Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: Bachmann: pro taxes on breastfeeding.

  1. #1
    Veteran Member Micro Machines Champion, Race Against Time Champion Tedminator's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    24,728
    Thanks
    14682

    From
    South Florida

    Bachmann: pro taxes on breastfeeding.

    Rep. Michele Bachmann v. Michelle Obama on breastfeeding - Yahoo! News

    Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota on Tuesday blasted the First Lady's support for breastfeeding as evidence of a "nanny state" mentality.

    "This is very consistent with where the hard left is coming from," Bachmann told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham Tuesday, according to widespread reports. "For them, government is the answer to every problem." "I've given birth to five babies, and I've breastfed every single one of these babies," Bachmann said. "To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump for my babies, I mean, you wanna talk about the nanny state — I think you just got the new definition of the nanny state."

    Last week, the IRS ruled that breast pumps and other nursing supplies are now tax-deductible, a move pushed by the Obama administrationalong with more flexible work rules related to breastfeeding. These changes come amid reports that Michelle Obama will be promoting breastfeeding, especially among African-Americans, as a way to help combat childhood obesity--the focus of the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign.
    ...snip..



    uhh.. why is Bachmann whining about this? I don't see anything wrong with lifting taxes on nursing supplies for mothers and babies.

  2. #2
    Senior Member MajikMyst's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    8,101
    Thanks
    32

    From
    Seattle Wa.
    I don't either.. Maybe Bachmann is just pissed off that she missed the nipple when she was a baby.. That could explain alot you know.. =P

  3. #3
    ConspiratusUbiquitus Hollyw00d's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Thanks
    7

    From
    Bizzaro Werld
    Quote Originally Posted by Tedminator View Post
    Rep. Michele Bachmann v. Michelle Obama on breastfeeding - Yahoo! News

    Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota on Tuesday blasted the First Lady's support for breastfeeding as evidence of a "nanny state" mentality.

    "This is very consistent with where the hard left is coming from," Bachmann told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham Tuesday, according to widespread reports. "For them, government is the answer to every problem." "I've given birth to five babies, and I've breastfed every single one of these babies," Bachmann said. "To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump for my babies, I mean, you wanna talk about the nanny state — I think you just got the new definition of the nanny state."

    Last week, the IRS ruled that breast pumps and other nursing supplies are now tax-deductible, a move pushed by the Obama administrationalong with more flexible work rules related to breastfeeding. These changes come amid reports that Michelle Obama will be promoting breastfeeding, especially among African-Americans, as a way to help combat childhood obesity--the focus of the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign.
    ...snip..



    uhh.. I don't see anything wrong with lifting taxes on nursing supplies for mothers and babies.
    Bachmann is simply fucking nuts, that's all there is to it. She is against anything that the President, or anyone closely connected to him, is for.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Granite's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7,153
    Thanks
    2

    Ted, I don't see anything wrong with it either, but why pick and choose what is tax-deductible and what is not? Unless, of course, you agree with the government using taxes as a means to social engineering.

    I'd prefer the government stay out of the social engineering department. Either make everything tax deductible or make nothing tax deductible. (I prefer the latter)

  5. #5
    Conservatively Liberal NiteGuy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17,044
    Thanks
    12452

    From
    Teardrop City
    Quote Originally Posted by JoJoGunne View Post
    Ted, I don't see anything wrong with it either, but why pick and choose what is tax-deductible and what is not? Unless, of course, you agree with the government using taxes as a means to social engineering.

    I'd prefer the government stay out of the social engineering department. Either make everything tax deductible or make nothing tax deductible. (I prefer the latter)
    It's not just tax deductiblity at issue here. The tax law change also allows the use of HSA dollars to be spent for breast pumps and related medical equipment, if someone with a Health Savings Account so desires. Something that couldn't be done before this.

    Frankly, being able to deduct health related expenses on your taxes is a pain anyway. First, you have to use an itemized deduction on the 1040, and not take the standard deduction. You have to have enough other expenses to make itemizing worthwhile. Then, you have to meet or exceed a certain percentage against your adjusted gross income, in medical expenses.

    Being able to pay for the necessary items through your HSA, if you have one, would be a definite advantage, however.

  6. #6
    ConspiratusUbiquitus Hollyw00d's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Thanks
    7

    From
    Bizzaro Werld
    Quote Originally Posted by JoJoGunne View Post
    Ted, I don't see anything wrong with it either, but why pick and choose what is tax-deductible and what is not? Unless, of course, you agree with the government using taxes as a means to social engineering.

