Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out

[C...@prayforme.com]

Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out

President Obama’s mandate is clear: if you pay for health insurance in
any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
religious liberty is unconstitutional.

The ACLJ has filed the first lawsuit challenging the HHS mandate on
behalf of an individual citizen, an American citizen of faith, who
knows that under our Constitution, the government cannot force him to
violate his religious beliefs when paying for health insurance.

We are aggressively working to stop President Obama’s new attack on
religious liberty and stop this radical expansion of abortion. Join
this critical fight by signing on to our petition -- calling on
President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius to permit Americans to opt
out of a mandate that violates their religious beliefs.

Petition to Opt Out of Obama's Abortion Pill Mandate

To: President Obama and Secretary Sebelius

Every person of faith has the constitutional right to not pay for
health insurance that violates their faith. Every person of faith
should be allowed to opt out of the new HHS mandate if they believe it
violates their religious beliefs.

http://aclj.org/obamacare/stop-abortion-pill-mandate-citizen-faith-opt-out

CB
By their fruits you shall know them--The White House and Christ
Tuesday, April 26, 2011

In Matthew 7:15-16, Jesus warns, "Beware of false prophets, which come
to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye
shall know them by their fruits."
http://prophecyfrombillwilsontoday.blogspot.com/2011/04/by-their-fruits-you-shall-know-them.html

Compare the above with...

Keynesian economics 'is' at work by Obama the Marxist in sheep's
clothing.

Fabian/Keynesian coat of arms, a wolf in sheeps clothing
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5061156284_476ecafd07_m.jpg

The whole Fabian stain window
http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/FabianWindow-1.jpg

"Obama didn’t just have a team of Keynesians. He had the Keynesian
all-star team"
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=We+Are+All+Keynesians+Now&view=detail&id=F42464A667E9DE1A569CAB0C1356878EBA5D420F&first=30&FORM=IDFRIR

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <b1r3n75ic7jt7frds...@4ax.com>,

"C...@PrayForMe.com" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:

>Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out
>
>President Obama’s mandate is clear: if you pay for health insurance in
>any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
>religious liberty is unconstitutional.
>

• Insurance companies increase profits by providing free birth control.

--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/27/2012 1:07 PM, • R. L. Measures. wrote:
> In article <b1r3n75ic7jt7frds...@4ax.com>,
> "C...@PrayForMe.com" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>> Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out
>>
>> President Obama’s mandate is clear: if you pay for health insurance in
>> any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
>> religious liberty is unconstitutional.
>>
> • Insurance companies increase profits by providing free birth control.
>

Yes and they increase profits by getting laws mandating that every
person buy their bloated policies that offer what we don't want.....


But this is about freedoms NOT profits.






--
*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.

[Paul Duca]

Only if God coughs up with lots of money first....


Paul

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <4F71FFBE...@blackhole.nebulax.com>, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 3/27/2012 1:07 PM, • R. L. Measures. wrote:
>> In article <b1r3n75ic7jt7frds...@4ax.com>,
>> "C...@PrayForMe.com" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out
>>>
>>> President Obama’s mandate is clear: if you pay for health insurance in
>>> any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
>>> religious liberty is unconstitutional.
>>>
>> • Insurance companies increase profits by providing free birth control.
>>
>Yes and they increase profits by getting laws mandating that every
>person buy their bloated policies that offer what we don't want.....
>
>
>But this is about freedoms NOT profits.

** The laugher is that those without a job who don't have money to buy a
policy get fined - which they also don't have the money to pay.

[W.T.S.]

In article <fce4n7pcfcb2j1csv...@4ax.com>,
Dontb...@netportusa.com says...
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:58:22 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>
> >On 3/27/2012 1:07 PM, ? R. L. Measures. wrote:
> >> In article <b1r3n75ic7jt7frds...@4ax.com>,
> >> "C...@PrayForMe.com" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out
> >>>

> >>> President Obama?s mandate is clear: if you pay for health insurance in

> >>> any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
> >>> religious liberty is unconstitutional.
> >>>

> >> ? Insurance companies increase profits by providing free birth control.

> >>
> >Yes and they increase profits by getting laws mandating that every
> >person buy their bloated policies that offer what we don't want.....
> >
> >But this is about freedoms NOT profits.
>

> Yes, it's about freedom from oppression by religious nuts. Maternity
> benefits are part of the package. So those that support abortions have to
> pay for religious brats to be born. Births are much more costly than
> abortions, Then the religious that are on welfare increases the cost to the
> public of raising some more little self righteous hate filled bigots.

