PDA

View Full Version : OT- Dems Hammered for backroom deal with Unions on healthcare...


Archer81
01-15-2010, 01:54 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/democrats-hammered-room-deal-unions-health-care/

In pushing a giant step closer to a health care reform deal, Democratic leaders are once again drawing fire from their critics for extending special treatment to an interest group in exchange for its support of the bill.

The latest deal was struck Thursday among the White House, Congress and union leaders over the proposed tax on high-value "Cadillac" health insurance plans."

Unions had objected strongly to the proposed tax on high-value insurance policies, fearing it would hurt their members, and they won several concessions from the administration. Under the deal, if it becomes law, union workers will be shielded from the 40 percent tax for five years -- until 2018. The threshold for the tax also was raised so that it will kick in for plans worth $24,000 instead of $23,000. And dental and vision coverage will not count toward that threshold.

But what about everybody else?

The unions, traditional supporters of the Democratic Party and a major factor in Obama's political infrastructure, got a deal, but Republicans said that non-union workers will still have to pay the tax from the get-go starting in 2013.

"I guess this bill is only good if it doesn't apply to you," GOPAC Chairman Frank Donatelli said.

"Millions of non-union workers ... would be forced to pay higher taxes for the same benefits their union counterparts" receive, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee said in a written statement.

The deal also leaves a $60 billion hole in the projected revenue stream, meaning Democrats will have to find the money elsewhere if they want to meet Obama's pledge to keep health care reform deficit-neutral.

"There's a $60 billion hole now in the legislation," Democratic strategist Doug Schoen said. "Not sure it's fair, not sure it's paid for."

Neither union leaders nor the White House offered any specifics on where that money would come from.

Lawmakers, though, have been considering applying Medicare payroll taxes to capital gains and other dividend incomes above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families.

Critics of the legislation called the union deal another back-room favor handed out in secret talks that violated Obama's promise of transparency. They say special treatment has gone to interests ranging from the pharmaceutical industry to the state of Nebraska, which was offered extra federal funding for Medicaid patients in exchange for moderate Sen. Ben Nelson's support.

"If this bill is so good, why does everyone need an exemption in order to vote for it? ... We see the drug companies get a special deal. We see what happened in Louisiana and most notoriously Nebraska in the Senate where they got special deals. And now the unions get a special deal." Donatelli said.

"This union kickback is the latest in a long line of back-room pay-offs and sweetheart deals on a health care bill that the American people overwhelmingly do not support," Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, said in an e-mail Friday.

But the White House trumpeted the "solid progress" it was making toward a final package.

Obama held a meeting with House and Senate Democratic leaders late into the night Thursday to discuss the apparent breakthrough.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that her members, who were fiercely opposed to the earlier version of the Senate bill's "Cadillac" tax, liked what they saw in the union compromise.

"We are very optimistic" that common ground will be found on other issues, she said.

Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said his workers were "very pleased" by the deal.

"They're ready to go out and fight for it and even improve it down line. We're for this health care reform and ready to fight for it."

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the agreement the biggest hurdle for union support. Absent any last minute changes, he said the AFL-CIO's on board.

"We will endorse it and do it proudly," Trumka said of the emerging health care bill.

Fox News' Major Garrett and Trish Turner contributed to this report


:Broncos:

Flex Gunmetal
01-15-2010, 02:00 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25

Archer81
01-15-2010, 02:02 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25


Pshaw.


:Broncos:

DarkHorse30
01-15-2010, 03:31 PM
The dem leadership is laughable. How many of them are going to be forced to quit (like Dodd and the ND senator) before the press starts reporting on how CORRUPT the democrats are?







Chicagoland politics and SF buffoonery (Pelosi) is destroying our country.....what do the dem locksteppers think of what they are doing?

TheDave
01-15-2010, 03:34 PM
American politics are laughable. How many of them are going to be forced to quit before the press starts reporting on how CORRUPT our politicians are?



Fixed it for you...

Mr.Meanie
01-15-2010, 03:58 PM
Chicagoland politics and SF buffoonery (Pelosi) is destroying our country.....what do the dem locksteppers think of what they are doing?

People have been using that exact phrase forever. We heard the same stuff under Bush, Clinton, Reagon, Carter, Nixon, Roosevelt, King Henry the 8th, Julius Ceasar, and the man who first created fire.

Once you wake up and realize the idea that "Group X is destroying my country because they did Y" is a political tool to manipulate you into pushing their product, you will be less subject to the whims of whichever political party you identify with... and lead an overall happier and stress-free life.

bpc
01-15-2010, 04:06 PM
Remember when we were promised transparency?

Basically this is the dems way of saying, "UP YOUR ASS AMERICA, we're gonna do our way, whether we have to lie, cheat, steal, bribe and corrupt anything and anybody along the way, so be it."

This is a sham. Not that it should be a surprise to anybody though.

Look at the top 3 issues Dems are approaching right now:

1. Healthcare Reform
2. EFCA
3. Immigration Reform

You know gotta get all these people sucking off the fattened up government tit to build up the depedency levels, just as the dems want it. They figure, provide free healthcare for anybody, strapped to the backs of a certain class of people and businesses to pay for it. After that, give any and all the freedom to turn themselves into union so they can have their run of check card voting session. You know, nothing like a little peer pressure to keep people voting a certain way. Not only that, they've also promised unions are protected from paying certain taxes now vs. ya know... the rest of us.

The real bitch is going to be when Obama turns his attention to immigration reform as soon as Healthcare is settled, and opens the borders to anybody and everybody, as long as they sign up into a union and continue the line of depedency on the government.

Funny, much of the economy is failing... yet government jobs are EXPLODING all around us now and the growth has been exponential.

Pathetic.

Bronx33
01-15-2010, 04:07 PM
par for the obama course.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 04:11 PM
par for the obama course.

Its just par for american politics as a whole.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 04:13 PM
Though the excise tax today doesnt look all that different from the one yesterday. The union pay off was pure politics, but welcome to the reality of the political system

Bronx33
01-15-2010, 04:15 PM
Its just par for american politics as a whole.



Sadly previous presidents before obama didn't (PROMISED) tranparency as a campaign promise :wiggle:

UberBroncoMan
01-15-2010, 04:20 PM
Sadly previous presidents before obama didn't (PROMISED) tranparency as a campaign promise :wiggle:

I'm shocked people still believe/defend those. It's like trying to convince yourself the sky will turn green with purple polka-dots.

Dudeskey
01-15-2010, 04:21 PM
Its just par for american politics as a whole.

This. Regardless of who's in charge, the District of Criminals has continued to operate this way for years- campaign promises or not.

DBroncos4life
01-15-2010, 04:23 PM
par for the obama course.

As long as he gets us a college playoff system....

DarkHorse30
01-15-2010, 04:35 PM
Fixed it for you...

Fail.

The nature of politics is what YOU are talking about....I, OTOH am more specifically talking about the lying, cheating, stinking, corrupt adminstration and it's cohorts in the Dem-controlled house and senate.

You guys voted this clown and his idiots in.....maybe you should pay attention to the way he is screwing you over, on his way to bankrupting MY country. Look at the skyrocketing jobless rate, and how the DEMS are bailing out their friends ONLY.

