It still reduces income, and it still does not reduce consumption, just creates a larger used marketplace. Also saving is bad for the economy.
So than the ACA is not "socialized" as there is no production being socialized.
Also if you think the military does not generate value you are dead wrong. It generates trillions of value a year.
That it is such a regressive tax.
First the tax is inclusive, they do it that way because it is a 30% sales tax, exclusive, but by claiming it is inclusive they make it seem like it is only 23%.
Then the prebate that they claim will offset the cost to the lower and middle class is an exclusive 23% meaning that it does not fully offset the 30% exclusive tax.
Secondly there are many people with current houses who based their affordability of those houses based on the lower tar rate that the credits/deductions provide and they would lose those, putting them in a place to lose their home.
It is being played as a way to reduce taxes, but it really only does that on the wealthy and businesses and places that burden on the poor and middle class. You cannot do away with more than half the tax income, business and wealthy, and not make it up someplace else.
And in your massive ad homiem you still did not point to a single piece of socialism
what is funnier is how people here equate anything socialized as being soclism, but love to forget that our military is socialized, roads, pretty much everything the government spends money on is socialized.
private insurance firms != private healthcare firrms. Insurance companies do not typically provide healthcare.
Other than the so called "fair tax" I could support him.
I agree that cops should not be able to break the law to catch law breakers, except in the narrow circumstances such as speeding to catch speeders that society allows, and that illegal actions and the fruit that they gather should be thrown out. In fact I would also support prosecuting the cops that do this as well.
I am not arguing that these people should or should not get off. I am arguing that it does not exonerate them of the crime. Getting off on a technicality, or because the officers broke the law to catch you, does not exonerate you, it just means you wont be punished for it.
It would not exonerate their clients, but it may get them off because the law broke the law to get them down. It will not remove mean they did not commit the crime, just that 2 wrongs dont make a right.
Wait you failed to understand what he was talking about and you called him the idiot? It is fairly basic, all laws should be easy to understand and presented to all citizens. If you do not know what a law is how can you know if you are breaking a law or not?
Who said police should ignore it? Look into it and verify the if it is a reasonable threat, or something stupid, but dont though out all reason.
Because threats made by a random driver, often through a closed window, against another random driver in traffic are widely believed not to be serious. If the threatening driver proceeds to follow the threatened around, it does become criminal.
Yet you think believed threats made by a random computer user through a closed computer terminal against unknown people are more serious? Where was the following in this case
That what the courts are for
No, that is what the police are for. The police are suposed to look at this and follow up and make a determination. Was the threat real, or some stupid post on the interweb. Obviously because of how weak the charges are they found the threat to not be credible.
That was one of the big changes after 9/11 it stopped being possible to "joke" under certain circumstances. Joking about carrying a (picture of a) gun through security gets your "gun" confiscated. Using the phrase "another 9/11" "another Columbine" (or, at VA Tech, "another 4/16") on the internet gets you a visit from NSA or the local police. There used to be procedures for distinguishing real bomb threats from idle or frivolous threats, but they're pretty hard to apply to 140 characters.
So you have given up your freedom for security, you know how the quote goes I assume.
So what was the specific threat to your, or anyones, life. Are we never allows to say "tomorrow will be another x date" because there may have been something bad that happened on that date, and ignore everything else.
Stop living in fear.
If you use your "Freedom of Speech" to threaten violence and the use of force against me, you have abused your freedom and curtailed mine: as a result, threats of violence are illegal as well.
that was the person you replied to's point, people threaten others every day, yet these charges would never be brought against them.
Besides prove it is a threat and not just you being over sensitive.