Rush Limbaugh, the original American Idiot.

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535437
Avoiding that pesky capital gains tax I see.....hmmmmm...interesting
No, but due to loosened regulation they are able to extract that fracking oil. Thus creating more jobs. It isn't that the conservatives knew where the dinosaurs were going to die, it is that they understand the need for jobs and job creation. This allowing fracking to go on in their state....California just now started allowing fracking....that is the difference. Texas was ahead of the curve....and everyone else is slowly following.But see it just isn't fracking. It is their low tax rate on businesses. Ebay, At&T, Time warner, electronic arts, and Accenture have all set up shop in Texas recently...due to their lowered taxes. Geico which was started in Texas is expanding their local offices. Cognizant is moving its headquarters to Texas. Facebook and Apple are doing major expansions in texas. From 1990 to 2010 1.4 businesses a week left california for Texas. Itisn't Just fracking causing the boom.
The fourth amendment.
The American government is collecting and storing virtually every phone call, purchases, email, text message, internet searches, social media communications, health information, employment history, travel and student records, and virtually all other information of every American. The American government is collecting some 100 billion 1,000-character emails per day, and 20 trillion communications of all types per year. The government has collected all of the communications of congressional leaders, generals and everyone else in the U.S. for the last 10 years.
The TSA has moved way past airports, trains and sports stadiums, and is deploying mobile scanners to spy on people all over the place. This means that traveling within the United States is no longer a private affair. (And they’re probably bluffing, but the Department of Homeland Security claims they will soon be able to know your adrenaline level, what you ate for breakfast and what you’re thinking … from 164 feet away.)
And Verizon has applied for a patent that would allow your television to track what you are doing, who you are with, what objects you’re holding, and what type of mood you’re in. Given Verizon and other major carriers responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011, such information would not be kept private.
So the fourth amendment should be a good starting point for the discussion.
That was a nice anectodatal story. I could give you several of the opposite perspective, including my own (yes I have a preexisting condition due to three partial pneumothorax). However you are highlighting a couple good things in the what is generally a poorly written and horrible law on a grand scale. This is akin to saying Osama Bin Laden was good person because he once kissed a few babies, and hugged his many wives three times a day.
Touching on your fetus comment. You clearly do not see a fetus as a baby. So therefore this discussion can not be debated since we do not agree on the premise of when life begins. Therefore the discussion of "personal freedom" can not be had since we hold two different views of what makes up a human being and when their natural rights begin as a human. Touching on homosexuality...No one has ever stated a man should not love another man or a woman should not love another woman. I love my father and and my brother. Just because someone loves someone does not mean they should be allowed to marry. If I love my sister, should I be able to marry her? Live with her sure. Marry her...no. When it comes to "love" is there a moral line that needs to be maintained?
Concerning you comment on ecolli or slamonelli. These are disease that can wipe out a population if not monitored and tested for...Thus fall under the category of defense. As to Hurricanes and Tornadoes...floods...and other natural dissasters....the clean up and rebuilding falls under "infrastructure"..
If you mean writing checks and not caring about balances...You and I seem to agree.
Though I do benefit from the tax incentives by purchasing real estate abroad, it has more to do with buying high demand real estate at a low cost, then utilizing that property as a constant income generator by renting the property out as vacation homes. I purchased a 2 bedroom bungalow located inland on Grand Cayman for under $250,000. It's not beachfront, but I have it rented out at 80% capacity for $150/night. Takes maybe 10 minutes to direct beach access.

As far as low tax rates for businesses in Texas? That normally only applies to these Fortune 100/500 companies you described. It's a huge benefit for the businesses, but sucks for the Texas citizens because we pay the extra taxes in sales and property taxes so these companies can receive huge tax abatements. I remember reading about when Toyota selected San Antonio for their new Tundra plant. San Antonio gave them a $25+ million tax abatement for going there with the promise of future growth. I have friends who live there, and they said that most positions in the plant pay around $15/hour, and they've had several shut downs and very little growth. Several of the companies that moved their as suppliers have shut down, the surrounding area was supposed to have all these feeder businesses like grocery and other shopping stores, plus several new housing communities. When they first opened, I looked at several properties, but the prices had already ballooned to where they weren't worth the investment turnaround. Looking today, the majority of those properties are still undeveloped with no plans to build anytime soon. The majority of the positions are low-paying Call Center jobs that pay anywhere between $10 - $12/hour. Although Texas doesn't have a state income tax, we have some of the highest sales tax rates, and property taxes are through the roof.

You apparently have been watching too many Fox News stories. The NSA has stated they do collect phone numbers and what certain numbers are calling who. However, they aren't listening into phone calls, they don't have someone sitting around reading your emails, text messages, or what you post on this forum. The entire premise behind collecting that information would apply to your "defense requirements" whereby they want to avert from another 9/11 happening again. You have employees at Google and Microsoft that have more access to your personal data than the Feds. You use Google+, Yahoo mail, Hotmail, or any other online social media? That information is more susceptible to getting hacked and retrieved than anything the government keeps. You even stated Verizon is trying to get some patent to track your every move. What does that have to do with your 4th Amendment rights? The government has nothing to do with that.

Your analogy of Bin Laden is quite strange. Yes, there are many fallacies with how ACA was written and created. But that can be expected when you're trying to create a healthcare plan that provides some form of healthcare coverage for over 280 million citizens. Of course it's going to have loopholes, pitfalls, and items that fall through the cracks. However, it was at least some viable attempt to get our obvious healthcare issues under control. The existing system isn't working, and only benefits these healthcare conglomerates who raise their rates at least 5% every year. People complain that it's penalizing the rich and benefiting the poor, However, we pay for these individuals who can't afford regular health insurance because they simply go to their local ER and get free services that we pay for with our taxes. At least with ACA, some of the cost burden is going towards those individuals. The Republicans had the opportunity to develop some viable plan since Clinton attempted his version of ACA back when he was in office, and they simply left everything status quo. Manly because of the PAC kickbacks they receive form those healthcare conglomerates.

As for abortion? Yes, we can agree to disagree. The debate with continue as to who has more rights - the mother or the fetus. However, it's not the governments right to decide. That's between the mother and God (if she chooses to believe in one). You chastise government intrusion in your life, but you seem to want to make exceptions based on your moral principles. Sorry, but the country isn't governed by morality. We can't make laws based on someone's religious and moral beliefs.