It's laughable....if it wasn't so sad. Look at the youtube vid of that idiot that assaulted the reporter in Mass. when he asked a question that was too "mean" for the AG (Coakley).....that guy is a THUG and the obama administration and the democratic leadership is loaded with these goons.

Freedom of speech? Only for the democrats......brilliant interpretation of the constitutuion

gtown
01-15-2010, 04:39 PM
I held out hope that the usual shenanigans and idiocy in national politics would be gone. But the more I hear about this bill and all of the measures it introduces and special programs for "special" people like unionized labor, the more I realize that nothing has changed.

Unfortunately, we are a country divided by those who benefit from globalism and those who do not (like unions). As long as we are divided like this, special interest groups are gonna come calling for their quid pro quo.

broncocalijohn
01-15-2010, 04:40 PM
Though the excise tax today doesnt look all that different from the one yesterday. The union pay off was pure politics, but welcome to the reality of the political system

part of the reason "transperacy" isnt happening as promised at least 8 times during debates/townhall meetings. Obama sure made a big deal about that. I guess when you are bribing politicians and the lobbying groups, you dont want it on record ie. CSPAN.

Good job Chris, you just got LABS over to the Mane page from the War forum section. Cant wait for his pics of something off topic.

DarkHorse30
01-15-2010, 04:44 PM
People have been using that exact phrase forever. We heard the same stuff under Bush, Clinton, Reagon, Carter, Nixon, Roosevelt, King Henry the 8th, Julius Ceasar, and the man who first created fire.

Once you wake up and realize the idea that "Group X is destroying my country because they did Y" is a political tool to manipulate you into pushing their product, you will be less subject to the whims of whichever political party you identify with... and lead an overall happier and stress-free life.

Are you too lazy to pay attention to what your political parties do? I guess I understand how Obama pulled the wool over the eyes of so many.

Like it or not, there are differences in the party platforms. Try learning some of them....might help you when voting.

I don't buy the refrain that "all politicians" are the same. Why? Because as a conservative, I have seen the elected officials from my party held to a completely different standard.

Mr.Meanie
01-15-2010, 04:48 PM
I don't buy the refrain that "all politicians" are the same. Why? Because as a conservative, I have seen the elected officials from my party held to a completely different standard.

:rofl:

Okay, good luck with that.

broncocalijohn
01-15-2010, 04:53 PM
Like it or not, there are differences in the party platforms. Try learning some of them....might help you when voting.

I don't buy the refrain that "all politicians" are the same. Why? Because as a conservative, I have seen the elected officials from my party held to a completely different standard.

as a conservative myself, dont blind yourself from the happenings of the republican party. They were supposed to be "conservative" but gave us crap load of bad spending and one horrible stimulus bill (that was followed up by one even worse from the dems). Obama is nothing different than other politicians. That goes for Arnold Schwarzenneger also. Stick to what you believe in is what I look for in a politician. Crap the Dems are doing right now is outright criminal. I cant imagine the attorney generals from the states effected will put up with it regardless if they are a Rep. or Dem.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 04:57 PM
Are you too lazy to pay attention to what your political parties do? I guess I understand how Obama pulled the wool over the eyes of so many.

Like it or not, there are differences in the party platforms. Try learning some of them....might help you when voting.

I don't buy the refrain that "all politicians" are the same. Why? Because as a conservative, I have seen the elected officials from my party held to a completely different standard.

There are def. differences between the parties. But if you think the republicans come from a stance of purity, i weep for you. They have mobilized their entire movement to become a party of 'no' without offering one single constructive solution. They are organizing a fear mongering power grab and its really ****ing laughable.

I'm extremely left wing, socialist, and trust me, the obama administration and current congress doesnt exactly make me happy (though im glad healthcare is being passed...its hardly a good bill, but in time has the makings of one...SS looked horrid during its infancy too), but the problem with the american government lies much more with the fact that corporate interests have taken control of it.

It's all about money. And greed. And its sickening.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 04:59 PM
as a conservative myself, dont blind yourself from the happenings of the republican party. They were supposed to be "conservative" but gave us crap load of bad spending and one horrible stimulus bill (that was followed up by one even worse from the dems). Obama is nothing different than other politicians. That goes for Arnold Schwarzenneger also. Stick to what you believe in is what I look for in a politician. Crap the Dems are doing right now is outright criminal. I cant imagine the attorney generals from the states effected will put up with it regardless if they are a Rep. or Dem.

The only horrible thing about the obama stimulus bill was that it wasn't large enough. It did exactly what economists said it would, take us out of the depths of depression, but only increase the GDP by a small amount...which would lead to continued unemployment. That said, the economy did grow instead of further sink, so it did that much. And any other way you wanna skew it, you can't ignore that fact.

We dont have to worry about inflation (this isnt the 70's, if anything, still in danger of a deflationary trap) and its easier to fill a deficit when the economy is strong. Taht said, efficient healthcare reform and the expiration of the bush tax cuts (a huge joke) should help.

broncocalijohn
01-15-2010, 05:09 PM
The only horrible thing about the obama stimulus bill was that it wasn't large enough. It did exactly what economists said it would, take us out of the depths of depression, but only increase the GDP by a small amount...which would lead to continued unemployment. That said, the economy did grow instead of further sink, so it did that much. And any other way you wanna skew it, you can't ignore that fact.

We dont have to worry about inflation (this isnt the 70's, if anything, still in danger of a deflationary trap) and its easier to fill a deficit when the economy is strong. Taht said, efficient healthcare reform and the expiration of the bush tax cuts (a huge joke) should help.

if that is what you want from increasing the deficit by trillions of dollars, then go right ahead thinking that. You could hand the money directly to the people at a better price and comeout better. It was a farce. If Dems keep thinking like they did in the 30s, maybe we will need another world war to get us out. We werent in the depths of depression last year. Your way of thinking like the SS system is now good is laughable. The same people that gave us SS and Medicare fraud is now trying their hands at health care and to eliminate the fraud that they help create. Next I will have the foxes watch the hens.

Bronx33
01-15-2010, 05:12 PM
This is a huge subject that effects all of us for years to come ( it should have been available on CSPAN) the fact it wasn't tells me all i need to know END OF STORY.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 05:19 PM
if that is what you want from increasing the deficit by trillions of dollars, then go right ahead thinking that. You could hand the money directly to the people at a better price and comeout better. It was a farce. If Dems keep thinking like they did in the 30s, maybe we will need another world war to get us out. We werent in the depths of depression last year. Your way of thinking like the SS system is now good is laughable. The same people that gave us SS and Medicare fraud is now trying their hands at health care and to eliminate the fraud that they help create. Next I will have the foxes watch the hens.

<rolling my eyes> We're not even in a record deficit, and if you try balancing the budget now, you'll see the economy plunge again. This happened in 1937 after the economy started rebounding and FDR was convinced to start balancing the budget (i dont know how many times i have to write this on this site).

SS and medicare fraud. Interesting take on two of America's most popular programs...one of which has been around since Roosevelt, the other since the 60's. The social programs arent the problem with this country. What led us to our current financial BS? The following, in a nutshell.

Remember, when Clinton left office, there was a 200 billion dollar surplus.

