Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 74

Thread: Chris Christie vetoes bill allowing same-sex marriage bill

  1. #41
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,763
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    Nice personal attack but a tad off topic. Christies size is a problem. To pretend otherwise is foolish.
    The conversation starts off about a political act yet libs have to steer it towards a personal trait. So caring of them.

    Personal attack? Millions voted for an indecent, immoral blob but because he was a lib blob that was OK. Capable non-lib blobs, well, they're just unelectable.

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    I support the guy. He's wrong on this.
    Is that afraid of the right? He is smart enough and understand the laws of the land, he could of easily signed the bill and state this is the correct thing to do, no person should have less rights than another.

  3. #43
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    50,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    The conversation starts off about a political act yet libs have to steer it towards a personal trait. So caring of them.
    Sorry if reality upsets you. People don't like big fat people and appearance matters when it come to being elected President.

  4. #44
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,534
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Is that afraid of the right? He is smart enough and understand the laws of the land, he could of easily signed the bill and state this is the correct thing to do, no person should have less rights than another.
    No - I think he actually thinks its the right thing to do. He's wrong.

  5. #45
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Is that afraid of the right? He is smart enough and understand the laws of the land, he could of easily signed the bill and state this is the correct thing to do, no person should have less rights than another.
    Yet its perfectly okay to take someone's labor and redistribute it to another without demanding anything back for it simply because.

    I think Christie is wrong on this but you know what values are part of the entire equation and while I disagree with Christie on this point taking the concept of values and responsability out of the equation of rights in general doesn't get a free pass in a democratic society. The Gov has the right to veto. Let the legislature overcome it.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 02-20-2012 at 10:15 AM.

  6. #46
    This is such a silly issue. I pose this question to the mob:

    Why does the institution of marriage exist? What societal benefit does it have which causes a government to incentivise it through tax code policy? Please keep the answer specific to the questions posed.

  7. #47
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    This is such a silly issue. I pose this question to the mob:

    Why does the institution of marriage exist? What societal benefit does it have which causes a government to incentivise it through tax code policy? Please keep the answer specific to the questions posed.
    Why does it exist is not nearly as important that the institution works. Married people are happier, healthier, earn more, have functional children who are more successful for those that choose to have them. Being happier and healthier in itself is good for society as both those qualities lead to more productive people who tend to be less of a drain and more of a contributor than either there unmarried counter parts or divorced families. The outcomes for their children are far better than their unmarried counter parts who’s children tend to have all kinds of issues that reduce productivity and create drains on society.

    The reason Gay marriage should be encouraged is that forming a family unit is a foundational part of being responsible. It should be encouraged. The single gay, unattached, unaffiliated gay person is not good for society. Permanent relationships are foundational for a healthy society.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Why does it exist is not nearly as important that the institution works. Married people are happier, healthier, earn more, have functional children who are more successful for those that choose to have them. Being happier and healthier in itself is good for society as both those qualities lead to more productive people who tend to be less of a drain and more of a contributor than either there unmarried counter parts or divorced families. The outcomes for their children are far better than their unmarried counter parts who’s children tend to have all kinds of issues that reduce productivity and create drains on society.

    The reason Gay marriage should be encouraged is that forming a family unit is a foundational part of being responsible. It should be encouraged. The single gay, unattached, unaffiliated gay person is not good for society. Permanent relationships are foundational for a healthy society.
    I would say that fit people are generally healthier and happier as well. Should we as a society offer a special tax status for people that can prove they excercise 3 times a week for a minimum of 45 minutes per occasion?

  9. #49
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,537
    Bad week for Christie.

    As if one bad decision wasn't enough, he then ok'ed the flying of flags at half mast for Whitney Houston.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I would say that fit people are generally healthier and happier as well. Should we as a society offer a special tax status for people that can prove they excercise 3 times a week for a minimum of 45 minutes per occasion?
    If they're on Medicaid or Medicare we probably should. Certainly if they are on private insurance or have life insurance they benifit with a lower cost.

    Where is the tax benifit for marriage? If it's there I don't see it.

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    If they're on Medicaid or Medicare we probably should. Certainly if they are on private insurance or have life insurance they benifit with a lower cost.

    Where is the tax benifit for marriage? If it's there I don't see it.
    married, filing jointly. Best tax rate by far.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    If they're on Medicaid or Medicare we probably should. Certainly if they are on private insurance or have life insurance they benifit with a lower cost.