You apparently don't comprehend the constructs of a homosexual relationship. Homosexuals see someone of the same sex as a heterosexual sees a man or woman. There are no incestual desires, it has absolutely nothing to do with perversion. It's the same loving relationship you would have with your wife. Again, you want to base it on YOUR moral values. Why should your moral values take precedent over anyone else's?

You honestly want to say that "defending" against diseases and natural disasters fall under the definition US Defense? So now the Pentagon should be responsible for insuring our safety against food pathogens or relief after a natural disaster? Now that's a stretch.

 

[darthtang aw]

Though I do benefit from the tax incentives by purchasing real estate abroad, it has more to do with buying high demand real estate at a low cost, then utilizing that property as a constant income generator by renting the property out as vacation homes.  I purchased a 2 bedroom bungalow located inland on Grand Cayman for under $250,000.  It's not beachfront, but I have it rented out at 80% capacity for $150/night.  Takes maybe 10 minutes to direct beach access.
Still doesn't change the fact you are using the same exact tax loopholes you complain about the rich getting.

As far as low tax rates for businesses in Texas?  That normally only applies to these Fortune 100/500 companies you described.  It's a huge benefit for the businesses, but sucks for the Texas citizens because we pay the extra taxes in sales and property taxes so these companies can receive huge tax abatements.  I remember reading about when Toyota selected San Antonio for their new Tundra plant.  San Antonio gave them a $25+ million tax abatement for going there with the promise of future growth.  I have friends who live there, and they said that most positions in the plant pay around $15/hour, and they've had several shut downs and very little growth.  Several of the companies that moved their as suppliers have shut down, the surrounding area was supposed to have all these feeder businesses like grocery and other shopping stores, plus several new housing communities. When they first opened, I looked at several properties, but the prices had already ballooned to where they weren't worth the investment turnaround.  Looking today, the majority of those properties are still undeveloped with no plans to build anytime soon.  The majority of the positions are low-paying Call Center jobs that pay anywhere between $10 - $12/hour.  Although Texas doesn't have a state income tax, we have some of the highest sales tax rates, and property taxes are through the roof.

Your state sales tax is at 6.25% The average in the country is 6% California is the worst with 7,5%. Propoerty tax Texase is the third worse. I will grant you that. However there are 41 states that have an income tax. Your property taxes compensate for the lack of income tax. You should be happy with this system. As the more property a person has the more taxes they pay. meaning poor and those not well to do receive the greatest tax breaks in Texas. In a sense, by gaining revenue through property tax the state is in effect targeting the most affluent in the state and giving those less forunate a tax break. Isn't this what you want with the basic tax code anyway?
You have listed a few instances of minimal growth and job creation on the part of a few companies. However this is NOT the norm as you are attempting to lead it to be believed. Would you rather have half the businesses in Texas and not give any "tax breaks"? This seems counter productive...as then these companies would not be paying payroll taxes to the fed. Thus more people would be unemployed and not paying any taxes....
You apparently have been watching too many Fox News stories.  The NSA has stated they do collect phone numbers and what certain numbers are calling who.  However, they aren't listening into phone calls, they don't have someone sitting around reading your emails, text messages, or what you post on this forum.  The entire premise behind collecting that information would apply to your "defense requirements" whereby they want to avert from another 9/11 happening again.  You have employees at Google and Microsoft that have more access to your personal data than the Feds.  You use Google+, Yahoo mail, Hotmail, or any other online social media?  That information is more susceptible to getting hacked and retrieved than anything the government keeps.  You even stated Verizon is trying to get some patent to track your every move.  What does that have to do with your 4th Amendment rights?  The government has nothing to do with that.
Collecting data to read after the fact seems counter productive. A bomb goes off in texas capital....the fbi/cia/HS go through their collected data and all say yep, they discussed this attack in email....sorry we just collected the data, we werent actually reading it. If you believe that then you will believe anything...As to Verizon...I do believe it is the government issuing patents is it not. Would this patent not violate my fourth amendment right?

Your analogy of Bin Laden is quite strange.  Yes, there are many fallacies with how ACA was written and created.  But that can be expected when you're trying to create a healthcare plan that provides some form of healthcare coverage for over 280 million citizens.  Of course it's going to have loopholes, pitfalls, and items that fall through the cracks.  However, it was at least some viable attempt to get our obvious healthcare issues under control.  The existing system isn't working, and only benefits these healthcare conglomerates who raise their rates at least 5% every year.  People complain that it's penalizing the rich and benefiting the poor,  However, we pay for these individuals who can't afford regular health insurance because they simply go to their local ER and get free services that we pay for with our taxes.  At least with ACA, some of the cost burden is going towards those individuals.  The Republicans had the opportunity to develop some viable plan since Clinton attempted his version of ACA back when he was in office, and they simply left everything status quo.  Manly because of the PAC kickbacks they receive form those healthcare conglomerates.

It isn't penalizing the rich...and no one is complaining about the. The complaint is steming from the middle class....You know that class you have commented on being taxed and squeezed more than their share. The rich already have excellent healthcare. Their costs did not go up significantly to where it is unaffordable for them. Mine has now doubled. The healthcare conglomarates are only against part of the bill....A small part of the bill...primarily the regulator portion. They love the idea that everyone must purchase healthcare...why wouldn't they? The government just gave them a revenue boost. And they also forced everyone into coverages they may not need. I can not have anymore children...so my wife and I do not need birth control nor do we need maternity coverage, especially since I doubt my 10 year old son can become pregnant. yet I have to have this coverage. The majority of americans do not need substance abuse coverage...yet they are required to have this. The ONLY aspect of the bill that does any good is the preexisting coverage aspect....however this only applies to a small percentage of the population. In one year you will see that businesses will find it cheaper to pay the tax penalty than carry insurance coverage.If they do retain the coverage option, their portion of the coverage they pay for the employee will either be reduced or non existant. Thus millions more will lose their coverage...millions of the middle class. Thus creating the middle class to be taxed more or squeezed more due to rising healthcare costs due to overly bloated plans created by the law. Even with the subsidy, most of the middle class is seeing a significant cost increase.
You say atleast it attempts something. Sometimes it is better to attempt something slowly and actually discuss it at length...especially a 20000 page bill. You had democrats plug stuff in unknown to other democrats. There are actually sections of the law that contradict each other. since two different senators were working on separate parts and not discussing openly in the effort to ram it through quickly. Lets not even addrtess the cost to the tax payer at this point...as that is a separate issue all together.

