmer I know with a large number of windmills on his property makes quite a profit from basically doing nothing.

[illinilaw08]

That just comes from the purchase of the land.

 

That's not necessarily true - particularly in the West. Water rights are often sold separate and apart from the deed that gives you ownership of the land itself.

[caulfield12]

There is a line here that was crossed. You don't HAVE to drive a car, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt. You don't HAVE to work if you don't want to pay taxes. Don't want health insurance? Too bad. It is really scary to cross that line.

 

But who ends up subsidizing all those negative externalities created by those NOT covered by health insurance (but are forced to seek medical attention) in emergency situations?

 

Haven't hundreds of studies shown that preventive treatment/checkups are much more cost-effective than crisis management? It's obvious a system where going to the doctor as only a last resort creates lots of terrible outcomes for families.

 

It's just not as obvious as a direct bill in our inbox, right?

 

 

Another thing is everyone argues we are larger than Canada, Australia or Norway/Finland/Sweden...their systems are unique and not replicable. So how they manage to do it here in China when the population is five times larger? Sure, you might have to wait an hour or two for a doctor unless you go right away in the morning or at lunchtime...but I have NEVER had to wait more than 90 minues for a doctor, and the cost is infinitesimal compared to the US.

 

The only area where costs are increasing (to me) is foreign-manufactured prescription medicines...as well as preventitive herbal medicines.

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ready-pay-50...-090016482.html

12 million are already in line to pay $500 or more in additional taxes this year...

Edited January 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

That's not necessarily true - particularly in the West. Water rights are often sold separate and apart from the deed that gives you ownership of the land itself.

this is true but the cost is mostly for the large ranches and such. Not a small piece of land with a single home.

[Balta1701]

That just comes from the purchase of the land.

No it doesn't. Water rights and mineral rights are split in ownership from land rights and courts and the state and federal government have made significant restrictions on water rights. You can't just pump all the water you want from a well on your property because that affects the water supply of other people pumping from that same aquifer or downstream from you.

[ptatc]

No it doesn't. Water rights and mineral rights are split in ownership from land rights and courts and the state and federal government have made significant restrictions on water rights. You can't just pump all the water you want from a well on your property because that affects the water supply of other people pumping from that same aquifer or downstream from you.

Strange, they don't tax me on the water from my well. Nor my neighbors.

[StrangeSox]

Strange, they don't tax me on the water from my well. Nor my neighbors.

Generally it's an issue west of the Mississippi where water resources are a lot more scarce. I'm on well in Illinois, too, and there's no regulations, registrations, or restrictions on a regular basis but maybe there would be if I tried to get the permits to drop 40 new wells on my property?

[Balta1701]

Strange, they don't tax me on the water from my well. Nor my neighbors.

Depending on the state, there are a number of different types of litigation that may be possible, particularly in dry years. If you're a small enough user and you're dealing with an aquifer that isn't in danger of depletion you will typically be able to slip by under a "reasonable use" standard, but if you try to pump out of the ground and sell your water to a nearby group of farms for agricultural use you'll rapidly be facing a lawsuit that you will lose, and these restrictions grow when you move to places that get hit by droughts because individual use will run into use by agricultural operations and their work will impact your aquifer. It would even be possible for you to split your water rights from your property rights and sell them if you were so inclined.

[southsider2k5]

which then requires paying property tax :V edit: especially in western states, water and mineral rights don't necessarily come with land rights

 

basically short of living homeless and cashless, you're not going to be able to avoid paying taxes if you don't want to. That said, ultimately I get the distinction ss2k5 sees there even I don't personally think it's a big deal.

 

I can't think of another thing where essentially being alive is enough where they force you to purchase a good or service. Even where the options suck if you don't, you still have the option of not doing it. I know a lot of people don't see that as important, but there is a line there and hate to see it crossed. Much like the movement in lines from imminent domain from public good meaning something like a school or interstate, to a mini shopping center being OK now. Personal freedoms should be nearly impossible to take away, and this is a s***ty one.

