-
Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
one of the provisions of the new national health care bill goes as follows ...
If you are self-employed (i.e. an independent contractor dancer),
If you earn more than $44,000 per year ~ $850 per week,
and if you do not have health insurance coverage,
The IRS will try to collect an additional 2.5% 'no health insurance' tax 'penalty' from you to serve as a strong incentive for purchasing your own health insurance policy.
(snip)"As expected, the House bill would mandate that individuals and families have or buy health insurance.
But what if they don’t buy it?
Then Section 401 kicks in. Any individual (or family) that does not have health insurance would have to pay a new tax, roughly equal to the smaller of 2.5% of your income or the cost of a health insurance plan.
[ Technical note: From the legislative language, it appears the tax = min( 2.5% * (modified AGI – personal exemption), average premium cost). In the examples below, for simplicity I assume modified AGI = AGI. ]
I assume the bill authors would respond, “But why wouldn’t you want insurance? After all, we’re subsidizing it for everyone up to 400% of the poverty line.”
That is true. But if you’re a single person with income of $44,000 or higher, then you’re above 400% of the poverty line. You would not be subsidized, but would face the punitive tax if you didn’t get health insurance. This bill leaves an important gap between the subsidies and the cost of health insurance. CBO says that for about eight million people, that gap is too big to close, and they would get stuck paying higher taxes and still without health insurance."(snip)
from
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Alternate thread title:
Obama health care proposal ensures dancers will have health insurance!!!
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Or "You will pay for health insurance."
I think this is going to turn into a bigger scheme than home insurance in Florida.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Obama health care proposal ensures dancers will have health insurance
this is perhaps true, with a big BUT ! That but is that the dancers will be given the choice of spending perhaps $ 4000 per year out of their own pocket for private health insurance coverage, or a choice of spending $1100 per year on the new 'no health insurance' tax penalty ! If the dancer's personal financial situation is such that she can't afford the $4000 private health insurance premium, then she'll be $1100 poorer and still won't have any health insurance coverage.
Oh there is one other choice ... to earn less than $43,000 per year ( at which point the 'no medical insurance' penalty goes away and also the gov't begins to kick in towards the cost of private health insurance). And if she chooses to earn ( actually chooses to report ) an income level that doesn't exceed $14,400 per year she qualifies for 100% free Medicaid coverage.
The closest example cited at my link was as follows ...
(snip)"To summarize, under the House bill:
•Bob is a single 50-year old non-smoking small business employee who makes $50K per year before taxes and does not have health insurance.
•Bob cannot afford a $1,600 bare bones health insurance policy, much less a $3K — $5K [standard - sic] policy.
•Bob would get no subsidies under this bill, and his employer would face no penalty for not providing him with health insurance.
•Bob would end up without health insurance and would have to pay $1,150 more in taxes"(snip)
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
As a small business owner, Bob can re-invest in his business to a sufficient degree that his personal income drops below the level of forcing him to pay a no-insurance tax penalty and allows him the subsidies toward any health insurance purchase. For instance, Bob could create a home office, and write off the square footage of his home for business purposes, deducting that amount from the overall mortgage payments. Suddenly Bob has an extra $500 a month in business expenses and $500 a month less in personal income due to the home office expansion. (figures may vary. I based the example on a 1500 sq ft home w/ a $2000 a month mortgage and an office of about 300-400 sq ft).
The small business example is a flawed one. Small business owners can pay themselves whatever they want, and make the business pick up the slack on a lot of personal expenses, including health insurance. (Psst... dancers are small business owners)
Keep thinking, I'm sure someone will come up with something to point at that can justify why we can never have universal coverage in the US.;)
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Paris
As a small business owner, Bob can re-invest in his business to a sufficient degree that his personal income drops below the level of forcing him to pay a no-insurance tax penalty and allows him the subsidies toward any health insurance purchase. For instance, Bob could create a home office, and write off the square footage of his home for business purposes, deducting that amount from the overall mortgage payments. Suddenly Bob has an extra $500 a month in business expenses and $500 a month less in personal income due to the home office expansion. (figures may vary. I based the example on a 1500 sq ft home w/ a $2000 a month mortgage and an office of about 300-400 sq ft).