As for abortion?  Yes, we can agree to disagree.  The debate with continue as to who has more rights - the mother or the fetus.  However, it's not the governments right to decide.  That's between the mother and God (if she chooses to believe in one).  You chastise government intrusion in your life, but you seem to want to make exceptions based on your moral principles.  Sorry, but the country isn't governed by morality.  We can't make laws based on someone's religious and moral beliefs.
You say it isn't governed on morality...yet isn't the healthcare bill a moral law at its root. The belief everyone has a right to healthcare. Is that not the moral thing to do...treat those that are sick?

You apparently don't comprehend the constructs of a homosexual relationship.  Homosexuals see someone of the same sex as a heterosexual sees a man or woman.  There are no incestual desires, it has absolutely nothing to do with perversion.  It's the same loving relationship you would have with your wife.  Again, you want to base it on YOUR moral values.  Why should your moral values take precedent over anyone else's?

I have nothing against homosexual people nor their life style. I have several homosexual couples that we hangout with regularly. My point is, the argument is love and do those in love have the right to be married. it is that simple.....Whether it be same sex, child adult...father daughter.....if they love each other do they have the right to marry? A father and daughter might look at each other in the same manner my wife and I do and a homosexual couple do.
You honestly want to say that "defending" against diseases and natural disasters fall under the definition US Defense?  So now the Pentagon should be responsible for insuring our safety against food pathogens or relief after a natural disaster?  Now that's a stretch.

Defense is a broad term and not just under taken by the Pentagon. Defense of our rights, defense of our constitution, and defense of our lives. Do diseases and contaminated food threaten any of those things I listed?

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/60#post_3535456
Still doesn't change the fact you are using the same exact tax loopholes you complain about the rich getting.
Your state sales tax is at 6.25% The average in the country is 6% California is the worst with 7,5%. Propoerty tax Texase is the third worse. I will grant you that. However there are 41 states that have an income tax. Your property taxes compensate for the lack of income tax. You should be happy with this system. As the more property a person has the more taxes they pay. meaning poor and those not well to do receive the greatest tax breaks in Texas. In a sense, by gaining revenue through property tax the state is in effect targeting the most affluent in the state and giving those less forunate a tax break. Isn't this what you want with the basic tax code anyway?
That 6.25% is only the state part. Local cities tack on another 2% - 3%. The poor and lower class pay the same property tax rates as the rich. If they have rental property, the tax is rolled into their payment. If you have a state income tax, you can leverage your taxes more easily. Retiring in Texas is a poor option.
You have listed a few instances of minimal growth and job creation on the part of a few companies. However this is NOT the norm as you are attempting to lead it to be believed. Would you rather have half the businesses in Texas and not give any "tax breaks"? This seems counter productive...as then these companies would not be paying payroll taxes to the fed. Thus more people would be unemployed and not paying any taxes....
Collecting data to read after the fact seems counter productive. A bomb goes off in texas capital....the fbi/cia/HS go through their collected data and all say yep, they discussed this attack in email....sorry we just collected the data, we werent actually reading it. If you believe that then you will believe anything...As to Verizon...I do believe it is the government issuing patents is it not. Would this patent not violate my fourth amendment right?
It isn't penalizing the rich...and no one is complaining about the. The complaint is steming from the middle class....You know that class you have commented on being taxed and squeezed more than their share. The rich already have excellent healthcare. Their costs did not go up significantly to where it is unaffordable for them. Mine has now doubled. The healthcare conglomarates are only against part of the bill....A small part of the bill...primarily the regulator portion. They love the idea that everyone must purchase healthcare...why wouldn't they? The government just gave them a revenue boost. And they also forced everyone into coverages they may not need. I can not have anymore children...so my wife and I do not need birth control nor do we need maternity coverage, especially since I doubt my 10 year old son can become pregnant. yet I have to have this coverage. The majority of americans do not need substance abuse coverage...yet they are required to have this. The ONLY aspect of the bill that does any good is the preexisting coverage aspect....however this only applies to a small percentage of the population. In one year you will see that businesses will find it cheaper to pay the tax penalty than carry insurance coverage.If they do retain the coverage option, their portion of the coverage they pay for the employee will either be reduced or non existant. Thus millions more will lose their coverage...millions of the middle class. Thus creating the middle class to be taxed more or squeezed more due to rising healthcare costs due to overly bloated plans created by the law. Even with the subsidy, most of the middle class is seeing a significant cost increase.
The Texas citizens don't always get a return on their money in regards to the tax abatements. There have been several companies that have come in and not lived up to their expectations in regards to job opportunities or wages. Texas gives away the farm in the hopes these companies will do as promised. So you're blaming the government for allowing Verizon or any other business to do whatever they want to advance their technologies to become more profitable? Seems a little hypocritical to me. You're against Big Government from intruding in your life, yet you want Big Government to intrude in the way a corporation does their business. Your bomb analogy is a little backwards. How manmy other bombs have ben averted because they have collected that data? You complain about all these products you don't need in your healthcare, yet those same products have always been included in every Corporate healthcare option provided to employees since their inception. That's how costs are kept down. If you want al-la-carte health insurance, you will pay double than you do today. Pre-existing a "small percentage"? I beg to differ. Your "crystal ball" perception is just conjection and supposition. Those against ACA are thge same one's that complain about the deficit not being reduce to newly implemented policies. You want immediate results which are impossible to attain due to the number of individuals both affect. It'll take more than a year to get all the bugs out of the system.

