To bad some of that money Apple doled up could have gone to the illegal children coming to the states.
What are you suggesting here? That instead of Apple paying their bills in a timely fashion and also showing a commitment (I don't know how many suppliers they have so hard to quantify) on their on (i.e., without the Govt. forcing this) that they should have somehow have diverted these funds for services/product provided to "to the illegal children coming to the states"?
I don't get the connection, care to explain?
BTW: Should probably have read "that money Apple paid out" instead of your "that money Apple doled up" since there was no give away at least as reported.
What are you suggesting here? That instead of Apple paying their bills in a timely fashion and also showing a commitment (I don't know how many suppliers they have so hard to quantify) on their on (i.e., without the Govt. forcing this) that they should have somehow have diverted these funds for services/product provided to "to the illegal children coming to the states"?
I don't get the connection, care to explain?
BTW: Should probably have read "that money Apple paid out" instead of your "that money Apple doled up" since there was no give away at least as reported.
It's wrong for government to force anything but it's okay for Apple to take taxpayer-funded subsidy and to lobby government for favors (or even Riders)?
Actually no, they are supposed to be co-equal branches & Congress writes the laws, Their purpose is not to slow down Government. Article I of the Constitution states "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Congress passes Bills, the President signs them into law or vetoes the bill.
Yes, the idea of having 3 separate branches is so no one power exists. Anytime you have 3 equal powers, by nature, progresses is slowed.
Just because there is a process by which the law or anything works does not mean that it's purpose is to slow progress.
Well, you aren't wrong. In the case of the U.S. government, it was to slow down the process so that the citizens would have the ability to see what their government was doing. You see the devastating affects when this does not happen, as in the case with ACA where one party held all 3 branches, thus forcing the passage of a bill before it was fully vetted. To quote Pelosi, "we have to pass it to know what is in it".
Well, you aren't wrong. In the case of the U.S. government, it was to slow down the process so that the citizens would have the ability to see what their government was doing. You see the devastating affects when this does not happen, as in the case with ACA where one party held all 3 branches, thus forcing the passage of a bill before it was fully vetted. To quote Pelosi, "we have to pass it to know what is in it".
The bill was passed by an elected Congress & signed into law by an elected President. The people knew full well where the President stood on the healthcare issue.There is nothing illegal or conspiratorial going on as you seem to want to allude to. The bill was worked on for over a year & the Republican Party was invited on a regular basis to be a part of that process. They chose fear mongering as usual. The American people overwhelmingly reelected the President after the bill had passed. Now that the bill is taking effect the majority of Americans are seeing the effect of the bill & most are happy with their coverage including Republicans. You do realize that the mandate (the part Conservatives think is Unconstitutional) was a Conservative idea & was the brain child of the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think tank. Which is pretty much what Romney Care is in Massachusetts. It's a free market solution as apposed to single payer which is what some Democrats really wanted. Which probably would have been a better solution, but then we would have to hear the constant socialist BS. This is the same party that has been trying to kill Social Security from it's inception then turns around & acts like it's the Democratic Party.
Seems the only death panels in the country are some states run by Republican Governors that are not accepting the Medicaid expansion & denying their citizens healthcare.
I’m not sure you’re wrong on the matter that an elected representative does not legally have to read a law before he votes for it, but it’s common sense that anyone who does so needs to be thrown in jail.
There is nothing illegal or conspiratorial going on as you seem to want to allude to.
Sure, that's exactly how it looks right now.
If you have the right to 'no taxation without proper representation' and the bill is a tax, not a penalty, and so many didn't bother to read it prior to passage (as admitted by Pelosi), then were you granted proper representation before the ACA taxation? By proper I'm suggesting that any elected official that votes to submit people to a tax, should actually have read the bill in question prior to voting.
I’m not sure you’re wrong on the matter that an elected representative does not legally have to read a law before he votes for it, but it’s common sense that anyone who does so needs to be thrown in jail.
I didn't say that, but I agree they should read the bill. This isn't an issue that is one side or the other.
If you have the right to 'no taxation without proper representation' and the bill is a tax, not a penalty, and so many didn't bother to read it prior to passage (as admitted by Pelosi), then were you granted proper representation before the ACA taxation? By proper I'm suggesting that any elected official that votes to submit people to a tax, should actually have read the bill in question prior to voting.
Do we really have that right? There are plenty of cities in the U.S. that charge City taxes to people that work in those cities. They don't get to vote in the city elections. That is taxation without representation, IMO. The IRS has no real mechanism to collect the tax except for taking it off any return that you may get on your taxes. They cannot put a lien on your property & there are exemptions to not pay the penalty. I don't know if this is fair, but is it fair for everyone else to pick up the tab when uninsured people go to the emergency room?
This isn't an issue that is one side or the other.
Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial.
Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial.
Are you fine with any legislation that is lengthy that does not get read by either side? You seem to want to narrow it down to this one bill. Why is that? I think something had to be done about healthcare. The bill can be tweaked & made better as plenty of bills are. I guess you could ask of the opponents in Congress on this bill, that didn't read it either, how do you know you don't agree with the bill if you haven't read the bill? I guess you could ask the same thing of every time someone says something is Unconstitutional. Which part of the Constitution & why?
Also how was the Insurance industry adversely affected by this bill?
I guess you could ask of the opponents in Congress on this bill, that didn’t read it either...
How do you know the opponents didn’t read it? The only point on this matter we have is the then-Speaker of the House’s admission that she did not read it.
I guess you could ask the same thing of every time someone says something is Unconstitutional. Which part of the Constitution & why?
What point are you failing to make here? The above statement has no correlation to the previous topic. If you’re saying something is unconstitutional, you know the contents of the Constitution enough to make that judgement. That has nothing to do with knowing nothing whatsoever about a bill’s contents because you didn’t read a lick of it.
Also how was the Insurance industry adversely affected by this bill?
Who said anything about insurance or adverse effects? Stop making things up, please, and just respond to what is written. This seems to be a trend whenever this stuff is brought up.
I could be wrong and I don't know where you are based, but I suspect in the UK you would be correct in that interpretation because of the old germanic verb's use in that context for many years. I suspect Americans simply use it in the older sense meaning to distribute as their usage dates back before the UK use changed to be associated with Government help.
Many words from the English retain older meanings here in the USA whereas they have morphed into newer meanings in the UK. The US use of the old meanings of 'faucet, spigot and tap' in the relevant contexts as did the English back in the day, being the most obvious I can think of, whereas in the UK that's now gone and 'tap' now fulfills the meaning for faucet, spigot and tap.
Regardless of where you come from "dole" means to distribute or hand out, usually but not necessarily in respect of charity. Its does not mean "pay", as in what you do in return for good and services, which is what Apple was doing in this case.
"Doled" is the wrong word for the title. At best its ambiguous. They should have used "Paid"
Do we really have that right? There are plenty of cities in the U.S. that charge City taxes to people that work in those cities. They don't get to vote in the city elections. That is taxation without representation, IMO. The IRS has no real mechanism to collect the tax except for taking it off any return that you may get on your taxes. They cannot put a lien on your property & there are exemptions to not pay the penalty. I don't know if this is fair, but is it fair for everyone else to pick up the tab when uninsured people go to the emergency room?
Not getting to vote is not the same as not having representation (nor any of this the same as 'proper' representation). Or are you suggesting States that have a sales tax should not charge out of State buyers as they were not part of the election? Seriously?
I'm not suggesting anything in the ACA is fair, where did you get that I was?
"I’m not sure you’re wrong on the matter that an elected representative does not legally have to read a law before he votes for it, but it’s common sense that anyone who does so needs to be thrown in jail.
That is the statement that you made seemed more general to me. Please read my answer again & tell me where in the thread before you bought it up did I mention anything about reading the bill.
Quote:
How do you know the opponents didn’t read it? The only point on this matter we have is the then-Speaker of the House’s admission that she did not read it.
Why? So again, let's narrow it down to one person because that fits your agenda. Yeah, I do remember the opposition complaining that they did not read it because of the number of pages. So I guess in your mind if you oppose something you don't have to read the bill? Okay you win all the Republicans read the bill! Happy!
Of course the phrase you are interested in couldn't have been taken out of context by Fox News:
What point are you failing to make here? The above statement has no correlation to the previous topic. If you’re saying something is unconstitutional, you know the contents of the Constitution enough to make that judgement. That has nothing to do with knowing nothing whatsoever about a bill’s contents because you didn’t read a lick of it.
When someone uses that, which get's thrown around quite a bit as of late, they should have to explain which part of the constitution & why. Didn't the Supreme court hear the case of the constitutionality of the ACA (mandate)?
Who said anything about insurance or adverse effects? Stop making things up, please, and just respond to what is written. This seems to be a trend whenever this stuff is brought up.
You said: "Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial."
What were you speaking about when you referred to one seventh of the nation's domestic economy? Please clarify.
Not getting to vote is not the same as not having representation (nor any of this the same as 'proper' representation). Or are you suggesting States that have a sales tax should not charge out of State buyers as they were not part of the election? Seriously?
I'm not suggesting anything in the ACA is fair, where did you get that I was?
City Income tax (non-resident) is the same as a state sales tax? Why?
Comments
How much taxpayer-funded subsidy did Apple collect from taxpayers (corporate welfare)?
Did it dodge paying taxes?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Apple+corporate+welfare
http://www.google.com/search?q=Apple+dodge+taxes
To bad some of that money Apple doled up could have gone to the illegal children coming to the states.
