Wisconsin Billboard - Hope and Change

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Incorrect. The fines are still there. The bill never included jail time. However, the final bill specifically excluded criminal penalties.

O'Reilly challenged Sen. Coburn to name "one person on FOX who has said that they will go to jail if they don't buy health insurance". Followed by "you don't know anybody on FOX News 'cause there hasn't been anyone.", and "we researched to see if anybody had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody has ever said it."

Either his "research" was as good as the other FOX research, or he was lying and hoping nobody would catch him at it. You choose. Either way, FOX has a stench about it.

The following night, after getting blasted, O'Reilly flip-flopped and covered his butt, by effectively stating that "nobody ever said that" did not really mean "nobody ever said that". This follow up clip IS posted on Huffington, right below the original.

(FYI, the first time I visited Huffington Post was today. They are are indeed a liberal website, but there is no need to go there to have an informed opinion about the "fair and balanced" nature of FOX News. OMG, who in their right mind can defend Glenn Beck as anything other than comedic entertainment?)

Give us a break. FOX is the network of "death panel" allegations and outright support of the Tea Party. This is hardly unbiased journalism. Anyone who can watch those clips, hammering away at "jail time" (and knowing that there are potential criminal penalties at the end of almost any violation of law), and say with a straight face that they are not outrageous propaganda has a potential career as a political spokesperson.

Your own words do far more to prove your bias than anything I could say... Some will agree with you, some will not, but no person with cognitive capacity would read your words and not realize you have a bias against FOX News...

I am not saying if your bias is fair or appropriate or not, just that it is clearly there...

I feel strongly about the things I care about. I happen to assess the many situations discussed on this forum in a very different way than several of the more outspoken posters here... But as has been said here before, saying a biased thing over and over does not make it true. It makes it common, or may even make it common knowledge in a group that hears the bias and does not analyze the situation for themselves, but it does not make it accurate...

For the record, I am not a fan of Hannity, Beck, or Limbau. I do hear clips from them from time to time, but do not regularly listen to their shows... For the most part, I find them as biased as many in the main stream media they rail against, theirs being one direction, and much of the rest of the media being in the other...

I feel it is important to hear much, but use your own discretion to determine the truth from many sources, as few are available that are not biased in a particular direction or the other...

[Civicsman]

Gosh. I don't see anything, anywhere, in my posts that even faintly suggests that I don't have a bias against FOX. One might expect a "fair and balanced" news organization not to blatantly push their political agenda, while calling it "news".

In fact, I DO have a strong bias against FOX. I think my perspective is well justified, and the O'Reilly clip is a good example of why. Thus, when someone tries to justify what has every appearance of being an outright FOX lie, I don't believe it is reasonable to let that pass without challenge.

Going to the issue of the day, who should we thank for blocking investment reforms? Re-stated: Which party is currently putting party politics above the interests of the people of the United States, thus enabling a repeat of the near collapse of the world financial system? Bob Kerns was precisely correct, this is treasonous behavior.

Apparently, the Dems are going to have to horse trade with a couple of senators in order to move this forward. I'm OK with that if this is what it takes to accomplish the greater good.

When investment reform passes, despite the current Republican obstructionism, and without Republican input (by their own choice), I will have yet another opportunity to say that Hope and Change are working out just fine for me.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Incorrect. The fines are still there. The bill never included jail time. However, the final bill specifically excluded criminal penalties.

...

I guess if you read below, you will see that there are more places to find people telling lies than on FOX news...

Jim Billimoria or Sage Eastman (202) 226-4774 Press Releases

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- - - - - - - - - -

“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

[Civicsman]

I guess if you read below, you will see that there are more places to find people telling lies than on FOX news...

So, we are in agreement that FOX News lies for political advantage? If so, we can move on.

The health care bill itself never contained any jail time, just as I said. It only imposed a tax.

Sections 7201 and 7201 are standing sections of the internal revenue code, that say, in essence, you have to pay taxes levied by the government. Otherwise, you face penalties. This was true for the taxes imposed by the health care bill, just as it is for zillions of other laws. I made reference to this in an earlier post.

For failing to pay taxes, the penalty of last resort is jail time. This is reserved for the most incorrigible of tax cheats; those that the state can prove willfully refused to pay AND have the ability to pay. In other words, NOBODY who is too poor to pay goes to jail. Last year, less than 500 people were jailed for failing to pay taxes. and trust me, these are tax cheats we want to have jailed. You know, such as the guys who claim the constitution does not provide for taxation?

For Republicans and their "news" network to repeatedly hammer on the minuscule potential for jail time was an attempt to detract from substance and get small minds focused on inconsequential things. One has to give them credit for understanding their base.

Let's allow, for a moment, the possibility that the "jail time!" din on the right caused changes in the health care bill. It is now relatively unique in that it exempts wealthy and willful tax cheats from facing jail time, thus potentially depriving the government of tax revenue...which, of course, has to be paid by someone else. This is good?

[Bob.Kerns]

Hmph. First, let me state for the record you've just proven yourself a better man than O'Reilly -- not that I had any doubts.

The reason I pointed you to the Huffington Post video is merely that they're the ones who took the trouble to assemble the full set. I am not a regular reader! I did find a number of compilations of transcripts, but theirs was the only that included the original video, so you could assess the tone in which things were said.

A lot of news organizations -- including Fox themselves, were they actually an honest-to-goodness news organization -- should be embarrassed at not doing so. Owning up to mistakes should be part of any news organization's very culture.

