Holy crap. He went on O'reilly and managed not to feed the troll.

seems like a fair enough question (the last one), and Weiner did dodge it. How does non-payment work, i assume it gets followed up on, so what are the penalties?

He would make a great president. If a black guy can be elected in the US, then having the name Weiner shouldn't be a problem, right?

This is one of those cases where after hearing the dudes name, how I pictured the guy would look is actually what he looks like.

@ghark, the penalty is assessed as a tax. To "refuse" to pay it you would have to either falsify your tax documents (i.e. claim you are insured when you're not), or deliberately underpay your taxes compared to the value your 1040 comes to.

So yeah, it's not criminal to not hold insurance, but tax fraud or evasion remains criminal.

However, the "who comes for you" framing of the question is just about as fair as "Which hand do you use to beat your wife?" Weiner did a pretty good job of answering the question while avoiding the unfair frame.

>> ^mrsid:

He would make a great president. If a black guy can be elected in the US, then having the name Weiner shouldn't be a problem, right?


Especially when you remember that the "black guy" was named Barack Hussein Obama. I think the glass ceiling on people with funny names has been broken.

Basically O'Reilly just wants Weiner to say THE BIG BAD IRS IS COMING FOR YOU. Weiner doesn't want to step into that trap, but ends up stepping into another for not answering the obvious. Only way he could have avoided it was to explain in detail what happens, which bill-o may not have let him get off, or maybe he wasn't 100% sure and didn't want to miss state, or maybe he knows the real method is to jam brain leeches up the nose of non-payers, wait for said leeches to hollow out their skulls in the most painful way possible then harvest their organs for profit.

I suppose it depends on how health-care payments show up on your taxes/paychecks, whether they specifically show how much you've paid, like social security or medicare, or whether or not its just part of taxes like defense, or any of the other thousands of things we pay taxes for that aren't itemized on our checks or returns.

One of the calmest sessions I've seen Bill O'Reilly posted recently. Thought Weiner could have handled it a little better since he seemed well versed in the health care bill. BO offered a statement, Weiner countered it, but then wanted to expound on his point. BO's show really doesn't allow for the opposition to expound on their points that often. Call BO out on the misinformation, move on. The childish silent treatment was a little silly since it seems like BO likes it when his guests pull that maneuver as it paints them as uncooperative.

It is appalling that so many comments have been made in favor of a Congressman who so obviously is hiding the truth...have you people forgotten that the point of our revolution was to upend tyranny.
Why is it acceptable to you to allow these public servants to lie, obfuscate, and swindle their constituents?
If the answer is the IRS will be the arbiter of this new law, is that not something to which we might wish to be informed. If the answer is a less innocuous agency, then isn't that more laudable for the liberal side of the agenda?

Immature alternate title: Weiner fucks asshole.

Sooo... having health insurance is CLAIMED on your taxes. It could be said that you are 'fined' for not having coverage... but it is more factual to say that you are paying your taxes for not having insurance(for government support of health care costs.)

How is this too hard to comprehend?

>> ^NoGunsNoJustice:

It is appalling that so many comments have been made in favor of a Congressman who so obviously is hiding the truth...have you people forgotten that the point of our revolution was to upend tyranny.
Why is it acceptable to you to allow these public servants to lie, obfuscate, and swindle their constituents?
If the answer is the IRS will be the arbiter of this new law, is that not something to which we might wish to be informed. If the answer is a less innocuous agency, then isn't that more laudable for the liberal side of the agenda?



Weiner is one of the politicians on this health care debate that have continually made an effort to point out health insurance lobbying with regard to the Republican party("The Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance companies.") He never pointed out the Democrats tyranny on this, however that wasn't an issue for getting health 'reform' passed. He is one of the few public figures who actually has some intellectual honesty and courage.

It seemed pretty obvious to me. You pay your normal tax rate, let's say 30 % as an example. If you have a private health insurance, and you can prove it, you get a credit and only pay 29 % instead.

Is that not correct and pretty easy to understand?

>> ^ghark:

seems like a fair enough question (the last one), and Weiner did dodge it. How does non-payment work, i assume it gets followed up on, so what are the penalties?

Thanks guys, I did find that a little hard to pick up from this segment but due to your extra input it is now completely clear.

It might have been clear from the segment if Rep. Weiner had not gotten so excited - I found I was distracted from the information by the confrontation. I'd be surprised if I was the only one.
>> ^rabidness:

Sooo... having health insurance is CLAIMED on your taxes. It could be said that you are 'fined' for not having coverage... but it is more factual to say that you are paying your taxes for not having insurance(for government support of health care costs.)
How is this too hard to comprehend?

>> ^gwiz665:

It seemed pretty obvious to me. You pay your normal tax rate, let's say 30 % as an example. If you have a private health insurance, and you can prove it, you get a credit and only pay 29 % instead.
Is that not correct and pretty easy to understand?

