Explain this Dguidry

I heard today that Obama is behind in the polls, so in an act of desperation to appeal to more voters he has decided to become white............care to explain this dguidry?



securedownload[1] (2).jpg

There is so much chit about this that pisses me off!!

The government was not put in place for people to live off of and to give handouts!! I understand some people go through hard times and need a little help, food stamps, housing... But to be on food stamps for years and to live in government housing for years as well, isn't helping them... There needs to be a limit on how many months total of assistance you can receive!!!

Our founding fathers were brilliant men, they didn't trust government and therefore restricted the shit out of what it could do. Unfortunately over time, liberal asshats ( I know that's redundant) have squeezed in things little by little which set precedent to squeeze more in. It's damn time to wring out the bullshit and make this country great again. We need to flush career politicians out of the system. We must implement term limits, two terms and they can not be concurrent. That way the politicians have to campaign on their own time and not when they are on our payroll. We, the people, need to stand up and remind them daily that they are OUR employees, we are their bosses. We need to get more people into office that are willing to wring out the shit and stop government abuse. Our country can not sustain this current trend. And we need another Constitutional amendment that states that any bill introduced in Congress is limited to one issue. No more 1200 page bills that cover healthcare, roads and what flavor of ice cream is allowed during a full moon on Tuesdays (ok I made the ice cream thing up to make a point). But what these mega bills do is allow for abuse of power, this is how a lot of anti-gun regulations get through, they are hidden. Again little things get squeezed in, here and there and they all add up. As hunters we should all be pissed off (even dguidry) that our gun rights are being eroded every time politicians have a thought about ANYTHING. I am livid that government uses the "we're going to reduce crime" by making it harder for law abiding citizens to buy/own guns. Here's a novel idea, catch and prosecute the actual criminals. Lets start with Congress. Then let's build more tent city jails in the most miserable places to house these problems. If they government doesn't trust us, why in the hell should we trust it? Do you trust the gang that just mugged you, but told you it was for your own good and to have a nice day? I bet not, so why put all this trust in government? We have to make them accountable.

The generational welfare has got to stop. If you want something, then work. By allowing people to abuse welfare for so long in exchange for votes has recreated slavery... Economic slavery. I'm all for HELPING someone BACK on their feet, BUT this current welfare system isn't helping people get back up, its keeping them down.

^^^ smartest thing I've ever read on this site.


Sent via telegraph

danimalw for President

Money... money.. money

Well, thank you. But unfortunately we need.to replace more than the president. (And I might have a skeleton or two or a graveyard worth in a closet)... But who doesn't? The general population cares more about non-issue stuff that the real issues. Does the fact that Bill Clinton got "Lewinsky's" in the White House make him a bad President, not really, but when he lied under oath about it, THAT made him bad. And since the masses focused on the Lewinsky part, they forgot what the real issue was. The attention was diverted. Like my previous post, little things get squeezed in and people don't care. They all need to be accountable. If I got Lewinsky'd at work and got caught, I'd be fired in a heartbeat, end of story.

In this day and age of low values, people care more about American idol and dancing with the stars and the like than contacting their representatives. Why do more people vote for Idol than in elections??? I would love to be able to prevent crack heads and generational welfare people from voting. While that sounds mean, their votes cast towards candidates giving more handouts is keeping them oppressed and poor, only when push comes to shove will they do anything about it. And if they commit crimes for easy money, then prosecute them. I was taught that bad choices have consequences, where are the consequences for the criminals? Where are the consequences for lying politicians? Where are the consequences for celebrities and media people for misleading the public. Why do celebrities get more "credibility" in the press than "plumber Joe"? They are so fae removed from reality, its not even funny. And how sheeple worship them. My neighbor asks me what I think of celebrity X, and my response is always, "Who is that?". I get the same response when I ask them about our officials. My Delegate and State Senator knows who I am. My U.S. Senator (the dinosaur witch that she is) won't take my calls. My U.S. Representative has personally returned calls. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, time for all of us to squeak like a mofo. Not just at election time, but every week. If your representatives don't know who you are, YOU are not doing your civic duty. I bet you know who your boss is at work, so we must remind officials that we are their bosses.

I'd bet more time is spent in pissing matches over what brand of mud motor is better than has been spent contacting our representatives. Prove me wrong. I dare ya,... I double dog dare ya.

dquidry, having read this so far. I have come away with some interesting insights into fellow posters. To have a different opinion than the majority here is fine with me, BUT you sir come off as an elitist, arrogant, and more than likely don't have much of a life for your measly 58 years. In my mind you are nothing but a shit stirrer and the other members here shouldn't play into your game.
As far as your precious lawyers maybe Shakespeare said it best.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

says it all

Oh I do know it was a play on words... I was just acting like a lawyer and twisting your words into something completely different than what you said.

Just this morning I was discussing the merits of the new health care law. Remember we're talking about a constitutional law now in effect and not some concept. We have a friend who has a daughter who had spinabifida and needs periodic surgery. He was working for Haliburton which provided health care coverage for his child and family. His daughter needs additional surgery . He got laid off about 6 months ago and in order to maintain coverage had to convert to Cobra coverage with its exorbitant premium increase which they could not afford. He got a new job a month ago with another company that provides health insurance but there's a waiting period of months ...6 mos I think before it will cover pre-existing illnesses like the child has. The incredible thing about this is that the new insurer is the same as that providing coverage while at Haliburton. They we're forced to wait 8 mos now to be able to get the surgery done because of this nightmare provision regarding per existing illnesses but what is more disturbing is that the insurer was the same. Never gonna happen again under the new law.

Another thing....the new law will eliminate the doctor vs patient and Heath insurer atmosphere. It will now be only doctor vs insurer. You will be greeted by your doctor with how can I help you today instead of who's gonna pay me. This is how my Cadiologist son in law described it to me.

One of the major costs of health care is the overhead doctors have dealing with insurance companies. A good friend of mine is a psychologist and when he started his practice he asked a colleague of his for advice... The advice he received was do not take insurance!!! He didn't listen and he had to hire a full time person whose only role was dealing with insurance companies, with salary and benefits, it cost him $50k a year for that person. A year or two later, he quit taking insurance and cut $50k of expenses.

There are other doctors in my area that have 2 fee schedules, one if the patient uses insurance and another cheaper one if the don't. They explain that the net result to the doctor's practice is the same because of saving time by not involving the insurance companies. In addition when patients pay, the doctor is paid and doesn't have to wait.

Insurance companies make money two main ways (and as a for profit organization and not as a charity) they are entitled to make a profit. They make money by taking in premiums and not paying as much out and from the float (the time between taking in premiums and paying out benefits). The problem I have is because of the float, its in the insurance companies' best interest to drag their feet as ling as possible. Because doctors have to wait to be paid from insurance, many charge more, and the insurance only pays out certain amounts. Then medical staff has to reconcile the numbers... Wasted time.

What is really needed is reform how insurance companies operate, and make them more efficient, that would make healthcare more affordable.

That's my two (non Harvard, non Columbia, non Yale) cents.

Just thinking,,,,should heathy people be given rebates????? Or should people that chose to be 350lbs and take 20 pills a day to keep themselves alive pay the same as a healthy person of the same age??

Something for someone to debate there right??? I mean,,,if you dont have wrecks or tickets you premiums go down on car insurance and go up if you are a wreckless driver...

What sparks this is i watch older guys at work every morning take 6-8 pills a day to controll blood pressure, colesterol...etc. etc...

Then drink 2 gals of coffee a day, with a pound of bacon with salt on the bacon, then a cheesburger for lunch and go home to prolly fried catfish....then take 10 more pill before gone to bed....ohh, i forgot add in 3 packs of cigarettes a day...

I mean im all for the freedom of choice.....But if you chose that life should you pay the same as someone who is much healthier????

I ask, becuse i have not been to the Dr in i cannot remember when;;;


Just wondering...

My wife and I had this debate yesterday. Would I go to the Gym, exercise and loose weight if every time I did my insurance company gave me a credit off of my insurance premiums. What if the credit were worth $1000 per year or more? I said that I would and many others would as well. So maybe the Republicans could add an amendment to the healthe care law to this effect whereby perhaps we could get a tax deduction for healthy living, too. I would be all for that

tHE GOOD IN ALL THIS......Roberts could have gone for the death nail, but he narrowed the commerce clause and made the healthcare bill a tax.....that does 2 things. It means the federal government definition of the commerce clause has been narrowed not broadened for mor govment control. And 2 it makes the bill a tax which means it only takes 50 instead of 60 in the senate to overturn...Also it makes it a referendum on obama in the upcoming election. Roberts basically said the we get what we voted for and the "tax" stands. I think the ruling is good if you are Romney and if you follow through with the repeal.

Well, Obamacare is now official, which means that a lot more people in the United States will have health insurance.

And it also means a lot more people will be paying more taxes.

(You didn't think Obamacare was free, did you?)

Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 18.8%--if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8%. (WSJ)
A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ)
Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org)
The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to $10,000. Right now, any medical expenses over $7,500 per year are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be $10,000. (ATR.org)
The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org)
A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)
A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)
A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org)
A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.)
A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)
So those are some of the new taxes you'll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare.

Any big ones I've missed?

Note that these taxes are both "progressive" (aimed at rich people) and "regressive" (aimed at the middle class and poor people). The big ones--the 3.8% investment income hike and the Medicare tax increase--only hit you if you're making more than $200,000 a year. The rest hit you no matter how much you're making.

Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You

Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.

Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.

But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.

The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.

As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:

The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.
So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan
The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.

But here's some more good news for those folks:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:

Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites or Mennonites

No go factor in how much we'll save on the actual premiums associated with pre-existing conditions which will no longer factor into your premium; savings from earlier detection of disease and preventative health care...there are many others...google "how will the new health care law save money".

That may get some people in for preventive screening, but it doesn't mean all will. Some people may not be able to afford to take off of work. My employer allows us 15 days of personal time off per year, however we are paid on profit sharing (basically commissioned). While as part of a department I could take time off, and my business partner covered for me while out and vise versa. However when the partner was "given a chance to explore other opportunities" I was the only person left on the department. So if I took time off, I wasn't getting paid because business wasn't getting done. Too bad I only had taken 1 day off before he got canned that year in the spring.... I couldn't afford to take any of the remaining days off. So my point is, just because something is free doesn't mean everyone could afford the time to do it.

My point still stands that for a lot of medical services, my break even point will still be $2800 and have only once in 10 years ever reached my deductible and so in those 10 years, I paid out $13000 in premiums, and only recouped a fraction of that. Now if I decline insurance, I'll be "this is not a tax....taxed." When business is good, paying the premium isn't an issue, when business is way down, there are people at my company that would gladly give up insurance to have that extra money in their paychecks. More money in their paychecks means some of that money will be saved, and some would be spent. Money spent spurs the economy. But if I have to pay, "this is not a tax...tax," there is money that I no longer have to put into the economy. If you say that the extra taxes collected by the the model of efficiency will be put into the economy, then you have forgotten how much the government wastes in general. A person can not be taxed into prosperity.

Time to invest in precious metals. Buy lead.

Mr. Guidry,

Any rainbow and unicorn mythical land replies?

While I do like the idea of waving a magic wand and giving everyone cheap, high quality health care, since we are a country of individuals with different circumstances, one can not have legislation that is good for all. This is one of the reasons that many people do not like this law.

And I'll tie this to our Nation's birthday. Our founding fathers despised being forced to do things that they didn't want. King George said that paying taxes was their duty so he could provide for and control the colonies. While their were colonists who enjoyed being sheeple under the heavy handed rule of George, THANK GOD more colonists understood government must be controlled. Hence, two of the greatest documents ever created. So as we celebrate our Nation's birthday, remember why we are not part of the British empire... It's "we the people" not we the subjects of overbearing and oppressing government.