Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a fetus really is just a clump of cells or a potential baby like you liberals say, then how can you argue that potential tax revenue not yet collected by the government costs the government money? If it hasn't been taxed yet, it isn't tax revenue... so how can lowering someone's tax rates possibly cost the government money?
If a fetus really is just a clump of cells or a potential baby like you liberals say, then how can you argue that potential tax revenue not yet collected by the government costs the government money? If it hasn't been taxed yet, it isn't tax revenue... so how can lowering someone's tax rates possibly cost the government money?
Because they WANT the tax revenue, the fetus, not so much. It's a matter of CHOICE.
If a fetus really is just a clump of cells or a potential baby like you liberals say, then how can you argue that potential tax revenue not yet collected by the government costs the government money? If it hasn't been taxed yet, it isn't tax revenue... so how can lowering someone's tax rates possibly cost the government money?
If a fetus really is just a clump of cells or a potential baby like you liberals say, then how can you argue that potential tax revenue not yet collected by the government costs the government money? If it hasn't been taxed yet, it isn't tax revenue... so how can lowering someone's tax rates possibly cost the government money?
I think you might want to make another comparison to make your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow
If a fetus really is just a clump of cells or a potential baby like you liberals say, then how can you argue that potential tax revenue not yet collected by the government costs the government money? If it hasn't been taxed yet, it isn't tax revenue... so how can lowering someone's tax rates possibly cost the government money?
If a fetus really is just a clump of cells or a potential baby like you liberals say, then how can you argue that potential tax revenue not yet collected by the government costs the government money? If it hasn't been taxed yet, it isn't tax revenue... so how can lowering someone's tax rates possibly cost the government money?
Interesting way of looking at things. The thread title is kind of a non sequitur but it's actually kind of a cool comparison.
It works for the health care law too. I heard Ruth Bader Ginsburg say they can force you to buy insurance with the commerce clause because at some undetermined point in the future you may need health care and might not be able to pay for it out of pocket and that might cost the provider money which might cause them to raise their rates which would cause the insurance companies to raise their premiums. So therefore by doing absolutely nothing you are in fact participating in the health insurance market and subject to being mandated to buy health insurance by the government. then to top it off, they say they can do this via the clause covering interstate commerce even though the government bans insurance from being sold across state lines, thus making it illegal for the health insurance market to be interstate commerce in the first place.
And these are the same liberals who come out with a bunch of gun control laws and tell you that the constitution saying "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow should definitely not be interpreted as meaning that people have a right to bear arms which shouldn't be infringed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.