You say atleast it attempts something. Sometimes it is better to attempt something slowly and actually discuss it at length...especially a 20000 page bill. You had democrats plug stuff in unknown to other democrats. There are actually sections of the law that contradict each other. since two different senators were working on separate parts and not discussing openly in the effort to ram it through quickly. Lets not even addrtess the cost to the tax payer at this point...as that is a separate issue all together.
You say it isn't governed on morality...yet isn't the healthcare bill a moral law at its root. The belief everyone has a right to healthcare. Is that not the moral thing to do...treat those that are sick?
And you had Republicans plug in their pork barrel legislation as well. It happens with practically every bill that comes out of Congress.
I have nothing against homosexual people nor their life style. I have several homosexual couples that we hangout with regularly. My point is, the argument is love and do those in love have the right to be married. it is that simple.....Whether it be same sex, child adult...father daughter.....if they love each other do they have the right to marry? A father and daughter might look at each other in the same manner my wife and I do and a homosexual couple do.
Defense is a broad term and not just under taken by the Pentagon. Defense of our rights, defense of our constitution, and defense of our lives. Do diseases and contaminated food threaten any of those things I listed?
Again, your perception of "love" is misconstrued. There are different defintions of "love". You want to put them all in the same context, which you can't do. Do those in love have a right to be married? Seriously? So does this apply to heterosexual couples as well? Exactly what is your criteria for being alklowed to be married? The majority of Americans have accepted homosexual marriages. It's pathetic that a couple has to move to a different state simply so they can have a legal marriage. Yes the word defense has a broad term. However, in the context of the word when Phixer initially applied it, it was in the manner of MILITARY Defense. Phixer said all we need are "infrastructure and Defense". You twisted that word to apply to literally every government agency there is. So are you saying we don't need the FDA, Homeland Security, FCC, and other government agencies that protect the overall safety of our citizenry?

 

[darthtang aw]

Yes, and every other municipality in the country adds their percentage onto the sales tax. Your point? You claimed it was ridiculously high. I just showed it wasn't. My effective sales tax rate here is 8%. I also have to pay state income tax......sounds like you have the better deal to me.

The Texas citizens don't always get a return on their money in regards to the tax abatements. There have been several companies that have come in and not lived up to their expectations in regards to job opportunities or wages. Texas gives away the farm in the hopes these companies will do as promised.
So rather than give a tax break to move their business there you would rather they didn't? Then they decide to go elsewhere. Let me ask you something what is 100 percent of zero when compared to 50% of 100?

So you're blaming the government for allowing Verizon or any other business to do whatever they want to advance their technologies to become more profitable? Seems a little hypocritical to me. You're against Big Government from intruding in your life, yet you want Big Government to intrude in the way a corporation does their business. No, I did not say that. Government has the job to protect the constitutional freedoms of the country. Denying the Patent under constitutionality would be doing just that.Protecting individual freedoms.

Your bomb analogy is a little backwards. How manmy other bombs have ben averted because they have collected that data?

So you are now saying all the data collected is being looked at. Make up your mind.
You complain about all these products you don't need in your healthcare, yet those same products have always been included in every Corporate healthcare option provided to employees since their inception. That's how costs are kept down. If you want al-la-carte health insurance, you will pay double than you do today. Pre-existing a "small percentage"? I beg to differ. Your "crystal ball" perception is just conjection and supposition. Those against ACA are thge same one's that complain about the deficit not being reduce to newly implemented policies. You want immediate results which are impossible to attain due to the number of individuals both affect. It'll take more than a year to get all the bugs out of the system.

Most company health insurance plans, the company pays a portion of it. This is how the individual cost is kept down. The company just factors the health insurance cost into your employment cost. And Many companies do not have all this coverage in their plans. I had ala carte health insurance as I have to buy my own. By not wanting coverage in certain areas I was able to keep my cost down. Now my health insurance is doubled with a crappy deductible on top of it.
The president claimed up to half the country could loss their insurance due to pre existing conditions. This is a stretch. A government study holds it closer to 19-30% of the country. Out of that 19%-30%, 85% of those people have insurance through an employer. Thus excluding them from the denied coverage or more expensive coverage. This leaves roughly 5% of the population in the pre existing condition without insurance category.
15% of the country is uninsured. The ironic thing, about 70% of those people are eligible for medicaid but have never enrolled.
And you had Republicans plug in their pork barrel legislation as well. It happens with practically every bill that comes out of Congress.

I wasn't addressing the pork in the bill. I was addressing the implementation and adminstrative costs. As well as the fact senators didnt know what was being plug into the bill. And Just because republiicans do add pork to bills does not mean I support that either. The typical "well they do it" retort does not hold water. If that is the bulk of your defense on why you support billd such as this just because you tend to side with the authors in political view points, you my friend are part of the problem...not the solution. Acceptance because the other side did it is asinine.
When the government shutdown, I did not care all that much. I cared more when it was started back up, and the compromise was pork added to the bill for a select Republican Senator. This is not compromise, this is buying off the mob. Plain and simple.

Again, your perception of "love" is misconstrued. There are different defintions of "love". You want to put them all in the same context, which you can't do. Do those in love have a right to be married? Seriously? So does this apply to heterosexual couples as well? Exactly what is your criteria for being alklowed to be married? The majority of Americans have accepted homosexual marriages. It's pathetic that a couple has to move to a different state simply so they can have a legal marriage.
Sure, there are different definitions of love. But you still wont answer the question. If a father that "loves his daughter in the "I want to have babies with you" way of love and live together the rest of their life, should they be allowed to marry? I stated before, I am not against gay marriage. I am just curious how far and what society will accept as "legal" or "normal" or "OK".
Yes the word defense has a broad term. However, in the context of the word when Phixer initially applied it, it was in the manner of MILITARY Defense. Phixer said all we need are "infrastructure and Defense". You twisted that word to apply to literally every government agency there is. So are you saying we don't need the FDA, Homeland Security, FCC, and other government agencies that protect the overall safety of our citizenry?

I gave my point of view. Just because Phixer is a conservative, does not mean all conservatives agree or think the same way. You come off as liberal? Can I classffy you automatically with the likes of Pamela Anderson and PETA supports?
Darth (I know where the quote button is) tang