Excellent points! Birth shouldn't be covered in any insurance system,
only abortions and sterilizations.

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs.
Live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg

[Sid9]

"• R. L. Measures." <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:rL-270312...@10.0.1.3...

> In article <4F71FFBE...@blackhole.nebulax.com>, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>

>>On 3/27/2012 1:07 PM, • R. L. Measures. wrote:
>>> In article <b1r3n75ic7jt7frds...@4ax.com>,
>>> "C...@PrayForMe.com" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out
>>>>

>>>> President Obama’s mandate is clear: if you pay for health insurance

>>>> in
>>>> any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
>>>> religious liberty is unconstitutional.
>>>>

>>> • Insurance companies increase profits by providing free birth

>>> control.
>>>
>>Yes and they increase profits by getting laws mandating that every
>>person buy their bloated policies that offer what we don't want.....
>>
>>
>>But this is about freedoms NOT profits.
>
> ** The laugher is that those without a job who don't have money to buy a
> policy get fined - which they also don't have the money to pay.
>
> --
> Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

.
.
"FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD COVERAGE

The Affordable Health Care Act makes Medicaid and the Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP)
available to individuals between the ages of 19 to 64 with incomes up to 33%
of the federal poverty level---currently $14,856 for an individual and
$30,656 for a family of four.

These changes will become effective in 2014 when the Affordable Insurance
Exchanges begin operation. The federal government will pay 100% of the cost
of the Medicaid expansion for the first three years and at least 90% after
that."

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/27/2012 6:42 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "• R. L. Measures." <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> news:rL-270312...@10.0.1.3...
>> In article <4F71FFBE...@blackhole.nebulax.com>, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2012 1:07 PM, • R. L. Measures. wrote:
>>>> In article <b1r3n75ic7jt7frds...@4ax.com>,
>>>> "C...@PrayForMe.com" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out
>>>>>
>>>>> President Obama’s mandate is clear: if you pay for health
>>>>> insurance in
>>>>> any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
>>>>> religious liberty is unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>> • Insurance companies increase profits by providing free birth
>>>> control.
>>>>
>>> Yes and they increase profits by getting laws mandating that every
>>> person buy their bloated policies that offer what we don't want.....
>>>
>>>
>>> But this is about freedoms NOT profits.
>>
>> ** The laugher is that those without a job who don't have money to
>> buy a policy get fined - which they also don't have the money to pay.

The poor will NOW have *The IRS* confiscating their HOUSE to pay for the
fines they can't afford... The poor will lose more houses and the
economy will take another hit in 2014 when the fines start.

It's NOT bad enough that they can barely afford their mortgage, but now
they have to pay fines to ObamaCare with the IRS collection agency
hounding their ass. You gotta love these Obamanistas and their 3rd
world Socialist economic plans.

This should be quite the economic crash in the next few years as all the
Obama laws and taxes hit the economy. Now that Newt is handing the
whole thing to Romney (The Republicans progressive version of Obama) we
can expect a total economic melt down.

Batten down the hatches, there are rough times ahead.....

[RichTravsky]

"C...@PrayForMe.com" wrote:
>
> Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out

Just don't take one.

[Ray Fischer]

On 2012-03-27 16:40:16 +0000, C...@PrayForMe.com said:

> Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out
>
> President Obama’s mandate is clear: if you pay for health insurance in
> any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
> religious liberty is unconstitutional.

It's a lie designed to justify religious intolerance.

People in a civil society all pay for taxes that are used to fund
things that they may not agree with. That rteligious bigots believe
that they deserve special consideration is only evidence of cult
whining.

[W.T.S.]

In article <4f77ba6e$0$49325$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
rfis...@sonic.net says...

> On 2012-03-27 16:40:16 +0000, C...@PrayForMe.com said:
>
> > Stop Abortion Pill Mandate, Every Citizen of Faith Should Opt Out
> >

> > President Obama?s mandate is clear: if you pay for health insurance in

> > any way, you must pay for the abortion pill. This violation of
> > religious liberty is unconstitutional.
>
> It's a lie designed to justify religious intolerance.
>
> People in a civil society all pay for taxes that are used to fund
> things that they may not agree with. That rteligious bigots believe
> that they deserve special consideration is only evidence of cult
> whining.