[ptatc]

Depending on the state, there are a number of different types of litigation that may be possible, particularly in dry years. If you're a small enough user and you're dealing with an aquifer that isn't in danger of depletion you will typically be able to slip by under a "reasonable use" standard, but if you try to pump out of the ground and sell your water to a nearby group of farms for agricultural use you'll rapidly be facing a lawsuit that you will lose, and these restrictions grow when you move to places that get hit by droughts because individual use will run into use by agricultural operations and their work will impact your aquifer. It would even be possible for you to split your water rights from your property rights and sell them if you were so inclined.

Well, yeah, I if I try to sell it. I was just pointing out when you said you have to pay electric and water tax, that you don't need to pay a water tax and many don't. It's much rarer for the electric, essentially you need to pay that.

[Soxbadger]

There is a line here that was crossed. You don't HAVE to drive a car, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt. You don't HAVE to work if you don't want to pay taxes. Don't want health insurance? Too bad. It is really scary to cross that line.

 

I do believe they could have gotten a similar result and not had to cross that line. IE Everyone's taxes were raised by $700 and those with health insurance were given a $700 tax credit.

 

Also even under Obamacare you dont HAVE to get health insurance. You just have to pay approximately $700 for the privilege of not being covered. There are a million ways to frame it, but at the end of the day its actually less intrusive than car insurance laws. But we frame those as "driving is a privilege", so we could have done something really draconian and said that receiving emergency care is a "privilege" and therefore if you dont have insurance something is put on your drivers license, etc, that indicates to the EMT/Hospital/Dr. that you cant receive emergency healthcare.

 

Again I understand why the Democrats didnt want to go down this road as it seems somewhat opposed to the idea that "everyone deserves healthcare." But at least that way we would have preserved the "personal freedom" of not having to pay for services that are rendered.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Soxbadger

[illinilaw08]

this is true but the cost is mostly for the large ranches and such. Not a small piece of land with a single home.

 

Also not true. It probably originated with large ranches, but it actually impacts pretty much any plot of land in the mountains in Colorado, and anywhere rural in the American West. For instance, until 2016 it was illegal to use a rain barrel to collect water in the State of Colorado. While that makes no sense when you live in Denver, it makes a lot of sense when you live on a mountain stream.

 

 

[ptatc]

Also not true. It probably originated with large ranches, but it actually impacts pretty much any plot of land in the mountains in Colorado, and anywhere rural in the American West. For instance, until 2016 it was illegal to use a rain barrel to collect water in the State of Colorado. While that makes no sense when you live in Denver, it makes a lot of sense when you live on a mountain stream.

Interesting. When I move to the Colorado mountains, i'll keep it in mind. Until then, I still don't get taxed on my well water.

[caulfield12]

I do believe they could have gotten a similar result and not had to cross that line. IE Everyone's taxes were raised by $700 and those with health insurance were given a $700 tax credit.

 

Also even under Obamacare you dont HAVE to get health insurance. You just have to pay approximately $700 for the privilege of not being covered. There are a million ways to frame it, but at the end of the day its actually less intrusive than car insurance laws. But we frame those as "driving is a privilege", so we could have done something really draconian and said that receiving emergency care is a "privilege" and therefore if you dont have insurance something is put on your drivers license, etc, that indicates to the EMT/Hospital/Dr. that you cant receive emergency healthcare.

 

Again I understand why the Democrats didnt want to go down this road as it seems somewhat opposed to the idea that "everyone deserves healthcare." But at least that way we would have preserved the "personal freedom" of not having to pay for services that are rendered.

 

 

Right, it's 100% a perception/framing problem.

 

The Republicans (more specifically, their corporate lobbyists) have been MUCH better at scaring people.

 

We'll see how well the Dems can do in terms of their own scare tactics defending ObamaCare. If the GOP succeeds there, history has shown they'll overreach (see 1995-1996, or 2006) and try to privatize Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid and get slapped back down.