The small business example is a flawed one. Small business owners can pay themselves whatever they want, and make the business pick up the slack on a lot of personal expenses, including health insurance. (Psst... dancers are small business owners)
Keep thinking, I'm sure someone will come up with something to point at that can justify why we can never have universal coverage in the US.;)
Bob is probably already doing that.
There are always going to be people who slip through the cracks. It is up to them to conform to what the system will want.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
We need some serious reform in our health care system. I am absolutely for the universal health care system. The sad part is that people who oppose the universal health care most are the ones who need it the most.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deogol
There are always going to be people who slip through the cracks. It is up to them to conform to what the system will want.
Well of course it would be impossible to be able to cover every contingency. Personally I'm in favor of the tax proposal for health insurance benefits. Of course those that are highly opposed to this tax are the people that have awesome insurance. In Portland, Tri-met (public transit) employees get health insurance coverage that costs an average of $1900 a month per employee. Besides, other benefits are taxed as income, such as vacation pay, sick pay and retirement income (taxed after being paid out, but taxed just the same).
Taxing insurance benefits from an employer will encourage employees to shop around for better insurance deals, and break the strangle hold that employers have on their people--people staying in jobs for the insurance benefits despite hating the job or the low wages etc. I think that simple move in combination with a public option will spur entrepreneurial growth in this county and push us into the next economic boom cycle.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
^^^ Yes there are certainly possibilities for self-employed independent contractor dancers to take pre-emptive economic action in order to minimize the actual effect of this new tax. As you point out, if they properly structure their business, there are various business expense tax deductions available which could potentially reduce the amount of 'income' their business pays to them below the $43,000 point where the new 2.5% 'no health insurance' tax penalty would kick in. Or better yet, if they are earning enough money to afford doing so, they may be able to take advantage of various new federal or state health care grants / subsidies to small businesses ... and escape the new 2.5% 'no health insurance' tax penalty by actually buying health insurance coverage for themselves.
But all of these options involve two things ... the dancer 'jumping through the necessary hoops' to structure, operate and account for her small business in a manner that is compatible with gov't requirements, and the dancer spending more money out of pocket than she formerly had to ( albeit she may wind up with health insurance coverage as a result of that additional out of pocket spending ). While StripperWeb dancers are an obvious exception, I wonder how many real world dancers will be in a position to take these actions.
Arguably, in the real world, the institution of this new 2.5% 'no health insurance' tax penalty will serve as just one more excuse for dancers to continue to try and 'fly below the radar'.
Also, in the real world there are states that consider dancers to be 'statutory employees' ... where the option of dancers using business expense tax deductions to offset the 'no health insurance' tax penalty would not exist. In fact, in states that consider dancers to be 'statutory employees', it may very well be the clubowner who gets hit with the 'no health insurance' tax penalty rather than the dancers ... at which point the dancers will see their earnings reduced by the club rather than by the IRS to 'pay' for health insurance coverage they still won't have.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
But all of these options involve two things ... the dancer 'jumping through the necessary hoops' to structure, operate and account for her small business in a manner that is compatible with gov't requirements, and the dancer spending more money out of pocket than she formerly had to ( albeit she may wind up with health insurance coverage as a result of that additional out of pocket spending ). While StripperWeb dancers are an obvious exception, I wonder how many real world dancers will be in a position to take these actions.
It is not that difficult. I was 18 years old and managed to figure out how to structure my dancing like a business. It's not all that tough. Open a business bank account. Deposit your receipts in it nightly. If you need money, write a check to yourself from the business account. Write checks for dancing expenses out of the business account. If someone won't take a check, make sure you get a receipt for cash/credit card payments. (Receipts are important even if you write a check.) Of course, if you use your personal credit card or cash, reimburse yourself for the expense from the business account by writing a check. File quarterly tax returns and pay as appropriate. At the end of the year, file a schedule C along with your regular 1040 and pay or get a refund from the Treasury.
Quote:
....Also, in the real world there are states that consider dancers to be 'statutory employees' ... where the option of dancers using business expense tax deductions to offset the 'no health insurance' tax penalty would not exist.