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/80#post_3535493
Yes, and every other municipality in the country adds their percentage onto the sales tax. Your point? You claimed it was ridiculously high. I just showed it wasn't. My effective sales tax rate here is 8%. I also have to pay state income tax......sounds like you have the better deal to me.
So rather than give a tax break to move their business there you would rather they didn't? Then they decide to go elsewhere. Let me ask you something what is 100 percent of zero when compared to 50% of 100?
No, I did not say that. Government has the job to protect the constitutional freedoms of the country. Denying the Patent under constitutionality would be doing just that.Protecting individual freedoms.
There's a viable limitation to the amount of tax abatement given to lure a business to your state. If the logic behind "giving the farm away" to a large business to have them move operations into a state, why doesn't every state do the same? Not sure where you live, but why isn't your state luring these businesses there if tax abatements are such a great deal?
So you are now saying all the data collected is being looked at. Make up your mind.
Most company health insurance plans, the company pays a portion of it. This is how the individual cost is kept down. The company just factors the health insurance cost into your employment cost. And Many companies do not have all this coverage in their plans. I had ala carte health insurance as I have to buy my own. By not wanting coverage in certain areas I was able to keep my cost down. Now my health insurance is doubled with a crappy deductible on top of it.
Not all data. Simply data that has been tagged as "suspect" in regards to known phone numbers used by terrorist organizations, or numbers from regions that have a high content of terrorist organizations. I personally could care less if the NSA or any other government agency had a history of my phone calls, simply because I have nothing to hide. How exactly has your "health insurance doubled with a crappy deductible on top of it"? Are you in an employer-based insurance plan, or is it simply an insurance policy purchased directly from a provider? Have you bothered to look at the healthcare.gov site and compare what you have now to what you can purchase on that program?
The president claimed up to half the country could loss their insurance due to pre existing conditions. This is a stretch. A government study holds it closer to 19-30% of the country. Out of that 19%-30%, 85% of those people have insurance through an employer. Thus excluding them from the denied coverage or more expensive coverage. This leaves roughly 5% of the population in the pre existing condition without insurance category.
15% of the country is uninsured. The ironic thing, about 70% of those people are eligible for medicaid but have never enrolled.
I wasn't addressing the pork in the bill. I was addressing the implementation and adminstrative costs. As well as the fact senators didnt know what was being plug into the bill. And Just because republiicans do add pork to bills does not mean I support that either. The typical "well they do it" retort does not hold water. If that is the bulk of your defense on why you support billd such as this just because you tend to side with the authors in political view points, you my friend are part of the problem...not the solution. Acceptance because the other side did it is asinine.
Medicaid? They can't sign up because several states, including Texas, refused the Federal aid to support Medicaid in those states. Our illiustrious Governor turned away billions in Federal dollars earmarked for Medicaid, and now 1 in 4 Texans have no access to that program. There will always be implementation and administrative costs in any new initiative created. So the individuals who spent countless months developing the ACA program shouldn't get paid for their work? The entire system is suppose to run magically on its own with no one administering or managing its operations?
When the government shutdown, I did not care all that much. I cared more when it was started back up, and the compromise was pork added to the bill for a select Republican Senator. This is not compromise, this is buying off the mob. Plain and simple.
Sure, there are different definitions of love. But you still wont answer the question. If a father that "loves his daughter in the "I want to have babies with you" way of love and live together the rest of their life, should they be allowed to marry? I stated before, I am not against gay marriage. I am just curious how far and what society will accept as "legal" or "normal" or "OK".
I gave my point of view. Just because Phixer is a conservative, does not mean all conservatives agree or think the same way. You come off as liberal? Can I classffy you automatically with the likes of Pamela Anderson and PETA supports?
So you didn't care that "one Republican Senator" almost caused our credit ranking to go to the point where we would be economically unviable to the rest of the world? How in the world can you compare a homosexual relationship to incest? What's next, the beastiality argument? I think it's amusing when someone whose obviously against gay marriages uses the old "I have good friends that are gay" to hide behind the guise they have nothing against gays. You do realize there are states that allow 16 year olds to get married to anyone that's older than them? So is this acceptable to you as long as its a heterosexual relationship? I honestly am not sure what your argument is. You say you have nothing against gay marriages, yet you seem to want to make justifications for why they shouldn't be allowed. Some homosexuals see heterosexual relationships as "wrong". But since they are the minority, and heterosexual relationships are considered "the norm" in all civilized societies, their ideologies are basically irrelevent. Look at the statistics at the number of homosexual relationships in this country, or worldwide, to these other relationships you want to put into the same category. If there were millions of father/daughter or mother/son relationships where these individuals felt they had a right to marry, our society may accept those types of marriages. However, there are scientific facts that show the effects of sexual relations in those relationships result in deformities and other major birth defects, which is why they are unnaceptable in most societies. In some countries, second and third cousins are allowed to marry. Do those fall into your "unallowable marriage" category? Back in the 50's and 60's, if a Black person were to try and have a relationship with a white counterpart, they'd get run out of town or even strung up. Now interracial marriages are the norm. As I stated before, the majority of Americans have become to accept homosexual relationships and legal marriages. There's no logical reason for essentially segregating them to specific parts of the country simply because they currently live in a region of the country where people can't get their minds out of the gutter or someone's bedroom.
Darth (I know where the quote button is) tang

 

[2quills]

Yes, and every other municipality in the country adds their percentage onto the sales tax. Your point? You claimed it was ridiculously high. I just showed it wasn't. My effective sales tax rate here is 8%. I also have to pay state income tax......sounds like you have the better deal to me.
It's not an all bad deal, actually. Property taxes are pretty high. They went up down here this year and they're going up again after the new year. Smart property investors know what to buy and what to stay away from. Our house that we purchased at the beginning of the year was effectively valued at twice what we payed for it. After a trip to the county tax assessors office with our deed in hand, paperwork showing what we paid for the house and a few bids of what it would cost to fix a few things we got our taxes cut in half. The investors we work with get the taxes lowered on all the property they purchase since it's most likely over valued to begin with.
In this market we could easily have flipped this house for a nice return. But we like it here for now.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/80#post_3535498
It's not an all bad deal, actually. Property taxes are pretty high. They went up down here this year and they're going up again after the new year. Smart property investors know what to buy and what to stay away from. Our house that we purchased at the beginning of the year was effectively valued at twice what we payed for it. After a trip to the county tax assessors office with our deed in hand, paperwork showing what we paid for the house and a few bids of what it would cost to fix a few things we got our taxes cut in half. The investors we work with get the taxes lowered on all the property they purchase since it's most likely over valued to begin with.
In this market we could easily have flipped this house for a nice return. But we like it here for now.
Fighting with some of these tax assessors are an effort in futility. I've had several of my properties valuation go up anywhere from 10%, up 30%. I made little or no improvements to these particular homes because they were clean to begin with. I wasn't flipping them, but using them as rental properties. When you go to these grievance meetings at the tax office, you're confronted by these elderly individuals that it's evident they have absolutely no experience in actual valuations of real estate properties. With them is this "professional appraiser" who has these spreadsheets that essentially list all the homes that had sold in the same area the previous year. He takes the lowest and the highest price per square foot of each of the homes sold, comes up with an average, then uses that value as the price per square foot for every other home in the selling area. I asked this appraiser where he got his data for homes sold, which he said came from MLS sales figures. The hook with that is that information is only accessible by a licensed realtor after the home was sold. I had access to that info, but the average taxpayer's only option is to contact a Realtor and see if they could obtain that information for them. I also asked did they factor in the improvements or additions the seller made prior to listing their homes, and he said that data wasn't available or a factor. I argued that it was, simply because someone could have bought a home for $150,000, did $50,000 in major improvements which depending on what those were (updated kitchen, bathroom, floors, painting, etc.) could raise the final valuation to $250,000 (I was laughing under my breath when I said this, since I do this all the time). I also argued that for me to get the appraisal price for the properties in question, I WOULD have to spend several thousand dollars in improvements to obtain it. If I put those houses on the market at the appraised value in the current condition, I'd wouldn't get one offer. The Boards response was, "Sorry, we have to go with the appraisers valuation. You can repeal this decision and take the matter to Civil Court, but all court costs will be your responsibility." The secret to flipping homes is to purchase right after the annual property valuations occur, fix it up, sell it at the increased value, then don't purchase any other homes in that area for several years. If no other properties are sold in the area, and several of the homeowners contest their valuations went up due to one or two recent home sales, then the valuations will eventually go back down.

 

[darthtang aw]

Ugh...reading your post would give the headless horseman a migraine. Could you please separate topics within para graphs and figure out how to separate quotes...or atleast change your response to a different color. Then I will respond...as you clearly are twisting things and missing my point.
I will leave you one bit of info. Yes I looked at the healthcare site (when I finally got through). Yes my healthcare is doubling............

 

[2quills]

Fighting with some of these tax assessors are an effort in futility.  I've had several of my properties valuation go up anywhere from 10%, up 30%.  I made little or no improvements to these particular homes because they were clean to begin with.  I wasn't flipping them, but using them as rental properties. When you go to these grievance meetings at the tax office, you're confronted by these elderly individuals that it's evident they have absolutely no experience in actual valuations of real estate properties.  With them is this "professional appraiser" who has these spreadsheets that essentially list all the homes that had sold in the same area the previous year.  He takes the lowest and the highest price per square foot of each of the homes sold, comes up with an average, then uses that value as the price per square foot for every other home in the selling area.  I asked this appraiser where he got his data for homes sold, which he said came from MLS sales figures. The hook with that is that information is only accessible by a licensed realtor after the home was sold.  I had access to that info, but the average taxpayer's only option is to contact a Realtor and see if they could obtain that information for them.  I also asked did they factor in the improvements or additions the seller made prior to listing their homes, and he said that data wasn't available or a factor.  I argued that it was, simply because someone could have bought a home for $150,000, did $50,000 in major improvements which depending on what those were (updated kitchen, bathroom, floors, painting, etc.) could raise the final valuation to $250,000 (I was laughing under my breath when I said this, since I do this all the time).  I also argued that for me to get the appraisal price for the properties in question, I WOULD have to spend several thousand dollars in improvements to obtain it.  If I put those houses on the market at the appraised value in the current condition, I'd wouldn't get one offer.  The Boards response was, "Sorry, we have to go with the appraisers valuation.  You can repeal this decision and take the matter to Civil Court, but all court costs will be your responsibility."  The secret to flipping homes is to purchase right after the annual property valuations occur, fix it up, sell it at the increased value, then don't purchase any other homes in that area for several years.  If no other properties are sold in the area, and several of the homeowners contest their valuations went up due to one or two recent home sales, then the valuations will eventually go back down.
So you had the former appraisal and couldn't get anything lowered? It wouldn't be because you insulted their intelligence would it lol?
Bah...why wait several years and why rent them if you can finance and not have to maintain? The lions share of profits in real state is interest payment to the financier.

 

[aggiealum]

Ugh...reading your post would give the headless horseman a migraine. Could you please separate topics within para graphs and figure out how to separate quotes...or atleast change your response to a different color. Then I will respond...as you clearly are twisting things and missing my point.
st.
I will leave you one bit of info. Yes I looked at the healthcare site (when I finally got through). Yes my healthcare is doubling............
Sorry you're incapable of "reading between the lines" LOL. Exactly how am I "twisting things and missing your point"? Again, in one breath you claim to have nothing against gay marriages, then in the next you compare it to incest. So which is it? I can't understand how you can't distinguish between two individuals who care for themselves as being "in love", and the "love" a parent has for their child. As I said earlier, the majority of Americans have accepted same-sex marriages, as more and more states are passing laws that allow those groups to be legally married. If there we millions of individuals who wanted to marry their pets, and a majority of Americans accepted those relationships, well then, I guess they could get married as well. But I don't see that ever happening, nor would I expect there would be millions of marraiges between a biological parent and child, simply because there's scientific facts that say genetic abnormalties have occured when children are born in those relationships. If you want to get technical, there have been many instances where a Father or Mother HAS married their "child". Some woman gets a divorce, remarries, and the step-father gets romantically attached to one of the woman's children, divorces her, and marries the child. He could have "loved" the step-daughter as a father would their biological child initially, but the meaning of that "love" changed. If the child is an adult, there's nothing illegal about this relationship, and it seems the majority of people in this country accept them. You seem to want to treat homosexual relationships the same way people treated interracial relationships back in the 50's and 60's. Fortunately, we as as society have progressed since those abhorrent times.