What are you suggesting here? That instead of Apple paying their bills in a timely fashion and also showing a commitment (I don't know how many suppliers they have so hard to quantify) on their on (i.e., without the Govt. forcing this) that they should have somehow have diverted these funds for services/product provided to "to the illegal children coming to the states"?
I don't get the connection, care to explain?
BTW: Should probably have read "that money Apple paid out" instead of your "that money Apple doled up" since there was no give away at least as reported.
What are you suggesting here? That instead of Apple paying their bills in a timely fashion and also showing a commitment (I don't know how many suppliers they have so hard to quantify) on their on (i.e., without the Govt. forcing this) that they should have somehow have diverted these funds for services/product provided to "to the illegal children coming to the states"?
I don't get the connection, care to explain?
BTW: Should probably have read "that money Apple paid out" instead of your "that money Apple doled up" since there was no give away at least as reported.
It's wrong for government to force anything but it's okay for Apple to take taxpayer-funded subsidy and to lobby government for favors (or even Riders)?
Actually no, they are supposed to be co-equal branches & Congress writes the laws, Their purpose is not to slow down Government. Article I of the Constitution states "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Congress passes Bills, the President signs them into law or vetoes the bill.
Yes, the idea of having 3 separate branches is so no one power exists. Anytime you have 3 equal powers, by nature, progresses is slowed.
Yes, the idea of having 3 separate branches is so no one power exists. Anytime you have 3 equal powers, by nature, progresses is slowed.
Just because there is a process by which the law or anything works does not mean that it's purpose is to slow progress.
Just because there is a process by which the law or anything works does not mean that it's purpose is to slow progress.
Well, you aren't wrong. In the case of the U.S. government, it was to slow down the process so that the citizens would have the ability to see what their government was doing. You see the devastating affects when this does not happen, as in the case with ACA where one party held all 3 branches, thus forcing the passage of a bill before it was fully vetted. To quote Pelosi, "we have to pass it to know what is in it".
Well, you aren't wrong. In the case of the U.S. government, it was to slow down the process so that the citizens would have the ability to see what their government was doing. You see the devastating affects when this does not happen, as in the case with ACA where one party held all 3 branches, thus forcing the passage of a bill before it was fully vetted. To quote Pelosi, "we have to pass it to know what is in it".
The bill was passed by an elected Congress & signed into law by an elected President. The people knew full well where the President stood on the healthcare issue.There is nothing illegal or conspiratorial going on as you seem to want to allude to. The bill was worked on for over a year & the Republican Party was invited on a regular basis to be a part of that process. They chose fear mongering as usual. The American people overwhelmingly reelected the President after the bill had passed. Now that the bill is taking effect the majority of Americans are seeing the effect of the bill & most are happy with their coverage including Republicans. You do realize that the mandate (the part Conservatives think is Unconstitutional) was a Conservative idea & was the brain child of the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think tank. Which is pretty much what Romney Care is in Massachusetts. It's a free market solution as apposed to single payer which is what some Democrats really wanted. Which probably would have been a better solution, but then we would have to hear the constant socialist BS. This is the same party that has been trying to kill Social Security from it's inception then turns around & acts like it's the Democratic Party.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/jul/Health-Coverage-Access-ACA
Seems the only death panels in the country are some states run by Republican Governors that are not accepting the Medicaid expansion & denying their citizens healthcare.
I’m not sure you’re wrong on the matter that an elected representative does not legally have to read a law before he votes for it, but it’s common sense that anyone who does so needs to be thrown in jail.
There is nothing illegal or conspiratorial going on as you seem to want to allude to.
Sure, that's exactly how it looks right now.
If you have the right to 'no taxation without proper representation' and the bill is a tax, not a penalty, and so many didn't bother to read it prior to passage (as admitted by Pelosi), then were you granted proper representation before the ACA taxation? By proper I'm suggesting that any elected official that votes to submit people to a tax, should actually have read the bill in question prior to voting.
I’m not sure you’re wrong on the matter that an elected representative does not legally have to read a law before he votes for it, but it’s common sense that anyone who does so needs to be thrown in jail.
I didn't say that, but I agree they should read the bill. This isn't an issue that is one side or the other.
Sure, that's exactly how it looks right now.
If you have the right to 'no taxation without proper representation' and the bill is a tax, not a penalty, and so many didn't bother to read it prior to passage (as admitted by Pelosi), then were you granted proper representation before the ACA taxation? By proper I'm suggesting that any elected official that votes to submit people to a tax, should actually have read the bill in question prior to voting.