Actually, statutory employees report their income on Schedule C and they get all the Schedule C deductions. ::)
HTH
Z
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hockeybobby
Alternate thread title:
Obama health care proposal ensures dancers will have health insurance!!!
Dancers are definitely a group of people that the health insurance world wants to bring into the risk pool since they tend to be in relatively good health and have relatively fewer claims. With dancers in the pool that is that many more people to pay premiums who don't use much health care.
XOXO
Z
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Just to clarify, this is not "Obama's" health plan. The information is from H.R. 3200 and is written by John D. Dingel of MI with co-sponsors
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 7/14/2009
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 7/16/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 7/17/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 7/14/2009
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 7/14/2009
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 7/14/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 7/14/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 7/14/2009
Also, it is important to note that the 2.5% income tax penalty has exemptions. Some of which include exemptions of American's living abroad, citizens of American territories and religious exemptions.
I found where the real fight is going to come from in this bill; the tax increase on Americans earning $350,000 or more gross adjusted income per year. The tax is going to be and additional 5.4% on people earning over $1mil a year but only 1.5% on $999,999-500,000 a year and 1% on $350,000-4999,000 a year.
This bill isn't done and is going through changes everyday. Not until it gets to the floor for a vote can we really say what is going to be in the final version. Until then, if you are suffering insomnia, I highly recommend reading the text of this bill as a cure.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Well, awkward to say, and difficult to admit - but, what if said dancers have raked in under the 20,000 mark this year.
(In my case, well under... This is what savings is for...) And, please don't give me the "you can earn so much more" bit. I just don't want to hear how much (other) dancers are making nowadays.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
That is true. But if you’re a single person with income of $44,000 or higher, then you’re above 400% of the poverty line. You would not be subsidized, but would face the punitive tax if you didn’t get health insurance. This bill leaves an important gap between the subsidies and the cost of health insurance. CBO says that for about eight million people, that gap is too big to close, and they would get stuck paying higher taxes and still without health insurance."(snip)
from
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/07/14...the-uninsured/
That depends on whether they determine the poverty line by the national level or the state level. Some states have higher poverty lines than others. I think for SCHIP, they based the poverty line on the state level. New Yorkers with much higher income levels qualify for SCHIP than people in other states with lower costs of living.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
likewow
Congratulations, you've just demonstrated the number one thing conservatives hate about liberals: you think you know what's best for people better than they themselves do.
Your statement is much more applicable to conservatives than liberals. Conservatives are constantly telling others they what's best for them and how they should live their lives. Conservatives tell teenagers and even adults, they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage. Conservatives tell same-sex couples who are in love with each other that they can't get married. Conservatives tell adults not to watch pornography. Conservatives tell women not to get abortions while at the same time they fight to cut funding to help poor women feed their children and provide medical care.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
trying to maintain some element of financial focus ...
- the fact remains that the US national health care proposal will arguably cost dancers more money out of pocket ...
- in one scenario this amounts to charging dancers an extra 2.5% of their taxable incomes to pay for other people's health insurance, while still not receiving any health insurance benefits themselves
Quote:
what if said dancers have raked in under the 20,000 mark this year
Technically speaking, any dancer with a reported income this low already HAS gov't funded health insurance coverage ... in the form of MedicAid eligibility.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
... and more and more of the 'hidden details' are starting to come into view ...
(snip)"Obama Caught Lying to Congress and Nation about Health Care Reform
Barack Obama makes Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton look honest
by Bill Levinson
We previously cited a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that openly, albeit politely, contends with evidence that Barack Obama is lying about his health care reform proposal. We have since then seen three additional opinion pieces, all in the prestigious Wall Street Journal, that use language like “obfuscate” and “simply not credible” to describe the President’s statements. We meanwhile reported in 2008 that Barack Obama lied to his own church, the United Church of Christ, when he promised that he would not misuse the church’s tax exempt resources to promote his campaign.