1) Bush tax cuts
2) 2 unnecessary wars
3) Medicare part D expansion

He and the republicans paid for none of the above.

Combine this with the bank/housing failure (a direct result of deregulation...clinton is guilty of this as well, not only the repubs here) and you get our current problem. The economy didnt used to fluctuate like this, for 50 years it was on pretty even keel until deregulation began (krugman wrote about this today in the times...i know how much you guys love him..blah blah, whatever, a fact is a fact.)

Point is, America is heading towards insolvency and healthcare NEEDS to be reformed. This bill is hardly great, but does lay groundwork for some pretty good stuff (like the exchanges, etc). Yes, taxes may rise in time, but isnt it worth it?

mr007
01-15-2010, 05:21 PM
SS looked horrid during its infancy too

:spit::spit::spit:

yeah because SS is a pile of gold now..... why do I pay for something that I will never ****ing see the benefit of. Just another bull**** tax that the government has bestowed upon us. Leave it in their hands to manage your money when they are too ****ing ignorant to manage their own.

mr007
01-15-2010, 05:24 PM
<rolling my eyes> We're not even in a record deficit...

I don't even follow politics and this is asinine. yes, we are in a record deficit.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 05:25 PM
This is a huge subject that effects all of us for years to come ( it should have been available on CSPAN) the fact it wasn't tells me all i need to know END OF STORY.

I'm actually glad this **** isnt on CSPAN. People act differently when they are on camera. I dont see what putting it on CSPAN would really do, though im up for transparancy in different ways. If you really wanted to put it on CSPAN fine, i dont think the results would be any diff

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 05:25 PM
I don't even follow politics and this is asinine. yes, we are in a record deficit.

After ww2, deficit was higher

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 05:28 PM
:spit::spit::spit:

yeah because SS is a pile of gold now..... why do I pay for something that I will never ****ing see the benefit of. Just another bull**** tax that the government has bestowed upon us. Leave it in their hands to manage your money when they are too ****ing ignorant to manage their own.

Republicans insist SS is a huge problem...its not going anywhere unless you guys repeal it

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 05:29 PM
I don't even follow politics and this is asinine. yes, we are in a record deficit.

If you dont follow politics, stay out of this conversation

mr007
01-15-2010, 05:30 PM
If you dont follow politics, stay out of this conversation

You are comparing deficit to GDP, which really isn't all that fair, but whatever.

mr007
01-15-2010, 05:30 PM
Republicans insist SS is a huge problem...its not going anywhere unless you guys repeal it

Who's you guys? I never said I was republican.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-15-2010, 05:37 PM
Who's you guys? I never said I was republican.

Excuse my mistake.

WolfpackGuy
01-15-2010, 05:44 PM
Social Security?

Anybody younger than the Baby Boomers ain't gonna see that.

watermock
01-15-2010, 06:32 PM
Social Security?

Anybody younger than the Baby Boomers ain't gonna see that.

No, That's what "Free trade " brought.

The last bastion of anti- Fascim is America, and the Globalists have us right in the crosshairs.

rastaman
01-15-2010, 06:57 PM
Social Security?

Anybody younger than the Baby Boomers ain't gonna see that.

If you lift the CAP and make everyone pay into it regardless of income (from minimum wage to Bill Gates) SS will become solvent and the generation X will have SS as well. There, SS is in the Black for generations to come or at least the next 75 years.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/miller160705.html

Archer81
01-15-2010, 07:01 PM
If you lift the CAP and make everyone pay into it regardless of income (from minimum wage to Bill Gates) SS will become solvent and the generation X will have SS as well. There, SS is in the Black for generations to come.


No. Fact is the baby boomers did not have as many children as their parents did. Fewer people paying in = less money capable of being paid out. You can go ahead and say well if everyone paid in...but the number of people who will be paying in is shrinking, while the rolls for social security will continue to grow.


:Broncos:

Bronco_Beerslug
01-15-2010, 07:05 PM
I don't buy the refrain that "all politicians" are the same. Why? Because as a conservative, I have seen the elected officials from my party held to a completely different standard. Ha! Biggest crock of crap I've ever read!

The whole freaking circus cycles every decade or so.

It's all about $ (who has the resources to lobby harder and longer than the other guys).

No. Fact is the baby boomers did not have as many children as their parents did. Fewer people paying in = less money capable of being paid out. You can go ahead and say well if everyone paid in...but the number of people who will be paying in is shrinking, while the rolls for social security will continue to grow.
No, he's partially right. If you roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy that the Right instituted, funding for SS increases until well after the 50s.

Archer81
01-15-2010, 07:11 PM
Ha! Biggest crock of crap I've ever read!

The whole freaking circus cycles every decade or so.

It's all about $ (who has the resources to lobby harder and longer than the other guys).

No, he's partially right. If you roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy that the Right instituted, funding for SS increases until well after the 50s.


It will not be enough to offset the increase in the people pulling from social security.

:Broncos:

rastaman
01-15-2010, 07:11 PM
No. Fact is the baby boomers did not have as many children as their parents did. Fewer people paying in = less money capable of being paid out. You can go ahead and say well if everyone paid in...but the number of people who will be paying in is shrinking, while the rolls for social security will continue to grow.


:Broncos:

Meh! Wait until we make all the illegal workers in this country legal citizens! That's where the additional revenue will come from. Also, take into consideration the illegals tend to have larger families and their children will enter the work force over a period of time as well. How's that for your shrinkage theory?

For starters, lifting cap directly affects slightly over 5% of wage-earners, group that has already benefited from three rounds of Bush’s pro-rich tax cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), effective federal tax rates (how much of their income a taxpayer pays in federal taxes) of the richest 5% of taxpayers fell from 30.1% in 2001 to 25.6% in 2004.

Lifting the wage cap on social security taxes would actually would do little more than reverse those tax giveaways to the wealthy. The additional tax burden of the richest 5% would be about 5.0 percentage points, even assuming as most economists do that workers end up paying the employers share of the payroll tax (in the form of lower wages) on top their share. That is because property income not subject to the payroll tax accounts for the majority of the income of the richest 5%. * Those additional 5.0 percentage points of tax burden would push the effective federal tax rate of the richest 5% to 30.6%, in 2004, somewhat higher than 30.1% rate they faced in 2001 when Bush took office, but still considerably lower than the 31.8% rate they faced in 1979.

That is hardly soaking the rich. Also they can afford it. The best-off 5% of households had an average income of $281,497 in 2003, some 80% higher than in 1979, even after correcting for inflation. Still, lifting the cap is a solution to the alleged crisis in Social Security that would actually help to right the economic wrongs of the last few decades.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/miller160705.html

Bronco_Beerslug
01-15-2010, 07:15 PM
It will not be enough to offset the increase in the people pulling from social security.

:Broncos:Incorrect as it absolutely funds the program for another 50+ years unless we have to continually pay for wars using it as the source.

Archer81
01-15-2010, 07:17 PM
Meh! Wait until we make all the illegal workers in this country legal citizens! That's where the additional revenue will come from. Also, take into consideration the illegals tend to have larger families and their children will enter the work force over a period of time as well. How's that for your shrinkage theory?