But you're arguing against a straw man -- one that O'Reilly tried to spin things to a couple days later. O'Reilly did NOT claim that the bill at one point said one thing, and then another. He claimed that FOX never said what they (and he, personally, you'll note) plainly DID say.

Whether there was, in the House bill, a possibility of jail, was never what was in dispute.

Further, what you cite doesn't say what you say it says. It says something that's been true since Al Capone's day -- that deliberate tax evasion can, in rare cases, include jail time. This, however, is not, and NEVER WAS part of the bill. Some of the FOX commentators were far from clear on that! Rather, that if you DID NOT PAY YOUR TAXES (including the penalty), THEN you might possibly (very remote possibility, from the data in that letter), go to jail.

Furthermore, what FOX has been claiming, is that you could go to jail FOR NOT BUYING INSURANCE. That is completely ridiculous. There was never, ever, such a provision OR implication. You'd go to jail for not paying your fine. You can go to jail for not paying a lot of things.

Now, a reasonable position could have been -- "we don't like even the remote possibility of jail time resulting from people refusing to pay this", and argue for exactly what was done -- additional language eliminating that. Instead, they used exaggeration to inflame people to try to kill the entire bill. The GOP did not want any form of health insurance success under control of the Democrats, so they chose to try to kill it, rather than improve it.

Of course, that suited the Democrats just fine, in the end. If they're seen to be working with the GOP, that's good, but if the GOP is seen to be obstructionist, that's good (from their point of view), too.

I think a lot of conservatives are just waking up to how much damage is being done to conservatism by these tactics.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

The reason I pointed you to the Huffington Post video is merely that they're the ones who took the trouble to assemble the full set. I am not a regular reader!

Let me emphasize that. There are many grounds on which to criticize the HuffPost, but let me single out Dr. Mark Hymann, their house quack.

I'm afraid, however, that there are no traditional news organizations left that come close to meeting journalistic standards anymore. There are a significant number of bloggers who try (but a VERY small percentage), but they don't have the reach or coverage to fill the gap, nor do they have editorial oversight as a backstop.

Thank you again for posting that letter. That sort of thing is our best defense against the demise of journalism. I considered earlier posting a link to the bill(s), but I decided that trying proving a negative would have fruitless.

It's very sad that the quality of debate and discussion in random unrelated internet forums is better than what we find in the traditional media and the halls of Congress. But it very much is true -- the opinions expressed are more informed, the information presented is more accurate and truthful, and the conduct is FAR more respectful, even counting the occasional digs between a couple of participants.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Let's allow, for a moment, the possibility that the "jail time!" din on the right caused changes in the health care bill. It is now relatively unique in that it exempts wealthy and willful tax cheats from facing jail time, thus potentially depriving the government of tax revenue...which, of course, has to be paid by someone else. This is good?

I don't think so, no. I think it violates a lot of principles.

But I can accept it as a compromise, because I doubt it will become a major problem. I doubt there will be many who choose to cheat in this way only, who would meet the criteria that would otherwise land them in jail. Even on the way to that point, there's a lot of grief and hassle most wealthy would rather forgo and just pay the fine.

[Civicsman]

But I can accept it as a compromise, because I doubt it will become a major problem.

Precisely spot on.

The brouhaha about jail was a waste of time. The suggestion that the brouhaha about jail time was instrumental in changing the legislation may be correct, but is also a waste of time. It just doesn't matter.

National health care is the law of the land. Now we move forward to improve it.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

National health care is the law of the land. Now we move forward to improve it.

To be a bit pedantic, I wouldn't call this national health care. Mandatory health insurance, yes. National Health Care usually is used to refer to single payer, or for systems where the health care is largely governmentally run, such as the British model. (Or think of scaling up the VA system).

The only reason I point this out, is that a lot of people are reacting as if that WERE what we have.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Incorrect. The fines are still there. The bill never included jail time. However, the final bill specifically excluded criminal penalties.

....

Originally Posted by Civicsman

...
The health care bill itself never contained any jail time, just as I said. It only imposed a tax.
...
For failing to pay taxes, the penalty of last resort is jail time. ...

For Republicans and their "news" network to repeatedly hammer on the minuscule potential for jail time ...

Let's allow, for a moment, the possibility that the "jail time!" din on the right caused changes in the health care bill. It is now relatively unique in that it exempts wealthy and willful tax cheats from facing jail time, thus potentially depriving the government of tax revenue...which, of course, has to be paid by someone else. This is good?

First off, you have posts that say the bill did not include jail time, then went on to both say that it did, and even if the potential for jail was minuscule, that is still the threat of jail...

You cannot have it both ways. If there was a minuscule potential for jail time in this bill, then there was jail time... YOU SAID NEVER... That is not true.

Next, you justify that the jail time was okay, because now it has been removed, and it exempts the wealthy and willful tax cheats (Like Tim Geitner?) or others in the Democrat party? Are you actually suggesting that the Republicans are responsible for the fact that Congress exempted itself from a wholly Democrat bill? You said often that the Republicans walked away from this, and now you say that they are responsible for depriving the government of tax revenue...

You cannot deprive the government of anything, as it can only have tax revenue by depriving it from the taxpayers...

I will at least give you credit for finally commenting on a question I asked many, many posts ago, even though you tried to spin it as yet another silly argument about how the Republicans are bad if they help write the bill or if they walk away... You make no provision for anything but them being wrong, and that shows that debate with you on this point has no potential for value.