1099 REFORM UPDATE – ACTION SET BEGIN IN SENATE

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/...will-not-obey/

We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its
sovereignty.

So you claim to uphold the US Constitution, but you won't uphold Article 6
Section 3 of the Constitution which clearly states that "the states shall be
bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

Where do you get that secession is illegal? I take it you've never
read the Declaration of Independence!
What was established at Appomattox in 1865 is that there is a LEGAL
and CONSTITUTIONAL way to do it. A few states can't simply wander off
on their own. It takes ALL of them or at least perhaps 2/3 or 3/4 to
do it. And if they do that it is a LEGAL operation just like any
amendment to the constitution. And THEREFORE it clearly follows that
if ordered to occupy any state that has simply VOTED to secede a
soldier or other official MUST refuse that illegal order. And that
goes so long as legal procedures are carefully followed. The president
is not a king or dictator (even though many would sure like to be).

There is a lot of devil here in the details. In fact, in my humble
opinion what the United States needs is a complete secession of ALL
states with a provision at the same time to REFORM under the ORIGINAL
constitution and 13 amendments. [sorry, no slavery (13), but we DO
want to "question public debt" (prohibited under 14)] I believe our
original constitution has been far too subverted to be put back the
way it was any other way. Like a cancer, that room full of federal Law
books and that city full of criminals (DC) needs to cut out and tossed
into the biological trashcan.

AND just in case you are totally unaware of the world, let me note
that the Rockefeller establishment has been attempting to install a
new constitution (the nightmare "NewStates Constitution") just this
way for a great many years now. So far, all their attempts to create a
constitutional convention (con-con) have failed, but that clearly
shows they recognize the power and legality of the method. We the
people should recognize it too.


"Merkin Patriot" wrote in message
...
We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts
its sovereignty.

So you claim to uphold the US Constitution, but you won't uphold Article 6
Section 3 of the Constitution which clearly states that "the states shall
be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

"Benj" wrote in message
...
Where do you get that secession is illegal? I take it you've never
read the Declaration of Independence!
What was established at Appomattox in 1865 is that there is a LEGAL
and CONSTITUTIONAL way to do it. A few states can't simply wander off
on their own. It takes ALL of them or at least perhaps 2/3 or 3/4 to
do it. And if they do that it is a LEGAL operation just like any
amendment to the constitution. And THEREFORE it clearly follows that
if ordered to occupy any state that has simply VOTED to secede a
soldier or other official MUST refuse that illegal order. And that
goes so long as legal procedures are carefully followed. The president
is not a king or dictator (even though many would sure like to be).

There is a lot of devil here in the details. In fact, in my humble
opinion what the United States needs is a complete secession of ALL
states with a provision at the same time to REFORM under the ORIGINAL
constitution and 13 amendments. [sorry, no slavery (13), but we DO
want to "question public debt" (prohibited under 14)] I believe our
original constitution has been far too subverted to be put back the
way it was any other way. Like a cancer, that room full of federal Law
books and that city full of criminals (DC) needs to cut out and tossed
into the biological trashcan.

AND just in case you are totally unaware of the world, let me note
that the Rockefeller establishment has been attempting to install a
new constitution (the nightmare "NewStates Constitution") just this
way for a great many years now. So far, all their attempts to create a
constitutional convention (con-con) have failed, but that clearly
shows they recognize the power and legality of the method. We the
people should recognize it too.


I'd much rather have a couple beers and hit the beach. You can ponder
secession stuff if that's your thing.

"Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
...
Actually, President Obama mentioned this in the State of the Union address
when talking about the Health Care Refirm Bill. He said, "If you have
ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more
affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by
correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary
bookkeeping burden on small businesses."

So the President is on the side of eliminaing this provision. The ball is
in Congress' court.


Why that was ever included in the bill is a mystery to me. I'd like to see
a show of hands among Congress to see which ones support it, especially the
one(s) who introduced it.

As for the bill itself, I still haven't heard about much there that would
actually make health care more affordable, as I notice my own monthly
premium increases once again this January. Although much of the important
stuff shouldn't really cost the government ANYTHING -- keeping kids on
until 26, no denying people with pre-existing conditions, no coverage
limits, etc., you can be sure that the increased cost burden on the
insurance companies will be passed on to us paying customers in higher
premiums.

Requiring everyone to purchase health insurance seems ridiculous when put
that way. If you don't comply, you face a fine? You refuse to pay the
fine, you face jail time? You do jail time, you get free health care on the
taxpayer, including everything from dental work to a sex change. Plus, if
you act quickly enough, you might be able to scam several other Federal
benefits while in the slammer before they close the loopholes.

If my fellow business owners didn't cheat so much, there would be no need to
expand 1009-Misc reporting. But they do cheat -- and as the Congressional
Budget Office reported, this provision will bring in $17 billion more.
That's a lot of cheating.

I gotta love the anti-regulation folk. Regulations exist because so many of
us in the private sector cheat, pure and simple. The deceptive practices
within the private sector are astounding and I am amazed that not only does
the public let us get away with it, but the Republicans who claim to be for
law and order seem to feel it's just fine for businesses to cheat on their
taxes and not honestly or accurately report their income.

Now if the private sector would just stop cheating on their taxes... well, I
can dream, can't I?

