virgil

John, that sounds expensive. i just finished a 16 by 16 trex deck and the total cost for the decking materials, not including the structure, was about $2,500.

Did you know that under Obama care there is a tax you have to pay when you sell your house to fund Obama care. I think it's 3.8%. My question is what the hell does selling my house have to do with health care? And why should I be taxes to pay for it. Here are the facts from the Tax Foundation. There has been a story and an e-mail floating around for some time claiming that the recent health care reform bill (PPACA/supplemental bill) would impose a 3.8 percent “sales” tax on the sale of every home. The e-mail has been rightfully debunked by the usuals (Factcheck.org and Snopes), but here is what the bill would actually do regarding taxation of the sales of homes. First, there is no “sales” tax on home sales in the health care bill. The bill would impose essentially a capital gains taxes on some home sales made by a limited number of taxpayers. (The health care law contains a new 3.8 percent tax on “unearned income” for high-income taxpayers. Unearned income includes capital gains.) To be hit by the 3.8 percent capital gains tax, you first have to be a married couple making more than $250,000 in adjusted gross income or $200,000 if you are single. The capital gain on the home sale must also exceed $500,000 if this is a primary home and you are a married couple ($250,000 for singles). So for example, even if you and your spouse make $300,000 in wages and you bought a home that you lived in for a while for $600,000 that you now sell it for $1 million, your capital gains tax on that home sale would be zero. Even if the home sold for $1.2 million, thereby resulting in a capital gain of $600,000, only $100,000 of that capital gain would subject to the new tax (because of the $500,000 exclusion). For those who earn above those income thresholds ($250,000/$200,000) and who have a capital gain on a home that is a second home or one that does not qualify for principal residence (i.e., lived in for too short of a time period), the full capital gain would be subject to the new 3.8 percent tax. Dave, sorry, I know you hate to let facts get in the way of good rhetoric.

Only, it's not "free" if we paid into our whole life, is it? What's wrong with getting back from something we paid into? Your question/point would be interesting if it was based in fact. Below is an article from the Washington Post that explains this myth. If you were truly only getting back what you've already paid into the system, you'd be getting far less than you think. Nearly three out of five people said in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll that people who paid into the system deserve their full benefits - no cuts. But an updated financial analysis shows that the amount workers have paid does not come close to covering the full value of the medical care they can expect to receive as retirees. Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive medical services - including prescriptions and hospital care - worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in. The estimates by economists Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute think tank illustrate the huge disconnect between widely held perceptions and the numbers behind Medicare's shaky financing. Although Americans are worried about Medicare's long-term solvency, few realize the size of the gap. "The fact that you put money into the system doesn't mean it's there waiting for you to collect," Steuerle said.

All you guys who claim to want 'the government out of healthcare' will be happy to accept free medical care if/when the day comes that you need it.

i had been hunting with the same partner for over twenty years- since the tenth grade. we used to be best of friends- were each best man at the others' wedding. over the last few years, he's become flaky and unreliable and just not much of a friend. shortly after the 2010 hunting season ended, we had a disagreement/misunderstanding and haven't spoken since. didn't even hear from him last hunting season. luckily, i bought my own land a few seasons ago and am content to hunt alone. it's a shame how things happen sometimes. we always talked about owning our own land and hunting together for the rest of our lives- and having our kids hunt with us. now, i finally own land; we each have young kids; and we don't even speak to each other.

I'm new to turkey hunting. But, i've been told to use a crow or owl call at night to locate birds.

I agree that animal cruelty is an issue. But, my comments about poor regulation were more about what we as a country allow to be put into our food, as compared to other countries. We probably do have some of the highest sanitary standards for food. But, we have poor standards as far as the use of hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, etc.

Hey Noodle. Thanks for the info. I'll check them out.

Did you do this through an outfitter/guide? If so, was it expensive?

The book and the movie highlight the shortcuts that are taken in the food industry in order to get food on the table cheaply. The animals are abused, they're pumped full of hormones and antibiotics in order to maximize production and minimize cost. I think that the take home message from the book and movie are just how little regulation there is in the food industry- we allow food producers to use methods and sell products that would not be acceptable in most other advanced countries.

Right. Always better to use broad generalities in your accusations when short on facts.

According to your link, the federal government has been overwhelmingly supportive of the BSA- it even describes Supreme Court rulings that defend the BSA's right to set it's own membership rules as any other private organization. It says that the BSA has faced a number of lawsuits as a result of their discriminatory policies and that these lawsuits have been brought mostly by organizations like the ACLU as well as by individuals. It seems that as a result of losing these lawsuits, the BSA has lost some of its' sponsorship by the gov't. From this link, it seems clear that the BSA's problems have come from many areas, but not at all from the federal government. Did you read your link?

Good article on being prepared. I learned this basic stuff as a kid in the Boy Scouts. Maybe it's stuff like this that makes the government not like the Boy Scouts anymore. God forbid people learn not to depend on the government for every bit of their survival. The government dislikes the boy scouts? My recollection is that Katrina left the people of New Orleans that this article references with their homes underwater. Not sure if a well stocked pantry would have helped. I do agree that people in general are too far removed from the process of bringing food to the table.