    I'd prefer the government stay out of the social engineering department. Either make everything tax deductible or make nothing tax deductible. (I prefer the latter)
    Social engineering? WTF IS it with you guys and your new buzz words and catch phrases? Taking measures to encourage mother's to do something that is healthy for their babies is "government social engineering"? Looks like a health issue to me. How about efforts to discourage smoking? More of your feared and dreaded "social engineering" or a health issue?
    WTF, I say laws against smoking pot are "government social engineering" to encourage people to drop the bax of Ho-Ho's, turn off the Led Zeppelin CD and go out and find a job so you can pay taxes.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,406
    Thanks
    36951

    From
    in my head
    The problem with the 'social engineering' argument is that it implies that the choices being encouraged are in some way controversial. It implies that the government is encouraging choices in order to get a particular social outcome that springs from ideology or style or anything that is not universally affirmed. There is much evidence that breast feeding is good for babies and no evidence that it is not. There is no religious or cultural construct in which formula feeding is preferred. Breast feeding is simply a biological ability and a good idea--one that ultimately reduces health care costs that are sometimes borne by government (poor children get medicaid). Under examination, the social engineering argument falls apart--even if we define social engineering as broadly as possible.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Granite's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7,153
    Thanks
    2

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Social engineering? WTF IS it with you guys and your new buzz words and catch phrases? Taking measures to encourage mother's to do something that is healthy for their babies is "government social engineering"? Looks like a health issue to me. How about efforts to discourage smoking? More of your feared and dreaded "social engineering" or a health issue?
    WTF, I say laws against smoking pot are "government social engineering" to encourage people to drop the bax of Ho-Ho's, turn off the Led Zeppelin CD and go out and find a job so you can pay taxes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    The problem with the 'social engineering' argument is that it implies that the choices being encouraged are in some way controversial. It implies that the government is encouraging choices in order to get a particular social outcome that springs from ideology or style or anything that is not universally affirmed. There is much evidence that breast feeding is good for babies and no evidence that it is not. There is no religious or cultural construct in which formula feeding is preferred. Breast feeding is simply a biological ability and a good idea--one that ultimately reduces health care costs that are sometimes borne by government (poor children get medicaid). Under examination, the social engineering argument falls apart--even if we define social engineering as broadly as possible.
    It doesn't matter whether conventional wisdom deems an activity good or bad...the government doesn't have any business using tax incentives to promote or discourage a particular activity. They should stay out of the issue.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,406
    Thanks
    36951

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by JoJoGunne View Post
    It doesn't matter whether conventional wisdom deems an activity good or bad...the government doesn't have any business using tax incentives to promote or discourage a particular activity. They should stay out of the issue.
    You don't even believe that unless you think there should be no criminal justice system. The law is entirely about promoting or discouraging activities that we universally agree are either good or bad. You might have a point if the behavior involved had no influence on anyone else, but since rearing healthy children does reduce all sorts of social costs, breastfeeding hardly qualifies.

    You might argue that somehow he tax system is different, but are you prepared to say, for example, that charitable contributions of any kind should not gain someone a tax break? One of the ways conservatives justify a lower tax rate overall is that many functions that might be served by government are instead served by private non-profits, but these non-profits couldn't survive without contributions motivated at least partly by tax exemptions.

    If that's the position you take, you'll very quickly find that you've set up a system that serves the needs of the very few most capable and high born but does not serve the great majority. That might sound like paradise to some, but it's not politically sustainable.

  10. #10
    Banned Camp Blackjack Fever Champion, Brain Bones Champion
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40,024
    Thanks
    5428

    From
    happyfunville
    Quote Originally Posted by JoJoGunne View Post
    It doesn't matter whether conventional wisdom deems an activity good or bad...the government doesn't have any business using tax incentives to promote or discourage a particular activity. They should stay out of the issue.
    Exactly. Just tax me enough to handle the basic constitutional government functions. When the government is monkeying with tax rates/deductions to influence behaviour, it's overstepped it's purpose.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ms. Bachmann..........and I don't mean Michele
    By Aaronssongs in forum Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 3rd July 2011, 07:19 PM
  2. Bachmann: I'm serious, not a flake
    By jackalope in forum Political Ideologies
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26th June 2011, 12:34 PM
  3. Replies: 150
    Last Post: 22nd February 2011, 07:37 PM
  4. Michele Bachmann
    By Midwest Media Critic in forum Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 31st July 2010, 06:15 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 13th April 2010, 08:11 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed