FUCK...OBAMA CARE...AND THE MOTHER THAT GAVE BIRTH TO IT

Thread starter thepenofareadywriter
Start date Oct 31, 2015

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member

#41

pnwmystery said:
Any news source that contradicts you, you just say "It's liberal bias!" Immediately dismissing it. Unfortunately the same thing can be said about some of the liberal members with conservative things, but the other caveat to this is that the more often quoted conservative sources are actually sometimes the least factually correct (I've seen other things though that contradict my point). If that's your opinion, alright, but just because opinions are like noses and everyone has to have one doesn't necessarily make every opinion worthy of holding onto dearly at the expense of having a more informed opinion (unless you want to have less informed opinions).

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the Washington Post is a very good newspaper with great journalism. Their Opinion articles can lean more liberal (and recently yes, I'll concede that their Op-Eds have had more of a left lean to them, but they are opinion pieces) their editorial board is more center-conservative, but at least they're scrupulous about it, and this isn't really an opinion but a very widely held view.

So, what yer sayin is, their staggering liberal bias is acceptable because their editorial board is really, really conflicted about it?

Not GOP

Well-Known Member

#42

pnwmystery said:
Any news source that contradicts you, you just say "It's liberal bias!"

That's not true. In most cases it depends on who is writing the article. When papers have a history of being wrong over and over, or have government ties in funding; I tend to dismiss their opinion pieces. But not always entirely. Like I've stated before, my views mostly revolve around common sense, which includes some of those common sense views being liberal. I have no conservative bias that your delusions are referring to.

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member

#43

MuyLocoNC said:
So, what yer sayin is, their staggering liberal bias is acceptable because their editorial board is really, really conflicted about it?

Only you see a staggering liberal bias in the Washington Post, the majority of other journalists, media groups, people who follow the news, and people who are interested in this sort of thing see the Washington Post as really good journalism. There are often pieces in the Washington Post that I disagree with, but I'll read them anyways to try to figure out why I disagree or see if I just had a misconceived notion. Once again, Completamente loco.

nk14zp

Well-Known Member

#44

...

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member

#45

pnwmystery said:
Only you see a staggering liberal bias in the Washington Post, the majority of other journalists, media groups, people who follow the news, and people who are interested in this sort of thing see the Washington Post as really good journalism. There are often pieces in the Washington Post that I disagree with, but I'll read them anyways to try to figure out why I disagree or see if I just had a misconceived notion. Once again, Completamente loco.

I lived in the DC Metro area for 18 years and was exposed to that worthless piece of shit the entire time. You read a few articles from them, every once in awhile and think you know their political bent. Or, you take the word of other liberal rags who exhort the WaPo's unbiased reporting.

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member

#46

MuyLocoNC said:
I lived in the DC Metro area for 18 years and was exposed to that worthless piece of shit the entire time. You read a few articles from them, every once in awhile and think you know their political bent. Or, you take the word of other liberal rags who exhort the WaPo's unbiased reporting.

Lol or I've been reading it for 10 years almost every morning along with NYT, Reuters, and BBC but whatever guess I've just read it a few times every once and a while.

How good to your words taste btw?

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member

#47

pnwmystery said:
Lol or I've been reading it for 10 years almost every morning

*citation required

pnwmystery said:
How good to your words taste btw?

They have the faintest soupçon of asparagus and just a flutter of Edam cheese.

oldtimer54

Well-Known Member

#48

Bugeye said:
Get your deductions set at a level where you no longer get a refund and then have fun watching the IRS try to collect your penalty.

It's called garnishment of your wages !
If you owe the IRS they'll get their money
Several years ago the IRS hired 5000 new employees for the sole purpose ofcollecting the money generated from Obama care . ..I m o Obama care isn't about healthcare it's just another method our gubment has come up with to collect money . At least that's what I learned at the last conspiracy theorists meeting held at unclebucks lair !

bu$hleaguer

Well-Known Member

#49

I'm finishing up my second year without insurance too, op. Can't say it was the smartest move I've made but I saved a fuck ton of cash by just paying the fine. I feel I'm too risky though and am thinking of enrolling the next few days.

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member

#50

Bugeye said:
Get your deductions set at a level where you no longer get a refund and then have fun watching the IRS try to collect your penalty.

I don't suggest the above as they can contact your employer and 1) issue lock letter on FWT 2) garnish your pay.

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member

#51

Bugeye said:
Nope, wrong on all counts. The IRS can not jail you, put a lien on you, freeze your accounts, or make payroll deductions related to Obamacare penalties. Best they can do is assess the fine and then collect from a refund due you. Don't believe me, read the law.

Citation.

Bugeye

Well-Known Member

#52

schuylaar said:
Citation.

Here's a fluff piece on it, I'll have to dig up the specific language in the bill when I am not on a tablet:

ll-http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/25/lawrence-odonnell/lawrence-odonnell-says-irs-cannot-pursue-either-ci/says-irs-cannot-pursue-either-ci/

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member

#53

Bugeye said:
Here's a fluff piece on it, I'll have to dig up the specific language in the bill when I am not on a tablet:

ll-http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/25/lawrence-odonnell/lawrence-odonnell-says-irs-cannot-pursue-either-ci/says-irs-cannot-pursue-either-ci/

Rated 'mostly true' at time of print in 2013..its 2015..lookup 'FWT lock letter' many don't know this exists and will have a very big surprise coming to them..and it won't be a refund, if you opt to play that game.

Since I've been accustomed to working with the IRS, I'm with @spandy on this..fuck with them and you'll be sorry, wishing you would have paid it or better yet, opt for the lowest bronze coverage and getting something for your money.

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member

#54

schuylaar said:
Rated 'mostly true' at time of print in 2013..its 2015..lookup 'FWT lock letter' many don't know this exists and will have a very big surprise coming to them..and it won't be a refund, if you opt to play that game.

Since I've been accustomed to working with the IRS, I'm with @spandy on this..fuck with them and you'll be sorry, wishing you would have paid it or better yet, opt for the lowest bronze coverage and getting something for your money.

I just took a swing through healthcare.gov to find the least expensive "bronze" plan. With our SUBSIDEEZ the cost would be $433/month with a $10,300 deductible and an annual cap of $13,000. That's $5196 paid for the privilege of paying every fucking penny of medical costs until we hit $10k...are you kidding me? That's no better than catastrophic insurance that used to cost a fraction of that.

I actually thought I was being overly critical and that there were probably plans available that had some value. After spending time looking at the offerings, I wouldn't give them a red cent and it's no surprise this debacle is imploding.

Bugeye

Well-Known Member

#55

schuylaar said:
Rated 'mostly true' at time of print in 2013..its 2015..lookup 'FWT lock letter' many don't know this exists and will have a very big surprise coming to them..and it won't be a refund, if you opt to play that game.

Since I've been accustomed to working with the IRS, I'm with @spandy on this..fuck with them and you'll be sorry, wishing you would have paid it or better yet, opt for the lowest bronze coverage and getting something for your money.

Interesting...so the IRS is actually using this against people not paying ACA penalties?

Bugeye

Well-Known Member

#56

schuylaar said:
Rated 'mostly true' at time of print in 2013..its 2015..lookup 'FWT lock letter' many don't know this exists and will have a very big surprise coming to them..and it won't be a refund, if you opt to play that game.

Since I've been accustomed to working with the IRS, I'm with @spandy on this..fuck with them and you'll be sorry, wishing you would have paid it or better yet, opt for the lowest bronze coverage and getting something for your money.

Here is the language from the ACA specifying which tools the IRS cannot use to collect penalties. Taken from Section 500A(g) of the act:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties
In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) Limitations on liens and levies
The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

To your point, if the IRS is using withholding limits to get at non penalty payers, then I suppose they will get that penalty! But I'd still make them work for it.

bu$hleaguer

Well-Known Member

#57

MuyLocoNC said:
I just took a swing through healthcare.gov to find the least expensive "bronze" plan. With our SUBSIDEEZ the cost would be $433/month with a $10,300 deductible and an annual cap of $13,000. That's $5196 paid for the privilege of paying every fucking penny of medical costs until we hit $10k...are you kidding me? That's no better than catastrophic insurance that used to cost a fraction of that.

I actually thought I was being overly critical and that there were probably plans available that had some value. After spending time looking at the offerings, I wouldn't give them a red cent and it's no surprise this debacle is imploding.

F that- seriously?! Damn man. I'm going to take a looksie tonight and see what my options are but that's insanity. I thought I'd find something reasonable but that sounds atrocious

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member

#58

Not GOP said:
Like I've stated before, my views mostly revolve around common sense, which includes some of those common sense views being liberal. I have no conservative bias that your delusions are referring to.

You're about as liberal as Rush Limbaugh. I know a conservative when I see one.

There is no reason to apologize just because this forum is composed of 90% libtards.

Be proud! Not only is white beautiful but so are conservative principles.

As an aside, the liberal monoply of the mass media is finally over. Guys like Obama and the other liberal hacks don't like media outlets who don't kiss his liberal ass, reason why he makes the duty petty attacks against FOX so often.

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member

#59

Bugeye said:
Interesting...so the IRS is actually using this against people not paying ACA penalties?

It's just a way of having you comply..they have lots of little ways without the use of lien.

Their goal is to get that money any way they can.

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member

#60

Bugeye said:
Here is the language from the ACA specifying which tools the IRS cannot use to collect penalties. Taken from Section 500A(g) of the act:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties
In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) Limitations on liens and levies
The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

To your point, if the IRS is using withholding limits to get at non penalty payers, then I suppose they will get that penalty! But I'd still make them work for it.

Keep in mind, whenever you have penalty, you also get introduced to her much more evil sister: interest..and that bitch accrues.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email Link

Top