...while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill. So, just for the record, it was 3 out of 242 Republicans, and 0 out of 191 Democrats?

There are a lot of areas where I've been trout fishing that forbid the use of lead. I've never heard any fly fishermen crying about these restrictions being a threat to their constitutional rights. They recognize that the reasons for the restrictions and move on with their lives. Not every single regulation is part of a nationwide sytsematic conspiracy to take away your guns.

I didn't insult anyone and I didn't call any names. In fact, it was Elmer Fudd who took a shot at me first. Wooffer, you give yourself way too much credit- get over yourself. The fact that not everyone shares your opinion does not make them stupid. It's always funny to me how any thought or opinion that is different is so threatening. Go ahead and read all the posts on this thread and see where the insults started.

Here's an idea. The government should stop wasting our money on anti tobacco ads. Like Nyslowhand said, let the taxes do the talking. Another brilliant contribution. Go ahead, continue to complain about 'the governement wasting your tax dollars' on these types of ads. Then, on another thread you can whine about the government overspending on 'entitlement programs' like medicare and medicaid. Imagine how many of your tax dollars would be needed to care for the medical needs of smokers if there were as many people smoking today as there were 30 or 40 years ago. Some of you just complain for the sake of complaining.

I'm not ignorant... I'm also not a paranoid malcontent.

Think I misspoke..... Medical expenses for NY'ers are paid by insurannce companies and patients to medical facilities, drug companies & care-givers. Assuming a small portion might be in the form of medicare/medicad if that's what you're referring to..? Medicare is both state and federally funded. I don't have exact numbers. But, I can assure you that a large percentage of the cost associated with the medical care for smokers is paid by medicare, not private insurance companies.

We're not allowed to use lead shot for duck hunting- at least not here on Long Island. We have to use steel shot. I haven't found it to be an infringement of my rights to own my shotguns.

So what is NYS going to do to replace the $2B in revenues when they achieve their goal of all NY'ers being smoke-free? Slowhand, i think you answered your own question. As you stated, the medical expenses to the state are $8B, and the reveneues from taxes are $2B. If you eliminate both, you have a $6B windfall- unless i'm misunderstanding you. Amen!! Did you hack Virgil's account? I want verification...lol., Great post Clarification from me? Or, was that meant for someone else?

Virgil...I know the costs are very high. It is a slippery slope though. Where do we stop it. How about obese people? Do we tax fast drivers? Do we impose a tax to cover costs for homes that heat with wood because they statistically have a higher rate of fires and cost the public tax money? How abot a tax on booze? that is one with high public costs. Do we tax people with a genetic tendency for a problem? It is easy to vilify a sect of the public....not so easy when we are IN that sect. Congrats on quitting and good luck. Honestly, i do believe that we are headed in the direction where there will be penalties associated with life choices that effect a person's health, and ultimately cost the public. I think we will see a day when insurance coverage is affected for smokers and the obese. We are already seeing employers who will not hire smokers due to the associated cost- higher insurance premiums, more use of sick time, etc. As for your examples- we do 'tax' fast drivers, when they're caught, they pay a fine and an increase in their auto insurance. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that homes whose heating system put them at greater risk for fire pay higher home owners insurance premiums. The use of the 'genetic tendency' argument is a bit misleading. The absolute fact is, tendency or not, if a person makes the CHOICE not to drink, they will never become an alcoholic. If a person makes the CHOICE not to smoke, they will not become addicted to cigarettes. If a person consumes as many calories as he/she burns, they will not become obese. These are physical diseases that result purely and only from behavioral choices. When people are held accountable and are forced to pay a price for their decisions, that's when there's potential to change their behavior. Children who suffer from asthma as a result of exposure to toxic second-hand smoke are victims, smokers are not.

Keep in mind the massive public expense involved in medical care for patients suffering the effects of smoking. These ads are disturbing. But, they are intended to be. I think that the public would be more disgusted by the dollar figures associated with medical costs related to smoking.

Virgil, you have asked many questions on this thread, but have made no statement about what you think. Why not tell us your opinion? My opinion is that most issues are not 'black and white', and that fanatical anti-gun-control is as unreasonable as fanatical pro-gun-control. Reasonable minds should be able to meet in the middle. My reason for bringing up Iran as a comparison was to try to show that the argument that gun ownership does not imply criminal intent, while accurate, is not reason enough to allow anyone and everyone to own stockpiles of dangerous weapons. Many of you are clear in your belief that noone should be restricted from owning as many weapons of any type that they choose. But, you are quick to agree that Iran should be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. Of course, I agree that a nuclear Iran is a scary thing for the rest of the world. I just think it makes for an interesting comparison. How can we be pro-control in some cases, and anti-control in others. That sounds hypocritical to me. Yes, Iran has made crazy statements about Israel. But, there are many anti-government groups (and individuals on this site) who have made crazy statements. Should their 2nd ammendment rights be taken away?

So, if some yahoo says he wants to overthrow the US government, would you restrict his second ammendment rights because he exercised his first ammendment right to free speech?