For starters, lifting cap directly affects slightly over 5% of wage-earners, group that has already benefited from three rounds of Bush’s pro-rich tax cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), effective federal tax rates (how much of their income a taxpayer pays in federal taxes) of the richest 5% of taxpayers fell from 30.1% in 2001 to 25.6% in 2004.

Lifting the wage cap on social security taxes would actually would do little more than reverse those tax giveaways to the wealthy. The additional tax burden of the richest 5% would be about 5.0 percentage points, even assuming as most economists do that workers end up paying the employers share of the payroll tax (in the form of lower wages) on top their share. That is because property income not subject to the payroll tax accounts for the majority of the income of the richest 5%. * Those additional 5.0 percentage points of tax burden would push the effective federal tax rate of the richest 5% to 30.6%, in 2004, somewhat higher than 30.1% rate they faced in 2001 when Bush took office, but still considerably lower than the 31.8% rate they faced in 1979.

That is hardly soaking the rich. Also they can afford it. The best-off 5% of households had an average income of $281,497 in 2003, some 80% higher than in 1979, even after correcting for inflation. Still, lifting the cap is a solution to the alleged crisis in Social Security that would actually help to right the economic wrongs of the last few decades.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/miller160705.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051200252.html

The financial health of the Social Security system has eroded more sharply in the past year than at any time since the mid-1990s, according to a government forecast that ratchets up pressure on the Obama administration and Congress to stabilize the retirement system that keeps many older Americans out of poverty...

:Broncos:

Archer81
01-15-2010, 07:18 PM
Incorrect as it absolutely funds the program for another 50+ years unless we have to continually pay for wars using it as the source.


Or pass trillion dollar stimulus to create a gigantic dem slushfund.


:Broncos:

rastaman
01-15-2010, 07:28 PM
Or pass trillion dollar stimulus to create a gigantic dem slushfund.


:Broncos:

Look Dude lifting the cap on social security isn't a radical idea! It has the endorsement of the AARP, the largest seniors' lobby.” Leaving aside the probably unintentional humor in this statement, the Obama proposal to effectively eliminate the payroll tax cap isn’t supported by AARP. They’ve supported lifting the cap to cover around 90% of total wages (the coverage after the 1983 reforms), which would mean raising the cap from $102,000 to around $180,000. As far as I know, they oppose eliminating the cap entirely because it would turn Social Security too far away from its roots as a ‘social insurance’ program that balanced adequacy with equity and toward a ‘welfare program’ that focused only on adequacy.

Some 90% of wages fell below the cap in 1983. Today, with the increased concentration of income among the highest-paid, that figure is down to 84%. Ok, then how about raising the cap up to cover 90% of wages again. Why should it cover 100% of wages, when it never has before? Maybe Roosevelt knew something about the political dynamic that keeps a program like Social Security political sustainable.

“Lifting the wage cap on Social Security taxes would not do much more than reverse those tax giveaways to the wealthy.” Let’s see – the Bush tax cuts reduced the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 35.0%, a reduction of 4.6%. Eliminating the cap will raise the top marginal rate by 12.4%, almost three times higher.

So inconjunction with lifting the cap on SS how about we also repeal the Reagan tax cuts and re establish the import tarrif tax and laws that had been put in place since the founding of our country, that had been stripped during 8 years of Reagan nomics.

rastaman
01-15-2010, 07:31 PM
Or pass trillion dollar stimulus to create a gigantic dem slushfund.


:Broncos:

Why not? After all the Bush-Cheney reckless and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq will cost over a trillion dollars! The Oil Cartels and the Corporate Defense contractors made out like fat cats......didn't they! Thats quite a Corporate Republican Slushfund rip off of tax payers dollars was it not?:wiggle:

bpc
01-15-2010, 08:04 PM
Best thing we can all hope for RIGHT NOW is that Scott Brown rallies to win Mass and shoot down this POS healthcare reform package.

Keep your fingers crossed.

yavoon
01-15-2010, 08:07 PM
<rolling my eyes> We're not even in a record deficit, and if you try balancing the budget now, you'll see the economy plunge again. This happened in 1937 after the economy started rebounding and FDR was convinced to start balancing the budget (i dont know how many times i have to write this on this site).

SS and medicare fraud. Interesting take on two of America's most popular programs...one of which has been around since Roosevelt, the other since the 60's. The social programs arent the problem with this country. What led us to our current financial BS? The following, in a nutshell.

Remember, when Clinton left office, there was a 200 billion dollar surplus.

1) Bush tax cuts
2) 2 unnecessary wars
3) Medicare part D expansion

He and the republicans paid for none of the above.

Combine this with the bank/housing failure (a direct result of deregulation...clinton is guilty of this as well, not only the repubs here) and you get our current problem. The economy didnt used to fluctuate like this, for 50 years it was on pretty even keel until deregulation began (krugman wrote about this today in the times...i know how much you guys love him..blah blah, whatever, a fact is a fact.)

Point is, America is heading towards insolvency and healthcare NEEDS to be reformed. This bill is hardly great, but does lay groundwork for some pretty good stuff (like the exchanges, etc). Yes, taxes may rise in time, but isnt it worth it?

bush could have gone into 16 different wars and it wouldn't have been half the unfunded liabilities of the welfare state.

peacepipe
01-15-2010, 08:07 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/democrats-hammered-room-deal-unions-health-care/

In pushing a giant step closer to a health care reform deal, Democratic leaders are once again drawing fire from their critics for extending special treatment to an interest group in exchange for its support of the bill.

The latest deal was struck Thursday among the White House, Congress and union leaders over the proposed tax on high-value "Cadillac" health insurance plans."

Unions had objected strongly to the proposed tax on high-value insurance policies, fearing it would hurt their members, and they won several concessions from the administration. Under the deal, if it becomes law, union workers will be shielded from the 40 percent tax for five years -- until 2018. The threshold for the tax also was raised so that it will kick in for plans worth $24,000 instead of $23,000. And dental and vision coverage will not count toward that threshold.

But what about everybody else?

The unions, traditional supporters of the Democratic Party and a major factor in Obama's political infrastructure, got a deal, but Republicans said that non-union workers will still have to pay the tax from the get-go starting in 2013.

"I guess this bill is only good if it doesn't apply to you," GOPAC Chairman Frank Donatelli said.

"Millions of non-union workers ... would be forced to pay higher taxes for the same benefits their union counterparts" receive, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee said in a written statement.

The deal also leaves a $60 billion hole in the projected revenue stream, meaning Democrats will have to find the money elsewhere if they want to meet Obama's pledge to keep health care reform deficit-neutral.

"There's a $60 billion hole now in the legislation," Democratic strategist Doug Schoen said. "Not sure it's fair, not sure it's paid for."

Neither union leaders nor the White House offered any specifics on where that money would come from.

Lawmakers, though, have been considering applying Medicare payroll taxes to capital gains and other dividend incomes above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families.

Critics of the legislation called the union deal another back-room favor handed out in secret talks that violated Obama's promise of transparency. They say special treatment has gone to interests ranging from the pharmaceutical industry to the state of Nebraska, which was offered extra federal funding for Medicaid patients in exchange for moderate Sen. Ben Nelson's support.

"If this bill is so good, why does everyone need an exemption in order to vote for it? ... We see the drug companies get a special deal. We see what happened in Louisiana and most notoriously Nebraska in the Senate where they got special deals. And now the unions get a special deal." Donatelli said.

"This union kickback is the latest in a long line of back-room pay-offs and sweetheart deals on a health care bill that the American people overwhelmingly do not support," Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, said in an e-mail Friday.

But the White House trumpeted the "solid progress" it was making toward a final package.

Obama held a meeting with House and Senate Democratic leaders late into the night Thursday to discuss the apparent breakthrough.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that her members, who were fiercely opposed to the earlier version of the Senate bill's "Cadillac" tax, liked what they saw in the union compromise.

"We are very optimistic" that common ground will be found on other issues, she said.

Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said his workers were "very pleased" by the deal.

"They're ready to go out and fight for it and even improve it down line. We're for this health care reform and ready to fight for it."

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the agreement the biggest hurdle for union support. Absent any last minute changes, he said the AFL-CIO's on board.

"We will endorse it and do it proudly," Trumka said of the emerging health care bill.

Fox News' Major Garrett and Trish Turner contributed to this report


:Broncos:

What a shocker! A fox news article that slams Obama/dems.

peacepipe
01-15-2010, 08:09 PM
bush could have gone into 16 different wars and it wouldn't have been half the unfunded liabilities of the welfare state.

You're a moron.

yavoon
01-15-2010, 08:09 PM
What a shocker! A fox news article that slams Obama/dems.

what a shocker, a dem totally ok with grotesquely unfair and unjust union pork. unions are a cancer on america, and this is yet more proof.

SoDak Bronco
01-15-2010, 08:30 PM
How's that hope and change working out for ya?

Bronco_Beerslug
01-15-2010, 08:32 PM
bush could have gone into 16 different wars and it wouldn't have been half the unfunded liabilities of the welfare state.Get your figures correct. The expense for American taxpayers to fund VA benefits alone for invading and occupying Iraq is at approx. 1.5 trillion right now.

yavoon
01-15-2010, 08:47 PM
Get your figures correct. The expense for American taxpayers to fund VA benefits alone for invading and occupying Iraq is at approx. 1.5 trillion right now.

unfunded liabilities of the welfare state depending on how u decide to account for them are between 30 trillion and 60 trillion.

TheDave
01-15-2010, 08:47 PM
Fail.

The nature of politics is what YOU are talking about....I, OTOH am more specifically talking about the lying, cheating, stinking, corrupt adminstration and it's cohorts in the Dem-controlled house and senate.

You guys voted this clown and his idiots in.....maybe you should pay attention to the way he is screwing you over, on his way to bankrupting MY country. Look at the skyrocketing jobless rate, and how the DEMS are bailing out their friends ONLY.

It's laughable....if it wasn't so sad. Look at the youtube vid of that idiot that assaulted the reporter in Mass. when he asked a question that was too "mean" for the AG (Coakley).....that guy is a THUG and the obama administration and the democratic leadership is loaded with these goons.

Freedom of speech? Only for the democrats......brilliant interpretation of the constitutuion

Yeah and the Republican controlled house, senate, and presidency of a few years ago were the model for integrity, honesty, and competancy... LOL

Give me a break... Step away from the Rush Limbaugh show and wake up. Everyone of these SOB's is bought and paid for. Until this country figures out a way to keep money and special interest from controlling our government "We the people" will continue to get screwed.

TheDave
01-15-2010, 08:49 PM
unfunded liabilities of the welfare state depending on how u decide to account for them are between 30 trillion and 60 trillion.

I keep hearing this magic number... how many "unfunded years" does this include?

yavoon
01-15-2010, 08:50 PM
I keep hearing this magic number... how many "unfunded years" does this include?

2035-2050. so there is time to try and shave the grotesqueness of the welfare state. but any politician brave enough to do it will have to endure being called a racist by democrats for years on end.

TheDave
01-15-2010, 08:54 PM
2035-2050. so there is time to try and shave the grotesqueness of the welfare state. but any politician brave enough to do it will have to endure being called a racist by democrats for years on end.

So the "Welfare State" is projected to cost between 2 and 4 trillion per year starting in 2035?

bpc
01-15-2010, 09:06 PM
2035-2050. so there is time to try and shave the grotesqueness of the welfare state. but any politician brave enough to do it will have to endure being called a racist by democrats for years on end.

but but but, that would interfere with Socialist Utopian ghetto we're trying to build here.

Didn't you know that you have a right to everything? Healthcare, Education, Homes, Jobs...

Wake up people. Some of you voted this bastard and his friends into office. He hates this country. He doesn't agree with it's principles, hell, he isn't even from here. He stands against what our constitution is and says. His most blatant slap in the face is butt ****ing the flag when he refuses to put his hand over his chest.

The guy and his band of degenerates are out to solidify the holdings of democratic power in this nation. There is no other way to talk about it. The government has already usurped control from Banks and the Automobile companies. He wants the the government in play for 1/3 of the economy with Healthcare. Healthcare reform itself is to get people hooked on needing the government for sustinance. Expansion of unions and freebee's handed out to those unions is only going to endear the democrats to unions more, and those that vote the other republican are going to be squeezed out or intimidated. Finally, they are going to try and pass immigration reform so the democrats can recruit millions more to vote for them. "Want healthcare? Want a cushy job in a union? Can you speak or write English? OH don't worry about that, can you check this little box right here?"

Come on Scott Brown. We need him to pull out Mass. and vote this stupid healthcare reform down.

yavoon
01-15-2010, 09:16 PM
So the "Welfare State" is projected to cost between 2 and 4 trillion per year starting in 2035?

it's not linear.

broncocalijohn
01-15-2010, 09:17 PM
They are trying to get this vote in before Scott Brown (MASS) or any other Republican can get into office. It would be right and fair as to whoever wins the special election in Mass. next Tuesday gets to decide who votes. It happens in other states and it shows what the voters want. We are getting a bill that will destroy us in 10 years. Be taxed for 4 or 5 years before it takes place so it can have billions in the coffers to blow once we start it. Doomed just like SS will be in a short time. Didnt SS used to have 30 workers for one receipient when it started in the 30s? Now it is 2 workers for every one receipient. That is a recipe for disaster....disaster what will need to happen to millions of citizens to save it (old ones not the youngins to support the plan).

yerner
01-15-2010, 09:20 PM
but but but, that would interfere with Socialist Utopian ghetto we're trying to build here.

Didn't you know that you have a right to everything? Healthcare, Education, Homes, Jobs...

Wake up people. Some of you voted this bastard and his friends into office. He hates this country. He doesn't agree with it's principles, hell, he isn't even from here. He stands against what our constitution is and says. His most blatant slap in the face is butt ****ing the flag when he refuses to put his hand over his chest.

The guy and his band of degenerates are out to solidify the holdings of democratic power in this nation. There is no other way to talk about it. The government has already usurped control from Banks and the Automobile companies. He wants the the government in play for 1/3 of the economy with Healthcare. Healthcare reform itself is to get people hooked on needing the government for sustinance. Expansion of unions and freebee's handed out to those unions is only going to endear the democrats to unions more, and those that vote the other republican are going to be squeezed out or intimidated. Finally, they are going to try and pass immigration reform so the democrats can recruit millions more to vote for them. "Want healthcare? Want a cushy job in a union? Can you speak or write English? OH don't worry about that, can you check this little box right here?"

