TexasCHLforum.com

Kythas wrote:
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case.You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish, than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill

I'll see your quote and raise you one:

There is an ancient Chinese proverb, "When in danger or doubt, run in circles - scream and shout". In that vein, Sir Winston knew who the enemy was when he spake of the Island Nation's upcoming fight with Nazi Germany.

The so-called health Bill has passed the house. I'm merely suggesting that we follow the wisdom of the ancient Chinese proverb and as Sir Winston intoned, identify the unacceptable (the enemy) parts of this bill before we take to the streets in open revolt erstwhile jousting at windwills.

Granted, the shenanigans employed to pass the bill are deplorable and shameful but that is just politics as usual. Perhaps congressional term limits and abolishing Civil Service would help cleanse the governmental playing field?

"I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses,"- Richard Nixon
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4327" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nixon lost two brothers to illness btw.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

We're over due, guys.

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case.You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish, than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill

Excellent statement indeed Carl.

Kythas, you bring much to the table tonight. Much to think about...to ponder about. It's been a long time since I reflected upon these issues, and I did....

Viet Nam War (yes it WAS a war...NOT a police action)
Kent State Massacre
Chicago Democratic Convention Riots of 1968
The Chicago 7 trial
Is GOD dead?
free love

It was these things which made me ponder that the Republic was dying. Was it? Dying was too strong a term. Atrophying was more appropriate. A whithering away.

The cause? Obviously, the moral decay. I cannot say that liberalism(which was in vogue at the time), was the cause. And I cannot say that liberalism is synonymous to 'moral decay'........but in my opinion, it approaches it.

I hate the term "politically correct", as(to me) it implies an effort to appease others, for some reason I've yet to determine.
I grew up in an age where being "politically correct" was "calling a spade a spade".

But what does leave an impregnable vision in my minds eye is that they are related. That, I cannot escape.

I am a Texan and an American....by birth. How strange I feel. God Bless Texas and the U.S.A.

Well for those of you in the wait and see corner, it does not look like you will need to wait much longer. I heard today that the next item on the list is un-documented worker reform, and the way they paved the road with the healthcare bill, this one should be a slam dunk.

It will also put 11 mil + voters in line rather quickly.

Gun reform is not far behind, these people have an agenda and they are ona roll.

marksiwel wrote:Richard Nixon

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M[/youtube]

Oldgringo wrote:Other than possible constitutional questions and the obvious nefarious political chicanery (practiced by both parties), why do y'all have your bowels in an uproar? The folk who passed this bill don't know what's in it so why don't we wait until we have it unfolded and understood by all before we take to the streets?

The same reason I'm not going to wait and see if the robber in the night is breaking in for milk and cookies.

SwimFan85 wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Richard Nixon

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M[/youtube]

thats great, what was the point?

Richard Nixon is not a good example. Richard Nixon served during a time when politicians were held accountable and had to answer for the decisions they made. We dont live in those times currently. They can get away with anything now.

joe817 wrote:"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case.You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish, than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill

Excellent statement indeed Carl.

Kythas, you bring much to the table tonight. Much to think about...to ponder about. It's been a long time since I reflected upon these issues, and I did....

Viet Nam War (yes it WAS a war...NOT a police action)
Kent State Massacre
Chicago Democratic Convention Riots of 1968
The Chicago 7 trial
Is GOD dead?
free love

It was these things which made me ponder that the Republic was dying. Was it? Dying was too strong a term. Atrophying was more appropriate. A whithering away.

The cause? Obviously, the moral decay. I cannot say that liberalism(which was in vogue at the time), was the cause. And I cannot say that liberalism is synonymous to 'moral decay'........but in my opinion, it approaches it.

I hate the term "politically correct", as(to me) it implies an effort to appease others, for some reason I've yet to determine.
I grew up in an age where being "politically correct" was "calling a spade a spade".

But what does leave an impregnable vision in my minds eye is that they are related. That, I cannot escape.

I am a Texan and an American....by birth. How strange I feel. God Bless Texas and the U.S.A.

My Dear Lord. Forgive me my friends. age slows down the thought processes.
I left out:

The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Los Angeles Watt's Riots.

And there are more, but once again, time escapes me.

So I put to you......if you think NOW is a time for the mourning of America as we know it, you know not. Because that time in America in 1968(except the Watts riots), was the epitome of the "death" of the Republic, as you see it now.

And guess what? America survived. Yes. The democratic form of government prevailed. As it will again.

And it will happen at the ballot box. Anything else is unthinkable.

Cass Sunstein is our regulatory czar, Cass is a certified lunatic who wants animals to have laywers.

I'm down with that, as long as the animals pay their legal bills. But if one couldn't, then would a cougar charged with the murder of a deer or antelope be entitled to a public defender? Would the cougar be open to third party lawsuits by the next of kin to the deceased deer or antelope? Methinks Mr. Sunstein does not have all his legal arguments reconciled.

casingpoint wrote:

Cass Sunstein is our regulatory czar, Cass is a certified lunatic who wants animals to have laywers.

I'm down with that, as long as the animals pay their legal bills. But if one couldn't, then would a cougar charged with the murder of a deer or antelope be entitled to a public defender? Would the cougar be open to third party lawsuits by the next of kin to the deceased deer or antelope? Methinks Mr. Sunstein does not have all his legal arguments reconciled.