On Feb 2, 8:09*pm, "DL49" wrote:
If my fellow business owners didn't cheat so much, there would be no need to
expand 1009-Misc reporting. But they do cheat -- and as the Congressional
Budget Office reported, this provision will bring in $17 billion more.
That's a lot of cheating.

I gotta love the anti-regulation folk. Regulations exist because so many of
us in the private sector cheat, pure and simple. The deceptive practices
within the private sector are astounding and I am amazed that not only does
the public let us get away with it, but the Republicans who claim to be for
law and order seem to feel it's just fine for businesses to cheat on their
taxes and not honestly or accurately report their income.

Now if the private sector would just stop cheating on their taxes... well, I
can dream, can't I?

Late last year, efforts by Sens. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Max Baucus
(D-Mont.) to repeal the provision came up short, and a Democratic-led
effort to include 1099 repeal in the tax-cut package was one of
several proposed add-ons nixed by Republicans during the lame-duck
session.

On Feb 2, 8:54*pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"Richard L. Hall" wrote in ...

Actually, President Obama mentioned this in the State of the Union address
when talking about the Health Care Refirm Bill. *He said, "If you have
ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more
affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by
correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary
bookkeeping burden on small businesses."

So the President is on the side of eliminaing this provision. *The ball is
in Congress' court.

Why that was ever included in the bill is a mystery to me. *I'd like to see
a show of hands among Congress to see which ones support it, especially the
one(s) who introduced it.

As for the bill itself, I still haven't heard about much there that would
actually make health care more affordable, as I notice my own monthly
premium increases once again this January. *Although much of the important
stuff shouldn't really cost the government ANYTHING *-- keeping kids on
until 26, no denying people with pre-existing conditions, no coverage
limits, etc., you can be sure that the increased cost burden on the
insurance companies will be passed on to us paying customers in higher
premiums.

Requiring everyone to purchase health insurance seems ridiculous when put
that way. *If you don't comply, you face a fine? *You refuse to pay the
fine, you face jail time? *You do jail time, you get free health care on the
taxpayer, including everything from dental work to a sex change. *Plus, if
you act quickly enough, you might be able to scam several other Federal
benefits while in the slammer before they close the loopholes.

As I understand it, the requirement that insurance companies accept
applicants despite pre-existing conditions is related to the
requirement that everyone joins the health care pool. It allows the
insurance companies to have a reasonable chance at a predictable risk.

On the other hand, calling it all insurance seems odd. It seems more
like a way of managing payments for those who can't plan and save. It
has all of the admin. you'd expect and it appears that there will have
to be limits (eventually) on catastrophic coverage.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 20:09:12 -0600, "DL49" wrote:

If my fellow business owners didn't cheat so much, there would be no need to
expand 1009-Misc reporting. But they do cheat -- and as the Congressional
Budget Office reported, this provision will bring in $17 billion more.
That's a lot of cheating.

I gotta love the anti-regulation folk. Regulations exist because so many of
us in the private sector cheat, pure and simple.

Well you despicable piece of ****. You should gather up ALL your
money and send it to the U.S. Treasury. I'm sure THEY know how to
spend it BETTER than you do.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 8:54 pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"Richard L. Hall" wrote in
...

Actually, President Obama mentioned this in the State of the Union
address
when talking about the Health Care Refirm Bill. He said, "If you have
ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more
affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by
correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary
bookkeeping burden on small businesses."

So the President is on the side of eliminaing this provision. The ball
is
in Congress' court.

Why that was ever included in the bill is a mystery to me. I'd like to see
a show of hands among Congress to see which ones support it, especially
the
one(s) who introduced it.

As for the bill itself, I still haven't heard about much there that would
actually make health care more affordable, as I notice my own monthly
premium increases once again this January. Although much of the important
stuff shouldn't really cost the government ANYTHING -- keeping kids on
until 26, no denying people with pre-existing conditions, no coverage
limits, etc., you can be sure that the increased cost burden on the
insurance companies will be passed on to us paying customers in higher
premiums.

Requiring everyone to purchase health insurance seems ridiculous when put
that way. If you don't comply, you face a fine? You refuse to pay the
fine, you face jail time? You do jail time, you get free health care on
the
taxpayer, including everything from dental work to a sex change. Plus, if
you act quickly enough, you might be able to scam several other Federal
benefits while in the slammer before they close the loopholes.

As I understand it, the requirement that insurance companies accept
applicants despite pre-existing conditions is related to the
requirement that everyone joins the health care pool. It allows the
insurance companies to have a reasonable chance at a predictable risk.
___________

That does make sense. I guess it might apply if each company was
required to take on the exact same percentage of clients with pre-existing
conditions, which could only happen with some new controlling agency (perish
the thought) brokering an equitable distribution of the uninsured
already-riskies.

I still question whether this would reduce our health costs (insurance
premiums)-- the main hype and goal of the bill sponsors-- since it doesn't
address escalating cost of fixing people, considering all the new
"conditions" that seem to require specialized medical treatment each year
and the evolving high-tech solutions to previously untreatable maladies.
Only the ultra rich would have considered chancing a knee or hip replacement
20 years ago. Now just about any part of the inside or outside of one's
body can be replaced-- at a price. Cost of revolutionary new cancer
treatments are constantly growing. I can't see how any insurance company
could ever keep premium costs down while paying for these increasingly
expensive treatments.