Excellent point! Thanks. Perhaps we should defund viagra and other
male problem treatments. Better still, defund child birth and health
care for children. Let stupid parents bear the full cost of having
children.

[Bob LeChevalier]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> ** The laugher is that those without a job who don't have money to buy a
>> policy get fined - which they also don't have the money to pay.
>>
>> --
>> Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

Actually not. As Sid notes (quoted below) people with low incomes (or
no income because they have no job) qualify for Medicaid, and hence
are not subject to the mandate.

When fully phased in (2016), the mandated fine in the larger of $695
or 2.5% of income up to a maximum of $2085.

So an individual making more than the amount specified below would
have to have insurance or pay a $695 fine, a little more than 4% of
their income. The family of 4 that makes a little too much for
Medicaid is already above the minimum at 2.5%, and would need to pay
$767.

In addition, anyone who loses coverage for less than 3 months due to
job loss owes no fine, and anyone below the tax filing minimum
threshold owes no fine (the latter is lower than the Medicaid
threshold, so I'm not sure who would fit this criterion, other than
someone who wilfully refuses to enroll in Medicaid although eligible.)

>"FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD COVERAGE
>
>The Affordable Health Care Act makes Medicaid and the Children's Health
>Insurance Program (CHIP)
>available to individuals between the ages of 19 to 64 with incomes up to 33%
>of the federal poverty level---currently $14,856 for an individual and
>$30,656 for a family of four.

I believe that is supposed to be 133%, not 33%
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

In addition, there are cost-sharing credits to reduce the cost of
insurance on the exchanges for those between 133% and 400% of the
poverty level.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>The poor will NOW have *The IRS* confiscating their HOUSE to pay for the
>fines they can't afford.

False.

1. "The poor" don't own houses.

2. "The poor" qualify for Medicaid if for nothing else, and hence
would not be subject to the fine.

3. The law does not include IRS enforcement by confiscation.

[lsrlts]

On 4/5/2012 12:43 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> The poor will NOW have *The IRS* confiscating their HOUSE to pay for the
>> fines they can't afford.
>
> False.
>
> 1. "The poor" don't own houses.

Never heard of Habitat?

You moron.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The entire Mortgage fiasco was all about getting houses for the poor, to
hear the Liberal-Socialists tell it.

Too bad that Obamacare and the 16,000 new IRS agents will be
confiscating those homes to pay the ObamaCare tax.... ooops I mean fines.

Liberals want to pass laws to get the poor into home ownership and now
pass a law that will use the IRS to confiscate those very same homes.

It looks like the housing market will continue to go crash and burn
thanks to ObamaCare.






--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:43:57 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
wrote:

>BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>The poor will NOW have *The IRS* confiscating their HOUSE to pay for the
>>fines they can't afford.
>
>False.
>
>1. "The poor" don't own houses.

Half of all homeowners are poor, even if they
have no mortgage payment the house may not be
worth $30,000.

>2. "The poor" qualify for Medicaid if for nothing else, and hence
>would not be subject to the fine.

And can own a home worth a considerable amount,
real estate taxes are bound to be a factor though.

>3. The law does not include IRS enforcement by confiscation.
>
>lojbab
>---
>Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/hometreat.htm

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:41:11 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
wrote:

Time to find an isolated place with a few trees
and a mountain spring around, buy a solar panel,
and start a garden, then spend the rest of the
time fishing and hunting.

Tax that, Ala Bamba

[lsrlts]

On 4/5/2012 1:31 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 3:57 PM, lsrlts wrote:
>> On 4/5/2012 12:43 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> The poor will NOW have *The IRS* confiscating their HOUSE to pay for the
>>>> fines they can't afford.
>>>
>>> False.
>>>
>>> 1. "The poor" don't own houses.
>>
>> Never heard of Habitat?
>>
>> You moron.
>
>
>
>
>
> The entire Mortgage fiasco was all about getting houses for the poor, to
> hear the Liberal-Socialists tell it.

That's a fact.

> Too bad that Obamacare and the 16,000 new IRS agents will be
> confiscating those homes to pay the ObamaCare tax.... ooops I mean fines.

Yes.

> Liberals want to pass laws to get the poor into home ownership and now
> pass a law that will use the IRS to confiscate those very same homes.
>
> It looks like the housing market will continue to go crash and burn
> thanks to ObamaCare.