We have heard various talk radio show hosts attack Obama’s health care plan with cries of “Socialism,” but talk radio is a lot like professional wrestling; you have to know what parts are real (the acrobatics and stunt fighting) and what parts are not (the proposition that the wrestling is actually a contest in which the winner is not known ahead of time). Talk radio is similarly a combination of actual news and bombastic entertainment. The Wall Street Journal is not talk radio, and its readers do not pay $250 or more a year to read the kind of hyperbole and exaggeration they can get from talk radio or the headlines of various tabloids. When the WSJ’s distinguished writers and contributors use language like “obfuscate” and “simply not credible,” they are openly calling the President of the United States a liar; a position with which we agree.
To recap, this is from “Repealing ERISA” in the July 21 Wall Street Journal.
One by one, President Obama’s health-care promises are being exposed by the details of the actual legislation: Costs will explode, not fall; taxes will have to soar to pay for it; and now we are learning that you won’t be able to “keep your health-care plan” either…. So when Mr. Obama says that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” he’s wrong. Period. What he’s not telling the American people is that the government will so dramatically change the rules of the insurance market that employers will find it impossible to maintain their current coverage…
In somewhat cruder but more to the point language, Barack Obama lied to the people who elected him when he said they could keep their current health care plans if they did not want to go with the government plans. John Fund’s “Health Reform’s Hidden Victims” (July 24, page A15) adds,
President Barack Obama’s health-care sales pitch depends on his ability to obfuscate who is likely to get hurt by reform. At Wednesday’s news conference, for example, he was asked “specifically what kind of pain and sacrifice” he would ask of patients in order to achieve the cost savings he promises.
He insisted he “won’t reduce Medicare benefits” but instead would “make delivery more efficient.” The most Mr. Obama would concede is that some people will have to “give up paying for things that don’t make you healthier.” That is simply not credible.
Native Americans might phrase this far more simply as, “Obama speaks with forked tongue.” Peggy Noonan’s “Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare” (July 25, page A13) adds,
His news conference the other night was bad. He was filibustery and spinny and gave long and largely unfollowable answers that seemed aimed at limiting the number of questions asked and running out the clock. You don’t do that when you’re fully confident. Far more seriously, he didn’t seem to be telling the truth. We need to create a new national health-care program in order to cut down on government spending? Who would believe that? Would anybody?
“Government Care’s Assault on Seniors” (July 24) adds that the Obama health care agenda is actually an attack on the country’s senior citizens:
By Betsy McCaughey
Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.
The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.
“He didn’t seem to be telling the truth.” “Who would believe that?” “His ability to obfuscate.” “This is simply not credible.” “What he’s not telling the American people…” All these statements go far beyond a mere difference opinion over Obama’s health care plan and its likely effectiveness. They state in no uncertain terms that Barack Obama is lying to the United States, the Congress of the United States, and even the Democratic Party to push his agenda. We must therefore wonder what else he has lied about both before and after his election to the Presidency (e.g. the Clean Energy and Security Act). The bottom line is that the country simply cannot trust this individual and, until we fix our collective mistake in November 2012, must find ways to work around him to improve health care, the economy, and the security of the United States."(snip)
from
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
The bottom line is that the country simply cannot trust this individual and, until we fix our collective mistake in November 2012, must find ways to work around him to improve health care, the economy, and the security of the United States."(snip)
Bottom line is: electing Obama was the best move the country could have made to improve health care, the economy, and the security of the United States...regardless of all the catterwalling and hot air coming from the right wing.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
this is perhaps true, with a big BUT ! That but is that the dancers will be given the choice of spending perhaps $ 4000 per year out of their own pocket for private health insurance coverage, or a choice of spending $1100 per year on the new 'no health insurance' tax penalty ! If the dancer's personal financial situation is such that she can't afford the $4000 private health insurance premium, then she'll be $1100 poorer and still won't have any health insurance coverage.
Oh there is one other choice ... to earn less than $43,000 per year ( at which point the 'no medical insurance' penalty goes away and also the gov't begins to kick in towards the cost of private health insurance). And if she chooses to earn ( actually chooses to report ) an income level that doesn't exceed $14,400 per year she qualifies for 100% free Medicaid coverage.
The closest example cited at my link was as follows ...