Edited January 10, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Right, it's 100% a perception/framing problem.

 

The Republicans (more specifically, their corporate lobbyists) have been MUCH better at scaring people.

 

We'll see how well the Dems can do in terms of their own scare tactics defending ObamaCare. If the GOP succeeds there, history has shown they'll overreach (see 1995-1996, or 2006) and try to privatize Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid and get slapped back down.

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

I've read this line before. Most recently it was 2000, then again in 2004. Every time a Republican wins it's "oh because they scare dumb people the best!" That s*** is done by both parties. That's why our system sucks and is broken. For every "omg the gays are coming!" there's "omg they want to rally up every brown person and put them on a boat!"

 

Trump has certainly made it easier to make the case, but it's still an idea (using fear) that's been around since our democracy was founded. No party is better than the other.

Edited January 11, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[StrangeSox]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

I've read this line before. Most recently it was 2000, then again in 2004. Every time a Republican wins it's "oh because they scare dumb people the best!" That s*** is done by both parties. That's why our system sucks and is broken. For every "omg the gays are coming!" there's "omg they want to rally up every brown person and put them on a boat!"

 

Trump has certainly made it easier to make the case, but it's still an idea (using fear) that's been around since our democracy was founded. No party is better than the other.

 

There's nothing that makes your last claim inherently true, though. It's entirely possible for a political party to be worse than another political party on ethical and moral standards. Making that claim would let whatever major party was actually acting in unethical and immoral fashion get away with it because of silly, mindless "both sides!"-ism.

 

edit: hell, there are right now legitimate concerns that rise up to the level of treason and being subserviant to foreign powers surrounding one party's President Elect. Maybe it's not an immutable fact, but it seems sort of easy to claim that one party is actually worse than the other right now, given who they nominated, elected and are rallying behind?

Edited January 11, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

There's nothing that makes your last claim inherently true, though. It's entirely possible for a political party to be worse than another political party on ethical and moral standards. Making that claim would let whatever major party was actually acting in unethical and immoral fashion get away with it because of silly, mindless "both sides!"-ism.

 

edit: hell, there are right now legitimate concerns that rise up to the level of treason and being subserviant to foreign powers surrounding one party's President Elect. Maybe it's not an immutable fact, but it seems sort of easy to claim that one party is actually worse than the other right now, given who they nominated, elected and are rallying behind?

 

The nature of the system makes it true. These are professional politicians/parties. They've sold their souls to be in the positions they are in. They have no morals or ethics. There are more likable figures than others, that's absolutely true, but all make decisions based on their own self interests, all are inconsistent in the positions they hold, and all make whatever promises or statements they think will get them elected.

 

In the case of Trump, yes, he's abhorrent and certainly worse than anything the Dems have right now. But that's right now, in this moment, as the election just ended.

 

I'm just over the "the GOP is so much better with scare tactics and getting dumb people to vote for them." Democrats play the same game (Wall Street! Racists! Homophobs!) to the same dumb voters.

[illinilaw08]

The nature of the system makes it true. These are professional politicians/parties. They've sold their souls to be in the positions they are in. They have no morals or ethics. There are more likable figures than others, that's absolutely true, but all make decisions based on their own self interests, all are inconsistent in the positions they hold, and all make whatever promises or statements they think will get them elected.

 

In the case of Trump, yes, he's abhorrent and certainly worse than anything the Dems have right now. But that's right now, in this moment, as the election just ended.

 

I'm just over the "the GOP is so much better with scare tactics and getting dumb people to vote for them." Democrats play the same game (Wall Street! Racists! Homophobs!) to the same dumb voters.

 

I think there are some distinctions to the arguments above, but this is the R thread, so I'm going to stay out of that.

 

Throughout our nation's history, we have had individual Senators and Reps who put country over party. I am encouraged on Russia by Rubio's questions to Tillerson, and by the (alleged) 10 Republican Senators that are also pushing for increased sanctions on Russia over interference with the election. IF Trump is in Russia's pocket, I am more optimistic today than I was a week ago that we will see Republicans break ranks.