    Where is the tax benifit for marriage? If it's there I don't see it.
    The tax benefit if for couples in which one spouse does not work. If I make 100K and file jintly with the wife I get treated with the tax rate of an individual making 50K. When both spouses work there is no benefit. Again this is designed specifically to encourage families to have one parent stay home and raise the children full time. The idea behind it is that when a parent raises their child the child has the best chance for a positive outcome. Doesn't always work out but thats the reason for the incentive.

    I don't see a reason to incentivise other types of arrangements other than the "fairness" argument.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    The tax benefit if for couples in which one spouse does not work. If I make 100K and file jintly with the wife I get treated with the tax rate of an individual making 50K. When both spouses work there is no benefit. Again this is designed specifically to encourage families to have one parent stay home and raise the children full time. The idea behind it is that when a parent raises their child the child has the best chance for a positive outcome. Doesn't always work out but thats the reason for the incentive.

    I don't see a reason to incentivise other types of arrangements other than the "fairness" argument.
    There are plenty of married families without children. Deductions are also given for dependents. A none working spouse would be a dependent as would a child.

    You can be married without a child and one parent not working and get the same tax treatment as a couple with a child where one spouse isn't working with the exception you have another dependent.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    There are plenty of married families without children. Deductions are also given for dependents. A none working spouse would be a dependent as would a child.

    You can be married without a child and one parent not working and get the same tax treatment as a couple with a child where one spouse isn't working with the exception you have another dependent.
    Absolutely true but the question comes back to the reason for the preferential tax treatment. Why as a society do we need to do it? Coming back to gay marriage issues I wonder what is wrong with a compromise that allows for civil unions that are treated equally under the law to married couples?

  15. #55
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Coming back to gay marriage issues I wonder what is wrong with a compromise that allows for civil unions that are treated equally under the law to married couples?
    Because...it's sounds better when you say "I'm 'married' to So-and-So" instead of "I'm 'Civil Unioned' to So-and-So"....

  16. #56
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,534
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    This is such a silly issue. I pose this question to the mob:

    Why does the institution of marriage exist? What societal benefit does it have which causes a government to incentivise it through tax code policy? Please keep the answer specific to the questions posed.
    Civil marriage exists because the government recognizes that certain rights - such as access to medical records, parenting rights with respect to progeny or adopted children, inheritance rights, property rights, etc. - ought to be inherently attendant to a relationship based on a sufficiently strong bond and commitment. Thus, the government wanted to extend those rights (as they existed under the common law) to religiously married couples, and, given the separation of church and state, to other couples who wished to enter into similarly binding relationships without a religious ceremony.

  17. #57
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Absolutely true but the question comes back to the reason for the preferential tax treatment. Why as a society do we need to do it? Coming back to gay marriage issues I wonder what is wrong with a compromise that allows for civil unions that are treated equally under the law to married couples?
    As a conservative, why do you support government using tax policy to manipulate behavior in the first place? Isn't having children or not part of a persons individual liberty and their pursuit of happiness? Why should their choice to get married have children or not give them any preferential tax treatment?

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Because...it's sounds better when you say "I'm 'married' to So-and-So" instead of "I'm 'Civil Unioned' to So-and-So"....
    So people that aren't religious and get married by a JOP or some other non-religious person can't say they are married or they are stoned to death? WTF?

  19. #59
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    Sorry if reality upsets you. People don't like big fat people and appearance matters when it come to being elected President.
    I think Christie is behind the Mike and Molly show. He figures that show will do for fatties what Will and Grace did for gays.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    As a conservative, why do you support government using tax policy to manipulate behavior in the first place? Isn't having children or not part of a persons individual liberty and their pursuit of happiness? Why should their choice to get married have children or not give them any preferential tax treatment?
    Government has always used tax policy to encourage behavior that has a societal benefit. When people have children out of wedlock often the outcome is that family unit ends up on government assistance. If they removed that government assistance then by all means they should eliminate the advantaged tax status for married couples. Taxes would go down regardless. When the government foots the bill for broken families it makes sense financially to incentivize keeping families whole. There is no societal benefit for gay marriage that I can see. I support civil unions for those couples that want to tie their assets together. Let them be miserable like the rest of the married folks. I also support Christies veto. The voters should vote on and decide the issue.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us