Come on Scott Brown. We need him to pull out Mass. and vote this stupid healthcare reform down.

Haha. What's it like being a retarded person? Its people like you that have ideas that are so irrationally one sided they stop debate instantly.

rastaman
01-15-2010, 09:21 PM
what a shocker, a dem totally ok with grotesquely unfair and unjust union pork. unions are a cancer on america, and this is yet more proof.

What a shocker a Bush Republican who conveniently ignores how Bush took a 230 billion dollar balanced deficit and 8 years later he turns it into 1.7 trillions dollars of pure debt!;)

Archer81
01-15-2010, 09:28 PM
What a shocker a Bush Republican who conveniently ignores how Bush took a 230 billion dollar balanced deficit and 8 years later he turns it into 1.7 trillions dollars of pure debt!;)


So the US did not have debt on January 20, 2001? Amazing. Even more amazing that Obama in less then a year equaled the spending done by the previous 43 presidents combined. This figure includes both world wars and the purchases of the Louisiana territory and Alaska. Finally, a president who has no qualms about spending other people's money, eh comrade?


:Broncos:

rastaman
01-15-2010, 09:34 PM
but but but, that would interfere with Socialist Utopian ghetto we're trying to build here.

Didn't you know that you have a right to everything? Healthcare, Education, Homes, Jobs...

Wake up people. Some of you voted this bastard and his friends into office. He hates this country. He doesn't agree with it's principles, hell, he isn't even from here. He stands against what our constitution is and says. His most blatant slap in the face is butt ****ing the flag when he refuses to put his hand over his chest.

The guy and his band of degenerates are out to solidify the holdings of democratic power in this nation. There is no other way to talk about it. The government has already usurped control from Banks and the Automobile companies. He wants the the government in play for 1/3 of the economy with Healthcare. Healthcare reform itself is to get people hooked on needing the government for sustinance. Expansion of unions and freebee's handed out to those unions is only going to endear the democrats to unions more, and those that vote the other republican are going to be squeezed out or intimidated. Finally, they are going to try and pass immigration reform so the democrats can recruit millions more to vote for them. "Want healthcare? Want a cushy job in a union? Can you speak or write English? OH don't worry about that, can you check this little box right here?"

Come on Scott Brown. We need him to pull out Mass. and vote this stupid healthcare reform down.

Yeah right! Surely you Republican Ideologues haven't forgotten the damages of 8 years of GW Bush Crime Family! You know whom I'm talking about right? Its Bail out Bush who gave out $350 billion to his Bank and Wall Street pigs and had the nerve to tell his wall street thugs....THEY DONT NEED T BOTHER PAYING BACK THE TAX PAYERS.....how'd he do that????

How did Bush turn the 230 billion dollar surplus into 1.7 trillion dollar deficit/debt! How'd did Bush accomplish this in just 8 short years.

Conservatives spend a lot of time whining these days about how Barack Obama is always blaming them for all the problems he faces. Personally, though, I'd say Obama has been remarkably restrained about the whole thing, especially when it comes to our disastrous fiscal situation.

In a mere eight years, George Bush and the Republican Party managed to take a thriving economy and a federal surplus and turn it into a hair's breadth escape from Great Depression II and an endless fiscal sinkhole. Rome may not have been built in a day, but it didn't take much longer than that for the modern Republican Party to bankrupt America.

rastaman
01-15-2010, 09:42 PM
So the US did not have debt on January 20, 2001? Amazing. Even more amazing that Obama in less then a year equaled the spending done by the previous 43 presidents combined. This figure includes both world wars and the purchases of the Louisiana territory and Alaska. Finally, a president who has no qualms about spending other people's money, eh comrade?


:Broncos:

So are you saying Bush did not inherit a $230 billion surplus and turn that surplus into a $1.7 dollar deficit? You do realize Bush used a charge card to finance his $800 billion mis-adventure and cluster F*@k in Irag that our grand children will be saddled with.

Unemployment was right around 4.5% in April of '07, but had nearly doubled to just over 8% by the time of Obama's inauguration. Got that? All that misery happened under Dear Leader's watch.

What you're saying is that Obama sucks for not fixing Bush's ****ty economic legacy faster. Maybe that's fair. Maybe it's not. But let's be clear about who's responsible for cocking things up in the first place.

rastaman
01-15-2010, 09:46 PM
unfunded liabilities of the welfare state depending on how u decide to account for them are between 30 trillion and 60 trillion.

So how many 10's of trillions of dollars will the unfunded Gilded Age Corporate Welfare State cost this nation? ;D

Archer81
01-15-2010, 09:50 PM
Yeah right! Surely you Republican Ideologues haven't forgotten the damages of 8 years of GW Bush Crime Family! You know whom I'm talking about right? Its Bail out Bush who gave out $350 billion to his Bank and Wall Street pigs and had the nerve to tell his wall street thugs....THEY DONT NEED T BOTHER PAYING BACK THE TAX PAYERS.....how'd he do that????

How did Bush turn the 230 billion dollar surplus into 1.7 trillion dollar deficit/debt! How'd did Bush accomplish this in just 8 short years.

Conservatives spend a lot of time whining these days about how Barack Obama is always blaming them for all the problems he faces. Personally, though, I'd say Obama has been remarkably restrained about the whole thing, especially when it comes to our disastrous fiscal situation.

In a mere eight years, George Bush and the Republican Party managed to take a thriving economy and a federal surplus and turn it into a hair's breadth escape from Great Depression II and an endless fiscal sinkhole. Rome may not have been built in a day, but it didn't take much longer than that for the modern Republican Party to bankrupt America.

You should check your history giggles. We were entering a recession at the end of Clinton's term, which was made worse by the 9/11 attacks. A republican congress was the reason for a "balanced" budget, which was a fallacy. The government did not spend what it projected in a budget, thats hardly a surplus. Reality bites, doesnt it?

:Broncos:

~Crash~
01-15-2010, 09:53 PM
People have been using that exact phrase forever. We heard the same stuff under Bush, Clinton, Reagon, Carter, Nixon, Roosevelt, King Henry the 8th, Julius Ceasar, and the man who first created fire.

Once you wake up and realize the idea that "Group X is destroying my country because they did Y" is a political tool to manipulate you into pushing their product, you will be less subject to the whims of whichever political party you identify with... and lead an overall happier and stress-free life.

yes mister D Mr.Meanie

Archer81
01-15-2010, 09:57 PM
So are you saying Bush did not inherit a $230 billion surplus and turn that surplus into a $1.7 dollar deficit? You do realize Bush used a charge card to finance his $800 billion mis-adventure and cluster F*@k in Irag that our grand children will be saddled with.

Unemployment was right around 4.5% in April of '07, but had nearly doubled to just over 8% by the time of Obama's inauguration. Got that? All that misery happened under Dear Leader's watch.