Do we really have that right? There are plenty of cities in the U.S. that charge City taxes to people that work in those cities. They don't get to vote in the city elections. That is taxation without representation, IMO. The IRS has no real mechanism to collect the tax except for taking it off any return that you may get on your taxes. They cannot put a lien on your property & there are exemptions to not pay the penalty. I don't know if this is fair, but is it fair for everyone else to pick up the tab when uninsured people go to the emergency room?
Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial.
Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial.
Are you fine with any legislation that is lengthy that does not get read by either side? You seem to want to narrow it down to this one bill. Why is that? I think something had to be done about healthcare. The bill can be tweaked & made better as plenty of bills are. I guess you could ask of the opponents in Congress on this bill, that didn't read it either, how do you know you don't agree with the bill if you haven't read the bill? I guess you could ask the same thing of every time someone says something is Unconstitutional. Which part of the Constitution & why?
Also how was the Insurance industry adversely affected by this bill?
We’re explicitly discussing it...
How do you know the opponents didn’t read it? The only point on this matter we have is the then-Speaker of the House’s admission that she did not read it.
What point are you failing to make here? The above statement has no correlation to the previous topic. If you’re saying something is unconstitutional, you know the contents of the Constitution enough to make that judgement. That has nothing to do with knowing nothing whatsoever about a bill’s contents because you didn’t read a lick of it.
Who said anything about insurance or adverse effects? Stop making things up, please, and just respond to what is written. This seems to be a trend whenever this stuff is brought up.
I could be wrong and I don't know where you are based, but I suspect in the UK you would be correct in that interpretation because of the old germanic verb's use in that context for many years. I suspect Americans simply use it in the older sense meaning to distribute as their usage dates back before the UK use changed to be associated with Government help.
Many words from the English retain older meanings here in the USA whereas they have morphed into newer meanings in the UK. The US use of the old meanings of 'faucet, spigot and tap' in the relevant contexts as did the English back in the day, being the most obvious I can think of, whereas in the UK that's now gone and 'tap' now fulfills the meaning for faucet, spigot and tap.
Regardless of where you come from "dole" means to distribute or hand out, usually but not necessarily in respect of charity. Its does not mean "pay", as in what you do in return for good and services, which is what Apple was doing in this case.
"Doled" is the wrong word for the title. At best its ambiguous. They should have used "Paid"
Let's reiterate that AppleInsider is a US website written in American English.
That's just an excuse for not being able to read or write properly.
Do we really have that right? There are plenty of cities in the U.S. that charge City taxes to people that work in those cities. They don't get to vote in the city elections. That is taxation without representation, IMO. The IRS has no real mechanism to collect the tax except for taking it off any return that you may get on your taxes. They cannot put a lien on your property & there are exemptions to not pay the penalty. I don't know if this is fair, but is it fair for everyone else to pick up the tab when uninsured people go to the emergency room?
Not getting to vote is not the same as not having representation (nor any of this the same as 'proper' representation). Or are you suggesting States that have a sales tax should not charge out of State buyers as they were not part of the election? Seriously?
I'm not suggesting anything in the ACA is fair, where did you get that I was?
As a comeback, that’s pretty funny. I’ll have to use that sometime in a situation where it isn’t wrong.
We’re explicitly discussing it...
"I’m not sure you’re wrong on the matter that an elected representative does not legally have to read a law before he votes for it, but it’s common sense that anyone who does so needs to be thrown in jail.
That is the statement that you made seemed more general to me. Please read my answer again & tell me where in the thread before you bought it up did I mention anything about reading the bill.
How do you know the opponents didn’t read it? The only point on this matter we have is the then-Speaker of the House’s admission that she did not read it.
Why? So again, let's narrow it down to one person because that fits your agenda. Yeah, I do remember the opposition complaining that they did not read it because of the number of pages. So I guess in your mind if you oppose something you don't have to read the bill? Okay you win all the Republicans read the bill! Happy!
What point are you failing to make here? The above statement has no correlation to the previous topic. If you’re saying something is unconstitutional, you know the contents of the Constitution enough to make that judgement. That has nothing to do with knowing nothing whatsoever about a bill’s contents because you didn’t read a lick of it.
When someone uses that, which get's thrown around quite a bit as of late, they should have to explain which part of the constitution & why. Didn't the Supreme court hear the case of the constitutionality of the ACA (mandate)?
Who said anything about insurance or adverse effects? Stop making things up, please, and just respond to what is written. This seems to be a trend whenever this stuff is brought up.
You said: "Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial."
What were you speaking about when you referred to one seventh of the nation's domestic economy? Please clarify.
Not getting to vote is not the same as not having representation (nor any of this the same as 'proper' representation). Or are you suggesting States that have a sales tax should not charge out of State buyers as they were not part of the election? Seriously?
I'm not suggesting anything in the ACA is fair, where did you get that I was?
City Income tax (non-resident) is the same as a state sales tax? Why?