I think its more Like I could sue on behalf of animals. Like you build a dam, and I say it endangers the liver spotted snow crab, and sue you

Here's a nice little tidbit for everyone to chew on this morning.

One provision of Obamacare relates to a 35% tax credit to small businesses offering insurance to their employees. This was the provision to which Obama was referring when he said businesses could see a 3,000% decrease in employee healthcare costs (by which, he actually meant $3,000, yet another Bushism that the press doesn't jump on, but I digress).

Under the provision, if a small business has 25 or fewer employees, and an average salary under $40,000, that business will receive a 35% tax rebate of the total amount it pays for employee insurance. If a company pays $10,000 per employee (which is not a large amount for the company portion of employee insurance) and that company has 25 employees and an average payroll of under $40,000, then that company stands to save (($10,000 x 25) x .35) $87,500 due to this tax rebate.

Let's say you own a small business with 26 or 27 employees. What are you going to do? You're going to fire the 1 or 2 people who put you over the employee cap of 25. If you have 25 or fewer employees whose salaries put you over the $40,000 salary cap, you're either going to ask them to take a pay cut or fire them and replace them with people whose salaries won't put you over the top.

You won't give out raises, because any raises will cost your company the cost of the raise, plus the potential of losing the 35% tax rebate. This will have an immediate effect of suppressing salaries and putting experienced workers at a disadvantage in the marketplace, as they will command higher salaries than workers with little to no experience. You'll also think long and hard about hiring any new people, because that 26th hire loses you the 35% tax rebate and makes that 26th position a very expensive one.

Now before you think that 25 employees is a small number, remember this. Small business accounts for about 80% of all jobs in this country. The local McDonald's down the street might be a chain restaurant, but it's probably a franchise store and is owned by Mr. Johnson down the street and is his only store. Mr. Johnson is not going to hire more than 25 people to work at his McDonald's now.

I predict we'll see any economic recovery we've seen to date screech to a halt and unemployment will start rising again. Note this is only one provision in a 2,000+ page bill.

Oh, and the reconciliation bill that also passed the House and is currently in the Senate is, in many ways, worse than the original Obamacare bill itself.

Kythas wrote:Here's a nice little tidbit for everyone to chew on this morning.

One provision of Obamacare relates to a 35% tax credit to small businesses offering insurance to their employees. This was the provision to which Obama was referring when he said businesses could see a 3,000% decrease in employee healthcare costs (by which, he actually meant $3,000, yet another Bushism that the press doesn't jump on, but I digress).

Under the provision, if a small business has 25 or fewer employees, and an average salary under $40,000, that business will receive a 35% tax rebate of the total amount it pays for employee insurance. If a company pays $10,000 per employee (which is not a large amount for the company portion of employee insurance) and that company has 25 employees and an average payroll of under $40,000, then that company stands to save (($10,000 x 25) x .35) $87,500 due to this tax rebate.

Let's say you own a small business with 26 or 27 employees. What are you going to do? You're going to fire the 1 or 2 people who put you over the employee cap of 25. If you have 25 or fewer employees whose salaries put you over the $40,000 salary cap, you're either going to ask them to take a pay cut or fire them and replace them with people whose salaries won't put you over the top.

You won't give out raises, because any raises will cost your company the cost of the raise, plus the potential of losing the 35% tax rebate. This will have an immediate effect of suppressing salaries and putting experienced workers at a disadvantage in the marketplace, as they will command higher salaries than workers with little to no experience. You'll also think long and hard about hiring any new people, because that 26th hire loses you the 35% tax rebate and makes that 26th position a very expensive one.

Now before you think that 25 employees is a small number, remember this. Small business accounts for about 80% of all jobs in this country. The local McDonald's down the street might be a chain restaurant, but it's probably a franchise store and is owned by Mr. Johnson down the street and is his only store. Mr. Johnson is not going to hire more than 25 people to work at his McDonald's now.

I predict we'll see any economic recovery we've seen to date screech to a halt and unemployment will start rising again. Note this is only one provision in a 2,000+ page bill.

Oh, and the reconciliation bill that also passed the House and is currently in the Senate is, in many ways, worse than the original Obamacare bill itself.

I sat here for a good 5 minutes before deciding I had nothing "g-rated" to say about this.

It reminds me of the time I made $600 too much one year and lost my federal pell grant because of it. That $600 cost me $10,000 in student loans.

Here's something else to chew on. There are differing opinions so far on just how much authority the IRS will have in enforcing this new law once the regulations are drawn up. But consider the situation where a person with forty acres refuses to byy the mandated insurance. IRS will assess a fine, and under it's current modus operandi, the agency will assess penaties and interest. When those are not paid, today's IRS would then secure a lien against the entire forty acres and proceed to have it sold at auction to the highest bidder. The amount due the IRS would be taken from the sale proceeds and the balance given to the landowner. Rather, the former landowner. Now, this poor hypothetical sap still does not have gubm't health insurance. So you have private property being sold to support the general population as beneficiaries.

I'd like to get the reaction of Colonial America circa 1775 on this.