What you're saying is that Obama sucks for not fixing Bush's ****ty economic legacy faster. Maybe that's fair. Maybe it's not. But let's be clear about who's responsible for cocking things up in the first place.


There was no stockpile of money sitting around. It was money the government did not spend out of the budget it set for itself in the FY 2000.

The employment rate for 2008 was 5.8%, and dipped into the mid 7%'s by January, 2009. Since then it has fallen further to 10%. Of course you ignore congress in all of this...or did a dem congress have nothing to do with the economy tanking? Course not, why would the branch of government responsible for spending and taxation have anything to do with a recession?

Keep spinning. You do Stalin proud.

:Broncos:

~Crash~
01-15-2010, 10:00 PM
What a shocker a Bush Republican who conveniently ignores how Bush took a 230 billion dollar balanced deficit and 8 years later he turns it into 1.7 trillions dollars of pure debt!;)

so 911 had not a damn thing to do with that ?

Archer81
01-15-2010, 10:03 PM
so 911 had not a damn thing to do with that ?


No. Its much easier to believe Bush did it. Looking into it takes a 5 minute google search.

:Broncos:

~Crash~
01-15-2010, 10:04 PM
rastaman wants his cake but does not want to pay for it .

Pseudofool
01-15-2010, 10:05 PM
At least we get this news from an unbiased journalistic institution.

I'm not happy with the Dems at all on health care. But I was never so blind to believe that "my" politicians weren't corrupt on many, many levels. Heck, they've made it to federal politics, that says something about these individual's ability to "play ball."

Archer81
01-15-2010, 10:09 PM
At least we get this news from an unbiased journalistic institution.

I'm not happy with the Dems at all on health care. But I was never so blind to believe that "my" politicians weren't corrupt on many, many levels. Heck, they've made it to federal politics, that says something about these individual's ability to "play ball."


My take on government is this. If you (govt official) are not willing to subject yourself to the same legilsation and laws you subject us to, then anything they would have to say on the matter is worthless. What bonus does Congress get for "fixing" healthcare or Social Security? They dont pay into it. They dont have to deal with it. Also...how can you honestly trust a group of people who vote for their own pay raises?

:Broncos:

~Crash~
01-15-2010, 10:10 PM
And to the ass hats that say why Iraq ...Ask your selfs one small ass Question why did they knock down the towers.

I will help because our solders were in Saudi Arabia . why were they in Saudi ? Iraq was a treat to Saudi and Kuwait.

rastaman
01-15-2010, 10:12 PM
You should check your history giggles. We were entering a recession at the end of Clinton's term, which was made worse by the 9/11 attacks. A republican congress was the reason for a "balanced" budget, which was a fallacy. The government did not spend what it projected in a budget, thats hardly a surplus. Reality bites, doesnt it?

:Broncos:

Okay Chuckle Nutzs you still have yet to explain nor justify how the Supreme Court Selected GW Bush and his Merry Band of Theives and Murderers managed to almost usher this nation into the SECOND Republican caused Great Depression. How did 9/11 and and a recession give GW The Village Idiot the green light to turn a $230 billion federal surplus into a $1.7 Trillion dollar federal deficit?? Please also explain why GW Bush approved the $750 billion Bail out of which Bush before leaving office made sure $375 Billion was a complete give away to his Wall Street and Monopoly Bankster! Yep Bush's $375 Billion dollar Surplus was a complete give away of tax payers money. At least Obama's Bailouts will not be a complete give away of tax payers dollars.

rastaman
01-15-2010, 10:15 PM
And to the ass hats that say why Iraq ...Ask your selfs one small ass Question why did they knock down the towers.

I will help because our solders were in Saudi Arabia . why were they in Saudi ? Iraq was a treat to Saudi and Kuwait.

And for the Dong Suckers who supported Bush's illegal invasion and occupation while foolishly believing Iraq brought down the WTC......I'll remind you that 9 of the 15 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia! Why didn't Bush invade Saudi Arabia???? :wiggle:

rastaman
01-15-2010, 10:23 PM
There was no stockpile of money sitting around. It was money the government did not spend out of the budget it set for itself in the FY 2000.

The employment rate for 2008 was 5.8%, and dipped into the mid 7%'s by January, 2009. Since then it has fallen further to 10%. Of course you ignore congress in all of this...or did a dem congress have nothing to do with the economy tanking? Course not, why would the branch of government responsible for spending and taxation have anything to do with a recession?

Keep spinning. You do Stalin proud.

:Broncos:


How much did the Reagan and Bush tax cuts play a role in tanking the Economy? How much has the trade deficit played a role in the tanking of the economy. How has the economy gone into the shiiiter b/c we are no longer and nation that manufactures anything anymore. Do you think that having become a Service Sector economy has helped ushered in the tanking of the economy?

You and your Free Market Fairy tale and Predatory Facsim Capitalism would do Mussolini Proud. Keep up the great work and learn how to dodge the pitch forks when we come for you and your ilk! I see a date for you and ilk at the chopping block. :sunshine:

rastaman
01-15-2010, 10:28 PM
so 911 had not a damn thing to do with that ?

So what are you insinuating IDIOT BOY! Are you saying 9/11 gave Bush the Village Idiot his justification to illegally invade and occupy Iraq which before its all done the War Criminal Bush will have cost the tax payers trillions of dollars?ROFL!

Mr.Meanie
01-15-2010, 11:01 PM
but but but, that would interfere with Socialist Utopian ghetto we're trying to build here.

Didn't you know that you have a right to everything? Healthcare, Education, Homes, Jobs...

Wake up people. Some of you voted this bastard and his friends into office. He hates this country. He doesn't agree with it's principles, hell, he isn't even from here. He stands against what our constitution is and says. His most blatant slap in the face is butt ****ing the flag when he refuses to put his hand over his chest.

The guy and his band of degenerates are out to solidify the holdings of democratic power in this nation. There is no other way to talk about it. The government has already usurped control from Banks and the Automobile companies. He wants the the government in play for 1/3 of the economy with Healthcare. Healthcare reform itself is to get people hooked on needing the government for sustinance. Expansion of unions and freebee's handed out to those unions is only going to endear the democrats to unions more, and those that vote the other republican are going to be squeezed out or intimidated. Finally, they are going to try and pass immigration reform so the democrats can recruit millions more to vote for them. "Want healthcare? Want a cushy job in a union? Can you speak or write English? OH don't worry about that, can you check this little box right here?"

Come on Scott Brown. We need him to pull out Mass. and vote this stupid healthcare reform down.

oh boy. You really are an angry, bitter man aren't you? Sad.

Archer81
01-15-2010, 11:37 PM
How much did the Reagan and Bush tax cuts play a role in tanking the Economy? How much has the trade deficit played a role in the tanking of the economy. How has the economy gone into the shiiiter b/c we are no longer and nation that manufactures anything anymore. Do you think that having become a Service Sector economy has helped ushered in the tanking of the economy?

You and your Free Market Fairy tale and Predatory Facsim Capitalism would do Mussolini Proud. Keep up the great work and learn how to dodge the pitch forks when we come for you and your ilk! I see a date for you and ilk at the chopping block. :sunshine:


Funny...after the tax cuts, the economy picked up...both times. Do you see a correlation? You give people their money...they do a few things with it. 1. spend more, which means more things need to be produced to meet demand. Which leads to 2. These small business owners then hire more people, because of the level of free capital floating around. This also requires the government reduce its spending and footprint with its citizens lives. This is the reason democrats and most RINO's hate tax cuts. People spending their own money? INSANITY.