(snip)"To summarize, under the House bill:
•Bob is a single 50-year old non-smoking small business employee who makes $50K per year before taxes and does not have health insurance.
•Bob cannot afford a $1,600 bare bones health insurance policy, much less a $3K — $5K [standard - sic] policy.
•Bob would get no subsidies under this bill, and his employer would face no penalty for not providing him with health insurance.
•Bob would end up without health insurance and would have to pay $1,150 more in taxes"(snip)
You're greatly exaggerating the cost of private health insurance. Even your article states that you can get a bare bones health insurance policy for $1,600, which is not unaffordable for someone making $50k.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
here's another new 'wrinkle' ... no pun intended !
(snip)"DON'T GO THERE: DEMS EYE 10% TAX ON BOTOX, COSMETIC SURGERY
Mon Jul 27 2009 17:18:00 ET
Face-lifts, tummy tucks and hair transplants could be hit with a new tax to help finance the trillion-dollar healthcare overhaul plan, CONGRESS DAILY reports.
The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10% excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes.
DAILY's Peter Cohn reveals: The idea was broached in a meeting with OMB Director Orszag in mid-July, after which Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus told reporters he had heard some "interesting," "creative," and "kind of fun" ideas. "(snip)
This will add $500 to $1000 to the cost of a 'boob job', and wind up driving a fair amount of cosmetic surgery patients to Thailand !
Quote:
Even your article states that you can get a bare bones health insurance policy for $1,600, which is not unaffordable for someone making $50k
Only true in states which legally allow 'bare bones' health insurance. Many states mandate that health insurers cover psychological disorders, substance abuse treatment, and a host of other non-essential coverage areas which pushes the minimum cost of private health insurance way above the $1600 level.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
...Bob would end up without health insurance and would have to pay $1,150 more in taxes"(snip)
I'll support any health insurance program our new President wants under one condition:
He, his Cabinet, all nine Supreme Court Justices, and every U.S. representative and senator will be the first ones to enroll in whatever plan they establish! You can also add every politician and bureaucrat from the various state legislatures as well.
It's called "leading by example"!
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
I would pay 2.5 % of my income for health insurance, I get it, it's a "penalty" but I aassume these people are also entitled to universalle health care. That's a lot cheaper than if you have a "Regular" job and pay $75 a week (which I know many people do).
What I can not get on board with is a provision in the plan that Obama has set forth (not to one set forth by the Republicans or Congress or however many versions of the bill) that "earmark" or otherwise give priority in who gets Federal Grants (for medical research) to firms and programs with the most minorities. That is PURE bullshit. It should be dependant on the importance of the research (Say Alzhiemers or Cancer as opposed to another Viagra or Cialis) as well as CREDENTIALS> Will try to find an article later as I saw it on MSNBC and didn't read.
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
You're greatly exaggerating the cost of private health insurance. Even your article states that you can get a bare bones health insurance policy for $1,600, which is not unaffordable for someone making $50k.
And for the record, Bob makes $5OK before taxes. If he lives in Ocala Florida, maybe he can spend Over one hundred dollars a month (a pretty fair chunk of his income by the way) on health insurance. If he lives is Boston, taxachusetts, what is his take home pay? I'm sure his health insurance costs more there also..
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gia2608
If he lives is Boston, taxachusetts, what is his take home pay? I'm sure his health insurance costs more there also..
Massachusetts already has laws mandating everyone must have insurance. According to the following article, a middle class individual could purchase insurance for as low as $109 a month.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1414.cfm
-
Re: Obama health care proposal would increase taxes on dancers by 2.5% !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
Your statement is much more applicable to conservatives than liberals. Conservatives are constantly telling others they what's best for them and how they should live their lives. Conservatives tell teenagers and even adults, they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage. Conservatives tell same-sex couples who are in love with each other that they can't get married. Conservatives tell adults not to watch pornography. Conservatives tell women not to get abortions while at the same time they fight to cut funding to help poor women feed their children and provide medical care.
A statement from a true lib. I strongly disagree...Conservatives don't "tell" other people what they can and cannot do anymore than the left does. We have our beliefs just like you do. The left has just always thought that we don't have a right to express them. If we do, we are called biggots or racists or told we are wrong or stupid...Typical.
