Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year.

Who the heck can even eat with only $14,700 in annual income for a 2 person household?

[Happy Monkey]

No they aren't. There are people who don't pay federal income tax, but there's nobody with zero liability.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No they aren't. There are people who don't pay federal income tax, but there's nobody with zero liability.

Certainly they exist. Anyone who can vote for something that costs them absolutely nothing and places the burden for social and public benefits on others is a zero liability voter.

And as long as we have just under 50% of the potential taxpaying public not paying any federal income tax that is a problem.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And as long as we have just under 50% of the potential taxpaying public not paying any federal income tax that is a problem.

As long as you specify "federal income tax", you're OK, but if you try to extend that to zero liability altogether, you are incorrect.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

As long as you specify "federal income tax", you're OK, but if you try to extend that to zero liability altogether, you are incorrect.

I have never used any other term in that description, which is why it is qualified.

[Fair&Balanced]

I blame Reagan, that damned socialist, who expanded the EITC, after it was initiated by that other left winger, Ford.

[Happy Monkey]

When left unqualified, "Zero Liability" is false.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

When left unqualified, "Zero Liability" is false.

Which is why it is qualified. There is nothing false about it. When some 47% of the population has no risk in voting for the empty promises and lies of the current administration, esp as the 2012 election nears, they have no risk in voting.

[Happy Monkey]

The third sentence is only valid for an unqualified "zero liability voter", and they don't exist.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The third sentence is only valid for an unqualified "zero liability voter", and they don't exist.

They exist in every election, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

[Fair&Balanced]

There is something at risk for every voter in every election and certainly not just based on whether one pays federal income taxes or not.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

There is something at risk for every voter in every election.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, that may not really be a good thing.

[Happy Monkey]

You go from defending your use of the term by trying to claim that "zero liability voter" is inherently qualified to federal income tax only, to claiming that unqualified zero liability voters exist anyway.

OK

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You go from defending your use of the term by trying to claim that "zero liability voter" is inherently qualified to federal income tax only, to claiming that unqualified zero liability voters exist anyway.

OK

I haven't changed anything. Those are your words. Anytime I use the term it has to do with who does not have to pay federal income tax. Everyone pays some tax, but not all pay federal income tax. There is no doubt they exist. The term is valid whether you want it to be valid or not.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Everyone pays some tax, but not all pay federal income tax.

THerefore there are no zero liability voters.