Thread: LOL...we're screwed now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/..._care_overhaul

excerpt from article-
Gone from the bill is a tax on cosmetic surgical procedures, including Botox injections. Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing a 10 percent sales tax on tanning salons, to be paid by the person soaking up the rays. The Food and Drug Administration says ultraviolet radiation from tanning can increase the risk of skin cancer.




So going out in the sun can now be regulated, too? Because it's dangerous? How about going out in the rain? Hell, it can hail and bust you up, lightning can fry your ass, thunder could blow out an eardrum, or you could catch cold. So if you go out in the sun or the rain, you could be taxed at 15%, legitimately, because it's dangerous, so says the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION!?

Originally Posted by Keenly

aw shit i cant remember which one it was....


is it the healthcare bill that has to stand before the house/senate together and be accepted by both at the same time


or was that the copenhagen treaty

Reconciliation on the health care bill should be easy. Frau Pelosi said she would vote on anything the Senate sent down.




http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...g/Treaties.htm
Treaties-
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.
Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.
The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved.
The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.
The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval.

Originally Posted by budsmoker87

how do you come to that conclusion....from the FDA saying they want to tax tanning salons?

i personally see nothing wrong with taxing tanning salons...the UV rays emitted from those booths I heard is several times stronger than the sun's UV rays. Besides, I see too many teenage girls looking like carrots anyway (and oddly enough, thinking this looks attractive)

No, 100 Senators want to tax the millions who use tanning salons because the FOOD and DRUG administration has linked UV to skin cancer.

So because you don't use a tanning booth, you don't care? Don't be naive. Your quirk will come under fire next. And then you'll be hopping mad.

Originally Posted by budsmoker87

how do you come to that conclusion....from the FDA saying they want to tax tanning salons?

i personally see nothing wrong with taxing tanning salons...the UV rays emitted from those booths I heard is several times stronger than the sun's UV rays. Besides, I see too many teenage girls looking like carrots anyway (and oddly enough, thinking this looks attractive)

i think they should tax people more for going to mcdonalds.

just becuase you dont like the way people look doesn't mean you should tax them for it.. thats ridiculous...

Originally Posted by jfgordon1

i think they should tax people more for going to mcdonalds.

You must be a Burger King lobbyist...

Originally Posted by ChChoda

You must be a Burger King lobbyist...

I'm the actual burger king

don't they already do this for cigarettes?