 

[aggiealum]

So you had the former appraisal and couldn't get anything lowered? It wouldn't be because you insulted their intelligence would it lol?
Bah...why wait several years and why rent them if you can finance and not have to maintain? The lions share of profits in real state is interest payment to the financier.
When homes get listed in MLS, the sellers don't have to disclose what improvements they made to their homes, or what those improvements cost. The appraisers simply use the selling prices of homes in your area as a average price per square feet basis. You obviously had yours reduced because you had documentation to prove the costs needed to repair the deficiencies in your home for it to meet the appraisal value. Problem is, when you make those repairs, you'll lose that "excuse" and when your appraisal goes up yet again (which it will if more homes in your area are sold in the next year). I've seen that happened many times myself.
Sorry, don't understand your logic in regards to purchasing and maintaing rental properties. The majority of my rental properties were foreclosure purchases where I obtained them at times for less than half of their appraised value. I recently purchased a home in an area of Houston where the home prices average $250K - $275K for $160K. I paid cash for it, and had to spend around $35K in upgrades and repairs. I've already had one offer to purchase for $225K. I'm debating on the sale because the Management Company I use to handle the renting and maintenance of my properties said they could easily get someone to rent the property for $1700/month if not more. That continual cash revenue for just that one home. I net around $1000 - $1200/month after paying the Management Company, insurance, and property tax. My profit margins are reduced if any unsuspected repairs need to be made (plumbing, electrical, roof, HVAC, etc.), but I normally try to stick to homes that are 10 years or less, and my inspectors do a pretty good job at picking up on major issues prior to a purchase.

 

[2quills]

When homes get listed in MLS, the sellers don't have to disclose what improvements they made to their homes, or what those improvements cost. The appraisers simply use the selling prices of homes in your area as a average price per square feet basis. You obviously had yours reduced because you had documentation to prove the costs needed to repair the deficiencies in your home for it to meet the appraisal value. Problem is, when you make those repairs, you'll lose that "excuse" and when your appraisal goes up yet again (which it will if more homes in your area are sold in the next year). I've seen that happened many times myself.
Sorry, don't understand your logic in regards to purchasing and maintaing rental properties. The majority of my rental properties were foreclosure purchases where I obtained them at times for less than half of their appraised value. I recently purchased a home in an area of Houston where the home prices average $250K - $275K for $160K. I paid cash for it, and had to spend around $35K in upgrades and repairs. I've already had one offer to purchase for $225K. I'm debating on the sale because the Management Company I use to handle the renting and maintenance of my properties said they could easily get someone to rent the property for $1700/month if not more. That continual cash revenue for just that one home. I net around $1000 - $1200/month after paying the Management Company, insurance, and property tax. My profit margins are reduced if any unsuspected repairs need to be made (plumbing, electrical, roof, HVAC, etc.), but I normally try to stick to homes that are 10 years or less, and my inspectors do a pretty good job at picking up on major issues prior to a purchase.
Correct, essentially many of our investors mortgage homes are contested each time the value gets re-raised which is rarely the case every year or every other year. But every year several houses get contested. Not all situations will result in tax reductions. As you said documentation supporting the need for pairs to bring a home to market value are necessary. They are also easily obtained as virtually every house in south texas has foundation, structural, cosmetic or trades issues to some degree or another. But even if you've owned your own home and have never reduced you taxes the cool thing is that once you get them lowered they retro your payments back for up to two years. So you can at least get that credit and a reduced tax cost for while. It's better than nothing. As mentioned most homes that come up for sale are over valued to begin with.
Financing your home's to buyers can bring you the same money in each month but you aren't the one required to maintain the home. The buyer is. If you set you own interest and do your own approval you can virtually by pass the whole property management process and maintenance that eats into your profits. We are in the process of weeding out the majority our rental houses for our investors because they just not make as much as the mortgage homes. Less legal fees, maintenance and management across the board.

 

[darthtang aw]

Again, in one breath you claim to have nothing against gay marriages, then in the next you compare it to incest. So which is it? I can't understand how you can't distinguish between two individuals who care for themselves as being "in love", and the "love" a parent has for their child

let me try this again. The entire argument to support gay marriage is if those two people love each other, they have the right to be married. If a boy and his mother love each other should they also not be allowed to marry? The argument is "love" from a "longterm" relationship stand point. Does it matter if it is incest? I am not comparing it to incest. I am asking the question if "love" is the dictactor of who can get married? Would you support the right of a mother and son to marry? That is my question. Can a mother and Son not have the same feelings a guy and a girl, or a gay couple, would have for each other? I know Jerry Springer is scripted...but not that much............It happens, so should they have the same right?40 years ago, Homosexuality acceptance was unheard of, and the population didnt expect to see it become a "normal" occurance in their life time.
I am not asking if society accept it. I am asking if there is a difference, between a biological mom and a son wanting to be legally married. Both are adults. Should this be legal. It is a yes or no question.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/80#post_3535581
let me try this again. The entire argument to support gay marriage is if those two people love each other, they have the right to be married. If a boy and his mother love each other should they also not be allowed to marry? The argument is "love" from a "longterm" relationship stand point. Does it matter if it is incest? I am not comparing it to incest. I am asking the question if "love" is the dictactor of who can get married? Would you support the right of a mother and son to marry? That is my question. Can a mother and Son not have the same feelings a guy and a girl, or a gay couple, would have for each other? I know Jerry Springer is scripted...but not that much............It happens, so should they have the same right?40 years ago, Homosexuality acceptance was unheard of, and the population didnt expect to see it become a "normal" occurance in their life time.
I am not asking if society accept it. I am asking if there is a difference, between a biological mom and a son wanting to be legally married. Both are adults. Should this be legal. It is a yes or no question.
The question is irrelevent. If there were millions of these biological mother/son relationships as there are homosexual relationships, we could have that argument. This has everything to do with a societal issue because that's the deterrent factor for why same sex marriages can't occur in every state of this nation. You sound like a staunch Conservative, and if so, you ideologies are that every individual shouldn't be repressed from expressing their personal freedoms, no matter what those are. I honestly could care less who gets married to who or what. It's none of my business. A mother/son, a man and his dog, two men, or two women - what they do in their private lives affects me in no form or fashion. It's not my place to pass moral judgement on anyone. That's between them and God. So unless you and the others who disagree with these types of relationships can walk on water and change water into wine, it's none of your business either.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/80#post_3535578
Correct, essentially many of our investors mortgage homes are contested each time the value gets re-raised which is rarely the case every year or every other year. But every year several houses get contested. Not all situations will result in tax reductions. As you said documentation supporting the need for pairs to bring a home to market value are necessary. They are also easily obtained as virtually every house in south texas has foundation, structural, cosmetic or trades issues to some degree or another. But even if you've owned your own home and have never reduced you taxes the cool thing is that once you get them lowered they retro your payments back for up to two years. So you can at least get that credit and a reduced tax cost for while. It's better than nothing. As mentioned most homes that come up for sale are over valued to begin with.
Financing your home's to buyers can bring you the same money in each month but you aren't the one required to maintain the home. The buyer is. If you set you own interest and do your own approval you can virtually by pass the whole property management process and maintenance that eats into your profits. We are in the process of weeding out the majority our rental houses for our investors because they just not make as much as the mortgage homes. Less legal fees, maintenance and management across the board.
Sorry, I'm not in the banking/mortgage finance business. If another bubble were to burst as it did in the early 2000's, you'd be living under a bridge due to you having all those loans dumped back into your lap. I have absolutely no interest in financing properties on the premise the buyer has a history of paying their bills on time. Personal financial disasters happen on a daily basis - major health issues, major injuries, loss of job, etc. that can turn that viable buyer into a deadbeat. Granted, I could do that with some of the properties I've bought outright, but over the 30 years I've been in the Commercial and Residential real estate business, I've been quite successful avoiding those pitfalls.

