As if exempting Nebraska wasn't insulting enough to "equal protection"

2010-01-15 21:19:55

#1

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6284

The agreement, forged in a marathon negotiating session that included White House officials and seven prominent labor leaders, would exempt union members from a proposed surtax on expensive insurance plans until 2018

How can anyone support these clowns anymore? Whether you're anti-union or not, making special tax breaks available only to people who happen to be in unions is an affront to the idea of equality under the law.

2010-01-15 21:30:20

#2

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

the fuck

Backroom politics at best. The only perspective this makes any sense from is that of a politicians looking to shove legislation through, no matter what it may come out looking like on the other end.

2010-01-15 21:37:27

#3

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7002

The unions donated a lot of money to BO... He owes them.

We need healthcare reform... but this bill is so fucked up that conservatives don't like it... independents don't like
and now less and less liberals don't like it either. We need to have tort reform to limit the amount won in lawsuits by the trial lawyers...
and we need the ability to buy insurance across state lines just for starters.

They are bribing senators and unions trying to ram it down the peoples throats in the middle of the night behing closed doors... it's bullshit.

Love is the answer

2010-01-15 21:44:16

#4

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6697|'Murka

If BO had an ounce of integrity, he'd veto that bill for its blatant buy-offs of special interests and congressional votes--the very things he railed against during his campaign. He'd veto it for the lack of transparency in the conference committee--the very thing he railed against during his campaign.

And he'd tell America exactly why he vetoed a bill that purported to enact something that he felt was so important.

But he won't.

Because he doesn't.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-01-15 21:49:31

#5

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

FEOS wrote:
If BO had an ounce of integrity, he'd veto that bill for its blatant buy-offs of special interests and congressional votes--the very things he railed against during his campaign. He'd veto it for the lack of transparency in the conference committee--the very thing he railed against during his campaign.

And he'd tell America exactly why he vetoed a bill that purported to enact something that he felt was so important.

But he won't.

Because he doesn't.

He's brokered most of the buy-offs though

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-15 21:52:07

#6

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6697|'Murka

JohnG@lt wrote:
FEOS wrote:
If BO had an ounce of integrity, he'd veto that bill for its blatant buy-offs of special interests and congressional votes--the very things he railed against during his campaign. He'd veto it for the lack of transparency in the conference committee--the very thing he railed against during his campaign.

And he'd tell America exactly why he vetoed a bill that purported to enact something that he felt was so important.

But he won't.

Because he doesn't.
He's brokered most of the buy-offs though

Oh yeah.

There's that, too.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-01-15 21:57:56

#7

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

FEOS wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
FEOS wrote:
If BO had an ounce of integrity, he'd veto that bill for its blatant buy-offs of special interests and congressional votes--the very things he railed against during his campaign. He'd veto it for the lack of transparency in the conference committee--the very thing he railed against during his campaign.

And he'd tell America exactly why he vetoed a bill that purported to enact something that he felt was so important.

But he won't.

Because he doesn't.
He's brokered most of the buy-offs though
Oh yeah.

There's that, too.

I used to be kind of idealistic about politics in a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington sort of way. The last year has really changed my view dramatically. Sooooooo much shady shit and naked payoffs. I'm really sickened.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-15 22:07:44

#8

Karbin: Member; +42|6581

Just to throw a wrench in the works.
I'm a member of a union, though not in the U.S., and I DO NOT agree with this.
It IS an affront to the idea of equality under the law.

Would rather see employers get a 2 for 1 tax break on health care. Two bucks for every one buck spent on coverage.
Think it would be more acceptable all round but, I'm willing to hear the reasons against.

2010-01-15 22:08:44

#9

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Karbin wrote:
Just to throw a wrench in the works.
I'm a member of a union, though not in the U.S., and I DO NOT agree with this.
It IS an affront to the idea of equality under the law.

Would rather see employers get a 2 for 1 tax break on health care. Two bucks for every one buck spent on coverage.
Think it would be more acceptable all round but, I'm willing to hear the reasons against.

There are no reasons against what you propose. Everyone wins except government coffers

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-15 22:13:34

#10

Karbin: Member; +42|6581

JohnG@lt wrote:
Karbin wrote:
Just to throw a wrench in the works.
I'm a member of a union, though not in the U.S., and I DO NOT agree with this.
It IS an affront to the idea of equality under the law.

Would rather see employers get a 2 for 1 tax break on health care. Two bucks for every one buck spent on coverage.
Think it would be more acceptable all round but, I'm willing to hear the reasons against.
There are no reasons against what you propose. Everyone wins except government coffers

True but....

It dose keep healthcare out of the hands of "The Evil Goberment".

Yes that was sarcasm.

2010-01-15 22:13:50

#11

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5988|College Park, MD

JohnG@lt wrote:
Karbin wrote:
Just to throw a wrench in the works.
I'm a member of a union, though not in the U.S., and I DO NOT agree with this.
It IS an affront to the idea of equality under the law.

Would rather see employers get a 2 for 1 tax break on health care. Two bucks for every one buck spent on coverage.
Think it would be more acceptable all round but, I'm willing to hear the reasons against.
There are no reasons against what you propose. Everyone wins except government coffers

which is why it would never happen

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

BF2S Forums As if exempting Nebraska wasn't insulting enough to "equal protection"

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Karbin wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Karbin wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Karbin wrote:

Board footer