Ugly isn't it.

[lsrlts]

Right on.

[Bob LeChevalier]

emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> Time to find an isolated place with a few trees
>and a mountain spring around, buy a solar panel,
>and start a garden, then spend the rest of the
>time fishing and hunting.
>
> Tax that, Ala Bamba

Tax the purchase of a solar panel. Require a hunting license and a
fishing license, each with a tax. Real estate taxes on the property.

You were saying?

[Bob LeChevalier]

I assume you mean "Habitat for Humanity"

Here is the web page of their local affiliate:
http://www.habitatnova.org/?page_id=62

Local median income is around $100K. So qualifying families need to
make $25K-$50K. They need to pass credit, employment, and reference
checks. They need to make a 1% down payment. They need to be able to
afford a no-interest mortgage. They have to be able to contribute
300-500 hours a sweat equity (on top of whatever they are doing as
part of their employment. Possibly a poor family could meet these
criteria, in which case after 20-30 years paying off the mortgage they
would own their house. Of course then they will have a net worth of
the house's property value, probably well in excess of $100K, which
means that they aren't poor anymore.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 4/5/2012 3:57 PM, lsrlts wrote:
>> On 4/5/2012 12:43 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> The poor will NOW have *The IRS* confiscating their HOUSE to pay for the
>>>> fines they can't afford.
>>>
>>> False.
>>>
>>> 1. "The poor" don't own houses.
>>
>> Never heard of Habitat?
>>
>> You moron.
>
>The entire Mortgage fiasco was all about getting houses for the poor, to
>hear the Liberal-Socialists tell it.

No. That is right-wingers say that the mortgage fiasco was.

>Too bad that Obamacare and the 16,000 new IRS agents will be
>confiscating those homes to pay the ObamaCare tax.

Nope.

[Bob LeChevalier]

emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:43:57 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
>wrote:
>
>>BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>The poor will NOW have *The IRS* confiscating their HOUSE to pay for the
>>>fines they can't afford.
>>
>>False.
>>
>>1. "The poor" don't own houses.
>
> Half of all homeowners are poor, even if they
>have no mortgage payment the house may not be
>worth $30,000.

Many people would consider having a net worth of $30,000 to be
significant. They aren't "rich", but it is arguable whether such a
person is "poor".

Their income may be below the poverty level - indeed, their income may
be below the poverty level and they may own a million dollar mansion -
but people who own a million dollar mansion aren't poor, no matter
what their income is.

>>2. "The poor" qualify for Medicaid if for nothing else, and hence
>>would not be subject to the fine.
>
> And can own a home worth a considerable amount,
>real estate taxes are bound to be a factor though.

They might be. But if they own such a home, they aren't really
"poor". Even so, they may qualify for Medicaid (or Medicare if a
senior), and hence not be subject to the mandate or the fine.

[Paul Duca]

On Apr 6, 12:56 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:31:10 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

>
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >The entire Mortgage fiasco was all about getting houses for the poor, to
> >hear the Liberal-Socialists tell it.
>

> No, Loonboy--it wasn't
>
> 85% of ALL Money related to the mortage/derivitive scandal was
> directly involved in Developers, builders, lending banks, investment
> banks and wall street.
>
> The loans PUSHED on home buyers were designed to maximize the loan
> amount because the loan amount was intended to produce a
> "derivitive"--thereby offering loans in those NEW developments or
> loans the individuals did not qualify for.
>
> That was never the intention of the legislation.
>
> The reasons the legislation was subverted---BUSH and GOP revised the
> regulations and pushed Fannie/Freddie to allow money to be used.
>
> Stupid as usual

And of course, it let them boast how "More Americans now own homes
than at any other time in history" to make the masses believe
everything else was okey dokey.

Paul

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:51:02 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
wrote:

Sorry, no money, government will just have
to take the property for taxes, they do not put
people in jail for owing taxes.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:13:28 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>

There are no qualifications for Medicare other
than age or disability and the work record and signing up.

The more a house is worth, the more income
is needed to pay the taxes unless some states
have an unlimited homestead act.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:06:00 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:02:00 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:

>
>>
>> Sorry, no money, government will just have
>>to take the property for taxes, they do not put
>>people in jail for owing taxes.
>

>Tell that to Al Capone.