 

[darthtang aw]

The question is irrelevent.  If there were millions of these biological mother/son relationships as there are homosexual relationships, we could have that argument.  This has everything to do with a societal issue because that's the deterrent factor for why same sex marriages can't occur in every state of this nation.  You sound like a staunch Conservative, and if so, you ideologies are that every individual shouldn't be repressed from expressing their personal freedoms, no matter what those are.  I honestly could care less who gets married to who or what.  It's none of my business.  A mother/son, a man and his dog, two men, or two women - what they do in their private lives affects me in no form or fashion.  It's not my place to pass moral judgement on anyone.  That's between them and God.  So unless you and the others who disagree with these types of relationships can walk on water and change water into wine, it's none of your business either.
See but you are wrong. 75 years ago interacial marriages were not a societal norm. civil rights had to be challenged. 40 years ago homosexual couples were not the norm...civil rights have had to be challenged. Who is to say, in 75 years interfamly marriages might be the next civil rights issue? I at no point had said it is wrong in this discussion. I have proposed a question. That is all. Whether you believe it or not, moral challenges and decay have brought low many a nation in the past. I am not saying homosexuality and marriage will do this. But going forward as a nation we have constantly shifted the "moral" line in our society. All laws have a moral basis...that is fact. whether we like it or not. Even the heathcare law has a moral basis behind it.
I was just questioning if your stance is equal with your statements. Which they seem to be since you have no issue if a person wants to marry in an incestual fashion.

 

[2quills]

Sorry, I'm not in the banking/mortgage finance business.  If another bubble were to burst as it did in the early 2000's, you'd be living under a bridge due to you having all those loans dumped back into your lap.  I have absolutely no interest in financing properties on the premise the buyer has a history of paying their bills on time.  Personal financial disasters happen on a daily basis -  major health issues, major injuries, loss of job, etc. that can turn that viable buyer into a deadbeat. Granted, I could do that with some of the properties I've bought outright, but over the 30 years I've been in the Commercial and Residential real estate business, I've been quite successful avoiding those pitfalls.
I hear ya. We deal with forclosures on a regular basis. I'd say where you see the potential for disaster though our investors recognize the opportunity in that. They were doing it long before the bubble burst and came through it just fine. Everything t h ese guys touch seems to turn to gold. Worst comes to worse you simply rent those houses back out if you have to. What happened after the bubble popped? Rentals went through the roof. You're not thinking like a capitalist.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/80#post_3535592
See but you are wrong. 75 years ago interacial marriages were not a societal norm. civil rights had to be challenged. 40 years ago homosexual couples were not the norm...civil rights have had to be challenged. Who is to say, in 75 years interfamly marriages might be the next civil rights issue? I at no point had said it is wrong in this discussion. I have proposed a question. That is all. Whether you believe it or not, moral challenges and decay have brought low many a nation in the past. I am not saying homosexuality and marriage will do this. But going forward as a nation we have constantly shifted the "moral" line in our society. All laws have a moral basis...that is fact. whether we like it or not. Even the heathcare law has a moral basis behind it.
I was just questioning if your stance is equal with your statements. Which they seem to be since you have no issue if a person wants to marry in an incestual fashion.
Yet again, you state you're not asking if society accepts it, but you base your argument on how our society defines "moral values" and how in your mind they have deprecated over the years. Your views of "moral decay" appear to be completely opposite of mine. This nation has had bigotry towards some faction of our population since the Pilgrims landed here, and we've always seem to manage to get past those barriers and move forward. I see no definitive "moral line" because the definition of morality is different for each individual or groups of individuals. Look at this ridiculous Duck Dynasty debacle with the old guy and him getting banned from his show for mouthing off about homosexuals in an article of GQ. The Christian and Conservative factions in this country are backing the guy stating he has the right to say what he wants because it violates the tenets of his "moral values" and his Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality. However, there's an opposite faction that feels it was inappropriate to voice those views in a public forum while he was representing the corporation he was working for (A&E Network). So which group is morally incorrect? Morality shouldn't be injected into our laws for this very reason.

 

[darthtang aw]

But moralitYet again, you state you're not asking if society accepts it, but you base your argument on how our society defines "moral values" and how in your mind they have deprecated over the years.  Your views of "moral decay" appear to be completely opposite of mine.  This nation has had bigotry towards some faction of our population since the Pilgrims landed here, and we've always seem to manage to get past those barriers and move forward.  I see no definitive "moral line" because the definition of morality is different for each individual or groups of individuals.  Look at this ridiculous Duck Dynasty debacle with the old guy and him getting banned from his show for mouthing off about homosexuals in an article of GQ.  The Christian and Conservative factions in this country are backing the guy stating he has the right to say what he wants because it violates the tenets of his "moral values" and his Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality. However, there's an opposite faction that feels it was inappropriate to voice those views in a public forum while he was representing the corporation he was working for (A&E Network).    So which group is morally incorrect?  Morality shouldn't be injected into our laws for this very reason.
Hate to break it to you, but all laws have a moral basis.

 

[2quills]

But moralit
Hate to break it to you, but all laws have a moral basis.
I don't quite understand that argument either. Though shalt not kill, steal or lie on your taxes...sound pretty rooted in morality to me. Speeding, drinking and driving etc. are enforced through laws based on the idea that you're placing other people's well being at risk...sounds a lot like morality. I don't really see how it's even possible to seperate the two. Creating laws that take more from the rich to give to the poor...what's that all about?
A and E´s position I can understand.