At the moment I have a killer headache which is making it pretty difficult for me to concentrate. I estimate that with this temporary handicap I'm still more perceptive than the average O'Reilly viewer but I wasn't able to pick the answer out of the video. I'm not sure that's Weiner's fault... he might have been able to make it clear if he was allowed to say 2 or more sentences in a row.

Netrunner's explanation was perfectly clear, though. If you have insurance, you can claim a tax deduction. No insurance = no deduction; that's your "fine". Lying about it is tax fraud and the laws for dealing with that are already well established. No new enforcement is necessary.

Quite possibly, Weiner -did- answer the question clearly, and Fox just edited it out.
>> ^lampishthing:

Thanks guys, I did find that a little hard to pick up from this segment but due to your extra input it is now completely clear.
It might have been clear from the segment if Rep. Weiner had not gotten so excited - I found I was distracted from the information by the confrontation. I'd be surprised if I was the only one.

You have to understand the political climate is putting some pretty heavy restrictions on what Weiner can say.

My interpretation is that your base tax rate will be increased (for those above a certain income), then proving your health coverage will allow you a deduction which will bring your tax rate down to where it was before.

But Weiner can't give them the sound byte "Your tax rate will increase" because they won't pay attention to anything else that might come after those words. They will scream "Democrat admits health care reform increases taxes!!!"

So he has to talk around the point. It sucks, but that's the kind of Fox News mentality that he is up against.

Do remeber, that Fox News, is NOT a credible news source. It only gives correct facts, when it benefits the Republican Party, and incorrect, if not total lies, when it doesnt. That said...

If your actually concern on what the Health Care Reform bill states, to a personal income tax form for next year (as the tax part issues will not take effect until next year's income taxes). You should consult with a CPA, an accredible tax preparer, or any of several goverment agencies paid for by your tax dollars. Like the IRS(www.irs.gov), or the US Chamber of Commerce(www.uschamber.gov), or even The Small Business Administration (www.sba.gov). Even lawyers whom handle tax matters, could answer a question here or there.

Just dont accept what Fox News says at face value. They have long lost the right to be declared a 'credible news source'. Mr. O'Reilly, really is incorrect on much of what he said. No one at Fox News will challenge, or correct him. Nor will he, himself admit, that he knows less then Mr. Weirner does. Just remeber, if it benefits Republicans, Fox News will get the facts totally correct. If it doesn't, Fox News will make up data, polls, and figures to put the GOP in the best possible light.

If all else fails, look it up in history. The one thing Fox News cant change to its political whim, is history.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I like Weiner- but I have to admit he was dodging the question.

i don't think he was dodging, i think he just didn't understand what the turd was asking him, so he was explaining something else.
weiner is competent enough to be able to answer anything the turd can ask him about this bill.>> ^dag:

I like Weiner- but I have to admit he was dodging the question.

I dont understand the issue completely and dont know how the system works, but i think what Wiener is trying to get across is that the question is invalid, like asking "What does blue smell like"* or "who makes the sky blue". People like O'Reilly has made it a profession to trap people with questions like this: They make up "facts" and then force people to answer for them. Wiener isnt dodging, he simply refuses to walk into the trap.

*Which reminds me of an old riddle: What is red and smells blue paint?

Visit the debunked channel for the answer!

ahh thanks Netrunner, that made it clear.

I don't think this really is a question about who made it out better with that talk.
The question (which I had to answer with a "no" for myself) should be if this snippet made the healthcare-bill any more understandable for the viewer and if it was aimed at doing so at the first place - OR if it was just two people playing word-games with one another.
Who cares who wins a political discourse if its entire purpose is a sham :-S

>> ^Mauru:

I don't think this really is a question about who made it out better with that talk.
The question (which I had to answer with a "no" for myself) should be if this snippet made the healthcare-bill any more understandable for the viewer and if it was aimed at doing so at the first place - OR if it was just two people playing word-games with one another.
Who cares who wins a political discourse if its entire purpose is a sham :-S


Congratulations, you've just described everything on Fox News. They're not in the slightest interested in making things more understandable. OTOH, Weiner has a history of doing so, even when the other guy doesn't care about the truth.

O'Reilly schooled Wiener on the Dems own bill that he obviously didn't read. Wiener was given talking points by Pelosi and failed defending HC Reform. No matter, the GOP will take back Congress this November.

>> ^Stormsinger:

br> Congratulations, you've just described everything on Fox News. They're not in the slightest interested in making things more understandable. OTOH, Weiner has a history of doing so, even when the other guy doesn't care about the truth.


If that's the case then maybe we should start wondering why these Oreilly videos even make it up into the vs top listing. It's not like this is about shaping/educating political ideologies or beliefs, more like rooting for your hockey team.

Go weiner, go weiner!

His running mate can be "boehner"

>> ^mrsid:

He would make a great president. If a black guy can be elected in the US, then having the name Weiner shouldn't be a problem, right?