Dims don't see the difference between owing taxes
and avoiding tax liability.

I don't know the exact points of the law that will
allow the IRS to seek jail time, and apparently
neither do you.

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <lk32o79rruuf1qdid...@4ax.com>,

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:02:00 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>

>> Sorry, no money, government will just have
>>to take the property for taxes, they do not put
>>people in jail for owing taxes.
>

>Tell that to Al Capone.

• and others.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:01:38 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 01:25:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:06:00 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:02:00 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, no money, government will just have
>>>>to take the property for taxes, they do not put
>>>>people in jail for owing taxes.
>>>
>>>Tell that to Al Capone.
>>
>> Dims don't see the difference between owing taxes
>>and avoiding tax liability.
>>
>> I don't know the exact points of the law that will
>>allow the IRS to seek jail time, and apparently
>>neither do you.
>

>Don't need to

Sure, live in your delusional world, has dementia
been diagnosed?


>All I need to know is that there are prisons with people serving time
>for non-payment of taxes.

Prove that they are not there for intentionally
trying to conceal income, and trying to avoid owing
taxes on income.

Most people put in jail by the IRS, and there
may not be that many, had huge incomes without
documented accounting and hid the money.

Most that end up in prison have had their
home searched and huge sums of money found.


>li·a·bil·i·ty (lº”…-b¹l“¹-t¶) n., pl. li·a·bil·i·ties. 1. The state of
>being liable. 2.a. Something for which one is liable; an obligation, a
>responsibility, or a debt. b. liabilities.
>
>You can't be that smart to argue that "liability" isn't the basis of
>non-payment and the laws that put you in jail

Are you really that stupid, or unaware of what
ordinary morals are, and what part "intent" plays
in the law?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-03-31-trouble-paying-taxes.htm

Who do you think goes to prison for avoiding
taxes other than Bingo operators, casino operators,
gangsters, used car lot owners, and store owners
that had some illegal operation which did not show
up on the books.

No wonder you have such extreme bias, you
thrive on gossip and false assumptions.

[lsrlts]

On 4/8/2012 2:33 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> Who do you think goes to prison for avoiding
> taxes other than Bingo operators, casino operators,
> gangsters, used car lot owners, and store owners
> that had some illegal operation which did not show
> up on the books.
>

Wesley Snipes?

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:19:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
wrote:

>In article <lk32o79rruuf1qdid...@4ax.com>,
>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:02:00 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, no money, government will just have
>>>to take the property for taxes, they do not put
>>>people in jail for owing taxes.
>>
>>Tell that to Al Capone.
>

>? and others.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/capone-goes-to-prison


Can you spell "tax evasion" and explain how that
differs from not paying taxes due?

[emoneyjoe]

http://www.eonline.com/news/five_things_know_about_wesley_snipes/215254

3 Misdemeanors for not filing, with substantial income.



http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=107522,00.html


I would guess that a person with no taxable income
does not need to file, and a person who had probably
millions in income knew they had to file.


But clearly in the tax code, there has to be some
intent proven in court, an intent to somehow avoid
or evade being required to pay the taxes.

[lsrlts]

Good research, thanks.

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <1i14o7d2aqrj6jnno...@4ax.com>,

emon...@iglou.com wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:19:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <lk32o79rruuf1qdid...@4ax.com>,
>>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:02:00 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, no money, government will just have
>>>>to take the property for taxes, they do not put
>>>>people in jail for owing taxes.
>>>
>>>Tell that to Al Capone.
>>
>>? and others.
>
>http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/capone-goes-to-prison
>

** tnx. Smiling Al.

>
> Can you spell "tax evasion" and explain how that
>differs from not paying taxes due?

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:54:20 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:33:20 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>All I need to know is that there are prisons with people serving time
>>>for non-payment of taxes.
>>
>> Prove that they are not there for intentionally
>>trying to conceal income, and trying to avoid owing
>>taxes on income.
>

>Non payment of taxes is a crime

Says you, the IRS says file, all income, pay
what you can when you can.

>>>li·a·bil·i·ty (lº”…-b¹l“¹-t¶) n., pl. li·a·bil·i·ties. 1. The state of
>>>being liable. 2.a. Something for which one is liable; an obligation, a
>>>responsibility, or a debt. b. liabilities.
>>>
>>>You can't be that smart to argue that "liability" isn't the basis of
>>>non-payment and the laws that put you in jail
>>
>> Are you really that stupid, or unaware of what
>>ordinary morals are, and what part "intent" plays
>>in the law?
>

>I'm not stupid enough to say there are no tax evaders in prison

You seem to be stupid enough to not see
the difference between tax evading and legal
filing and not having the money to pay.