If people didn't have sex before marriage, I'm sure there would be a lot less un-planned pregnancies with people who are not financially or personally mature for the job of parenting (another drain on our healthcare system).
Conservatives don't tell same sex couples they can't get married...they are just stating that they don't agree with it. They don't want their children to be taught (by the mainly liberal public school system) that being gay is "okay" if they believe it isn't. If anyone is "telling" anyone anything, it's all the liberals in California pushing their agenda's. Telling young kids (who aren't old enough to even know what sex is) to accept and tolerate that homosexuality is normal is just plain wrong, especially when they don't even know anything about it yet. In the past, those tactics have been called "brainwashing." Wait until they are grown up enough to see both sides objectively and THEN they will make their own decision.
(Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I think being gay is wrong b/c I don't. I'm just stating that people have a right to their own opinion and if it's different than someone else's, so what? Differences are what make the world go round. However, the left always sets out to squash any opposition but at the same time, they say we are the worst offenders! We just want a choice! In this example, parents have a right to determine what their kids are being taught in school, regardless of the subject matter.)
As mentioned above, Parents have a right to decide what information their kids are exposed to, especially in the public schools they are overpaying for. To nip that in the bud, Obama (the left) is also screwing with our schools in an effort to indoctrinate as many young minds as he can with his leftist views. Is he not trying to "tell" parents where they can and can't send their kids to school via a cap on the number of charter schools that are allowed to operate? The main reason for this is b/c charter schools have little to do with the way traditional public education systems work ie: teaching independent thought. They always turn out some of our brightest minds, but that is of little use to someone who's ultimate goal is to turn us all into "equals" and eliminate any successfull free-thinking over-achievers. The best way to take over a society is to dumb them down. Obviously this has already begun.
Here's a good read: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03242009...nge_161012.htm
Conservatives do not directly oppose pornography...some religious groups do. Whether they politically identify with the left or the right makes no difference. If it was true that all people on the right didn't agree with porn, they wouldn't come spend money in our clubs. I'm not saying that dancers are the equivalent of live pornography, but nonetheless, we are in the adult business...that said, I've never met a wealthy VIP member that wasn't Republican. We like to keep the money we make and spend it how we choose. We don't want to be told by anyone what programs we HAVE to fund, that we have to pay for healthcare for the masses, or anything else for that matter. I don't owe some non-working bum a dime of my money to put toward his healthcare b/c he's too lazy to get a job. Nor do I need to pay for the healthcare of all the illegals flooding our borders.
Conservatives do not necessarily oppose abortions...again, some religious groups do. Mainly, they preach safety and abstinence. There are quite a few people on both sides that agree and disagree about this. It never should have been a political issue in the first place, but a lot of republicans are religious, therefore attacking us with the abortion debate to vilify us and further the leftist agenda is common. But, you gotta ask, why is practicing safe sex/no sex in the first place a bad thing? That's the main message they are trying to send out anyway. Maybe if everyone listened to them, we wouldn't be seeing this:
"A CDC study released last March estimated that one in four teens in the U.S. between the ages of 14-19 is infected with at least one STD."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/145535.php
The longer we sit here having silly conversations like this thinking everything is black or white, the faster our Country will fail. We have to realize that to succeed, opposition is healthy, debating is healthy, but its time to lay down party lines and work together to uphold our Constitution and kick the bums out that are working so diligently to keep us divided. They know that a united Country is a strong country. They want to keep us on our knees long enough to get things under their control. If they pass this healthcare, we will never be able to reverse it...when you are old, you will be considered a drain on the system and will be cast aside. When that happens, you will wish for the good ole' days of America and the Capitalism that made this great Nation what it is.
How will you answer when your children ask you why you didn't fight for your country? What will you say when $.58+ of each dollar your child earns is going back to the govt to pay for all these new things you let happen? How will you explain that to them? Will you still tell them it was all a great idea? That you wanted them to work like dogs only to keep nothing? It won't stop here...some people may benefit from this healthcare package, but not the "vast" majority Obama has everyone thinking it will. Don't fall for the lies. Get involved.