[pettie4sox]

I think there are some distinctions to the arguments above, but this is the R thread, so I'm going to stay out of that.

 

Throughout our nation's history, we have had individual Senators and Reps who put country over party. I am encouraged on Russia by Rubio's questions to Tillerson, and by the (alleged) 10 Republican Senators that are also pushing for increased sanctions on Russia over interference with the election. IF Trump is in Russia's pocket, I am more optimistic today than I was a week ago that we will see Republicans break ranks.

 

Republicans absolutely need to break rank if Trump is guilty of the alleged offenses. He's an outsider anyway, it's not like they are skewering one of their own.

[Balta1701]

Republicans absolutely need to break rank if Trump is guilty of the alleged offenses. He's an outsider anyway, it's not like they are skewering one of their own.

Keep this in mind - the only way to verify that Trump would be guilty of the alleged offenses would be an independent investigation, because in 9 days both the CIA and FBI will officially report to Donald Trump. That would require Republicans to break rank with Trump without knowing whether he was guilty of them in order to establish the investigation since the Democrats have 0 houses of Congress and the only other organization capable of investigating a president without his permission is the FBI, and let's just say I'm skeptical about the notion the FBI will conduct a thorough review of Donald Trump.

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nemesis-ro...-174454134.html

 

Rosie O'Donnell pulls a Greg, asks for martial law to be declared until Trump is cleared of Russian charges/allegations.

[EvilMonkey]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nemesis-ro...-174454134.html

 

Rosie O'Donnell pulls a Greg, asks for martial law to be declared until Trump is cleared of Russian charges/allegations.

She probably thinks that means Obama gets to stay in office until then, too.

[EvilMonkey]

So I read that the Clinton Global Initiative is closing up shop since donation have dried up. I guess with no influence to peddle, no money coming in. But I thought they did such great work! Why would donors abandon them?

[caulfield12]

So I read that the Clinton Global Initiative is closing up shop since donation have dried up. I guess with no influence to peddle, no money coming in. But I thought they did such great work! Why would donors abandon them?

 

http://observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-fo...iative/?ref=yfp

 

Clinton was the greatest politician of his time, and the most flawed in terms of understanding his own weaknesses...perhaps, ultimately knowing that he could easily manipulate people to forgive him is what led to his ultimate undoing. But brilliant political mind and grasp of policy minutiae, the complete anti-Trump (except in one key way, that both were a boon for reporters/ratings/coverage). Ironically, he knew all along how important states like PA, Michigan and Wisconsin would be but was ignored by his wife's campaign until it was too late. All that because of the South Carolina primary in 2008 against Obama.

 

Sad that even those closest advisors like Band and Huma Abedin ended up as collateral damage along the way. Luckily for Greg there is no Chelsea for president groundswell to worry about anymore.

[greg775]

http://observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-fo...iative/?ref=yfp

 

Clinton was the greatest politician of his time, and the most flawed in terms of understanding his own weaknesses...perhaps, ultimately knowing that he could easily manipulate people to forgive him is what led to his ultimate undoing. But brilliant political mind and grasp of policy minutiae, the complete anti-Trump (except in one key way, that both were a boon for reporters/ratings/coverage). Ironically, he knew all along how important states like PA, Michigan and Wisconsin would be but was ignored by his wife's campaign until it was too late. All that because of the South Carolina primary in 2008 against Obama.

 

Sad that even those closest advisors like Band and Huma Abedin ended up as collateral damage along the way. Luckily for Greg there is no Chelsea for president groundswell to worry about anymore.

Yes, I would think Chelsea's possible bid is over. Only hope for her is if she really wants to get in politics, she'd have to win an election in some state as mama did. Like governor of Illinois or senator of New York or something. I mean she could run off her name like Trump, but that probably wouldn't get too far at this point, considering Hillary's bid was for the oval office failed miserably.

Edited January 15, 2017 by greg775