>>http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-03-31-trouble-paying-taxes.htm
>>
>> Who do you think goes to prison for avoiding
>>taxes other than Bingo operators, casino operators,
>>gangsters, used car lot owners, and store owners
>>that had some illegal operation which did not show
>>up on the books.
>

>THose who, on "principles" refuse to pay taxes.

Who does that?

>> No wonder you have such extreme bias, you
>>thrive on gossip and false assumptions.
>

>Don't need any of those to refute your silly claim

Your claim is that they put people in jail
for _owing_ money, the only case that holds
true is for child support.

[RichTravsky]

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> > Time to find an isolated place with a few trees
> >and a mountain spring around, buy a solar panel,
> >and start a garden, then spend the rest of the
> >time fishing and hunting.

Boring.

> > Tax that, Ala Bamba
>
> Tax the purchase of a solar panel. Require a hunting license and a
> fishing license, each with a tax. Real estate taxes on the property.

Local, county, and state taxes too.

> You were saying?

He says he hopes he doesn't get sick or need clothes or anything else.

[emoneyjoe]

People need to be able to dream, what could
be better than a 40 pound Musky on the line?

[lsrlts]

A cast iron fry pan full of oil and batter dip to cook him in...

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:32:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:58:54 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>He says he hopes he doesn't get sick or need clothes or anything else.
>>
>> People need to be able to dream, what could
>>be better than a 40 pound Musky on the line?
>>
>

>Bush, Raygun relegated to the list of "worst American presidents in
>History"
>
>Oh wait---that's not a dream---that's reality

You live in a different world, one where people
use force to accomplish what should be free.

[RichTravsky]

Medical care.

[Linda Austin]

On Apr 5, 4:31 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 3:57 PM, lsrlts wrote:
>
> > On 4/5/2012 12:43 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> >> BeamMeUpScotty<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com>  wrote:

> >>> The poor will NOW have *The IRS* confiscating their HOUSE to pay for the
> >>> fines they can't afford.
>
> >> False.
>
> >> 1. "The poor" don't own houses.
>

> > Never heard of Habitat?

Great LIBERAL program started by Jimmy Carter. There's a local Habitat
Team that's made up entirely of retired Generals and Admirals. I know
I spent one Saturday helping them with the framing for a Habitat home.
By putting in sweat equity and by getting help from people with the
time and spirit to give that help (what George HW Bush called the
'thousand points of light'), the housing was made affordable for them.
Unlike what happened in the 2000s, where bankers, freed of all
restraint by a Republican Congress that refused to regulate exotic
financing mechanisms like credit default swaps, earned enormous
bonuses financing property for people who could never afford to pay
off the loans they got.


> > You moron.

>
> The entire Mortgage fiasco was all about getting houses for the poor, to
> hear the Liberal-Socialists tell it.

No. It was about bankers inflating property values by letting loans to
people who couldn't repay them. As long as property kept going up, the
property could always be foreclosed upon and resold at a profit. It
usually went long before that happened. The junk bonds used to finance
those deals was bundled and sold as triple A securities. The scam work
for a few years then like all bubbles and schemes that rely on
inflated values, finally burst. The bankers made enormous amounts of
money on bonuses based on their loan portfolios before the whole house
of cards tumbled. The president of Wamu, who led the charge and
thoroughly ruined the bank went out with $100 million in bonuses.

> Too bad that Obamacare and the 16,000 new IRS agents will be

> confiscating those homes to pay the ObamaCare tax....  ooops I mean fines.

???? The poor don't have to pay the fines, and there is no real way
collecting them. They're not a tax so the IRS isn't involved.

> Liberals want to pass laws to get the poor into home ownership and now
> pass a law that will use the IRS to confiscate those very same homes.

Never happened that way, but it's the propaganda you've been fed. The
Republicans refused to regulate the markets. The sharks took over and
a had a feeding frenzy. This wasn't the fault of the "poor." It was
mostly middle class wage earners who were scammed into taking
mortgages that they could never afford.

> It looks like the housing market will continue to go crash and burn
> thanks to ObamaCare.

You are confused aren't you? The ACA has nothing to do with the
housing market.

> *He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 9:48 PM, Linda Austin wrote:
> The
> Republicans refused to regulate the markets.

You like to feather your lies with portions of truth, that makes you
untrustworthy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and
Freddy Mac and what thus became the 2008 financial crisis -- starting in
2002 (and actually even earlier -- in the Clinton and Carter White
Houses. Democrats resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans
to people who couldn't afford them --

[emoneyjoe]

Wash your hands more and maybe you won't
get sick as often.

[Linda Austin]

On Apr 5, 5:52 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:41:11 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> **  The laugher is that those without a job who don't have money to  buy a
> >>> policy get fined - which they also don't have the money to pay.

>
> >>> --
> >>> Richard L. Measures. AG6K,  805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>

> >Actually not.  As Sid notes (quoted below) people with low incomes (or
> >no income because they have no job) qualify for Medicaid, and hence
> >are not subject to the mandate.
>
> >When fully phased in (2016), the mandated fine in the larger of $695
> >or 2.5% of income up to a maximum of $2085.
>
> >So an individual making more than the amount specified below would
> >have to have insurance or pay a $695 fine, a little more than 4% of
> >their income.  The family of 4 that makes a little too much for
> >Medicaid is already above the minimum at 2.5%, and would need to pay
> >$767.
>
> >In addition, anyone who loses coverage for less than 3 months due to
> >job loss owes no fine, and anyone below the tax filing minimum
> >threshold owes no fine (the latter is lower than the Medicaid
> >threshold, so I'm not sure who would fit this criterion, other than
> >someone who wilfully refuses to enroll in Medicaid although eligible.)
>
> >>"FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD COVERAGE
>
> >>The Affordable Health Care Act makes Medicaid and the Children's Health
> >>Insurance Program (CHIP)
> >>available to individuals between the ages of 19 to 64 with incomes up to 33%
> >>of the federal poverty level---currently $14,856 for an individual and
> >>$30,656 for a family of four.
>
> >I believe that is supposed to be 133%, not 33%
> >http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
>
> >In addition, there are cost-sharing credits to reduce the cost of
> >insurance on the exchanges for those between 133% and 400% of the
> >poverty level.

>
> >lojbab
> >---
> >Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> >loj...@lojban.org   Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>

>         Time to find an isolated place with a few trees
> and a mountain spring around, buy a solar panel,
> and start a garden, then spend the rest of the
> time fishing and hunting.
>

>        Tax that, Ala Bamba

Good. And when you break your leg or get pneumonia you'll be the first
to call for helicopters to lift you to the nearest hospital.

[Alan Ferris]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:50:48 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid>
wrote:

>The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and
>Freddy Mac

I thought the whole CRA thing was started by Bush Sr.





--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")

[lsrlts]

On 4/14/2012 5:31 AM, Alan Ferris wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:50:48 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and
>> Freddy Mac
>
> I thought

Not lately.

[Alan Ferris]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:17:26 -0700, lsrlts added nothing as usual.

Recent action in Syria leads to increased security.

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in
Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to
"Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to
"Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit
Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.

Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody
Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance"
warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's
get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the
reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for
the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its
terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in
France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate". The rise was precipitated by
a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively
paralysing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly"
to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain:
"Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful
Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also
have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".

Belgium does not have a government, so is incapable of having any
warning level. All on holiday as usual; the only threat they are
worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to
deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the
modern Spanish fleet can get a really good look at the old Spanish
navy.

Americans meanwhile are carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of
their allies, just in case.

Meanwhile in the southern hemisphere...

New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to
"BAAAA!" Due to continuing defence cutbacks, New Zealand only has one
more level of escalation, which is "Shut, I hope Austrulia will come
end riscue us". In the event of invasion, New Zealanders will be
asked to gather together in a strategic defensive position, called
Bondi.

It might be worth noting that New Zealand would be unable to raise an
army as its soldiers are all currently deployed playing orcs in the
upcoming Hobbit movie.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries"
to "She'll be right, mate". Three more escalation levels remain:
"Crikey!", "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and
"The barbie is cancelled." It should be noted that there has not been
a situation yet that has warranted the use of the final escalation
level.

[RichTravsky]

What do you do if yo get appendicitis? Fishbone stuck in the throat?