Crazy, I know. And for the cracks about Mussolini and fascism. You would be wise to read some things FDR said about both Hitler's and Mussolini's economic policies in the 1930s. The fact is the New Deal mirrors many of the programs instituted in both Germany and Italy. You keep spouting the same failed, debunked socialist bull**** like somehow it fixes everything. But what else should we expect from the Mane's resident ****tard.

:Broncos:

Archer81
01-15-2010, 11:49 PM
Okay Chuckle Nutzs you still have yet to explain nor justify how the Supreme Court Selected GW Bush and his Merry Band of Theives and Murderers managed to almost usher this nation into the SECOND Republican caused Great Depression. How did 9/11 and and a recession give GW The Village Idiot the green light to turn a $230 billion federal surplus into a $1.7 Trillion dollar federal deficit?? Please also explain why GW Bush approved the $750 billion Bail out of which Bush before leaving office made sure $375 Billion was a complete give away to his Wall Street and Monopoly Bankster! Yep Bush's $375 Billion dollar Surplus was a complete give away of tax payers money. At least Obama's Bailouts will not be a complete give away of tax payers dollars.


Huh. Maybe Gore running to the Supreme Court in 2000 was a bad idea if the Court appointed a president...then again if Gorebaby actually won Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered.

We never had a surplus. It was a budget overage. You know, when you budget for something and you dont spend what you thought, you have money left over. Its not a surplus.

Obama's bailouts ARE giveaways, its all BORROWED money. Banks, Insurance Companies, Auto Dealers (and dont misunderstand me, I hate government involvement with private enterprise; I dont care which party presents it) and for what purpose? To push government involvement where there should be none. If GM and AIG fail, LET THEM. They made horrible decisions as companies, why should a taxpayer shell out money to prop them up? Is it ok with you that in less then a year Obama has pushed for more spending, and gotten it, then Bush did in 8 years? Using the "stimulus" as an example, 858 billion dollars, of which less then 15% has been used for job creation. To finance this stimulus is going to add 3.7 trillion to the national debt. Is it worth it? Is spending 500k on a 50k job worth government intervention and control?

In anticipation of your witty response, let me save you the trouble. You will answer yes. Because you are too stupid to think for yourself.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
01-16-2010, 12:23 AM
Funny...after the tax cuts, the economy picked up...both times. Do you see a correlation? You give people their money...they do a few things with it. 1. spend more, which means more things need to be produced to meet demand. Which leads to 2. These small business owners then hire more people, because of the level of free capital floating around. This also requires the government reduce its spending and footprint with its citizens lives. This is the reason democrats and most RINO's hate tax cuts. People spending their own money? INSANITY.

Crazy, I know. And for the cracks about Mussolini and fascism. You would be wise to read some things FDR said about both Hitler's and Mussolini's economic policies in the 1930s. The fact is the New Deal mirrors many of the programs instituted in both Germany and Italy. You keep spouting the same failed, debunked socialist bull**** like somehow it fixes everything. But what else should we expect from the Mane's resident ****tard.

:Broncos:

Not so fast. I remember you once called this Obama's recession which, in short, false. Obama and his admin severely underestimated the ****hole the last administration left behind. Even according to the CBO, without stimulus, unemployment would have shot up even more. It was on a downward slope and, because employment is a lagging indicator, it was headed south NO MATTER what. Before Obama took office, leading economists predicted the recession would continue to last well into 2010, which is happening. The Obama admin said the stimulus would take UE down to 6 percent, but anyone who knew anything thought they were dreaming with the stimulus plan. The stimulus, and this is FACT, grew the economy. Not as much as they hoped, but it grew as much as economists predicted it would...and they said at the time it wasn't enough. We're not in any danger of inflation, this isn't the 70's, and a deficit is easier to combat when the economy is stronger (and not just the ****ing banks who are doing annoyingly just fine).
The original stimulus needed to be bigger and, now, we need more of it, though political capital for such a request is completely gone. Again, had we done NOTHING, this country would be in a REALLLLL ****hole. And if you try to balance the budget now, the economy will tank again. We've been through this before. We must stay the course, though it appears we wont.

Again, what got us out of the depression? World War 2. What was world war 2 (economically speaking?) a ****ing huge stimulus. What did it leave us with? A functioning economy with massive deficit. Somehow we survived and prospered.

Its really simple to figure out what got us in this mess. I said it earlier, i'll say it again.

1) Bush tax cuts
2) Two unnecessary wars
3) Medicare expansion part D

NONE OF THESE WERE PAID FOR.

Combine the above with the effects of runaway healthcare costs generated by a for-profit industry (uniquely, disgustingly american...there are some countries in euro, switzerland comes to mind, germany i think is another, that has a private industry that works very well with the public sector) and government deregulation, which both parties are to blame for, that created things like the housing bubble and bank failure, and you get a really ****ed up economy. Libertarian paradise I tell you.

And for the person saying something abut the welfare state in 2060, ummm, it'll get reformed. They create this policy knowing it'll get changed. One of the first steps is healthcare reform, as will SS..though thats not really in danger for a while. Believe it or not, welfare states exist and create pretty damn happy populations (yes, on a smaller level, but we'll never ever be a social democracy on par with Sweden, Denmark anyway (for population, diversity reasons, which is sad). BUt there's a happy medium to be had so we can all enjoy simple foundations. (it starts by raising taxes, or at LEAST, letting those awful bush tax cuts expire...which im sure congress will)

I'm not happy with the current state of America and, in my opinion, with our current government system (not parties, but government as a whole) we will never be what we once were. We're too ****ing stubborn, greedy, and resistant to change. The two parties bickering absolutely disgusts me. The republicans absolute refusal to bring anything that is remotely constructive to the table is horrid.

And before you start spewing bull about Europe being insolvent, you know who else is? We are. And this has little to do with our social programs. These programs existed long before our current bull****. It has tons to do with American overextension, corporate involvement, international meddling, and taxes that are entirely too low that makes rich people even richer, yet also causes a huge divide between classes. Too much money in too few hands. Guess what, trickle down economics doesn't work. Sorry.

And you know what, im sure you're gonna have some long explanation of why I'm wrong. I bet you'll call me a commie, an a-hole, roll your eyes, whatever, i really dont give a ****. But ya know what, I'm not wrong. Perhaps your solution might work as well, perhaps your reasons can also be accurate (this is such a massive subject, there are tons of factors, variables), but everything I wrote above is true.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-16-2010, 12:25 AM
Funny...after the tax cuts, the economy picked up...both times. Do you see a correlation? You give people their money...they do a few things with it. 1. spend more, which means more things need to be produced to meet demand. Which leads to 2. These small business owners then hire more people, because of the level of free capital floating around. This also requires the government reduce its spending and footprint with its citizens lives. This is the reason democrats and most RINO's hate tax cuts. People spending their own money? INSANITY.

Crazy, I know. And for the cracks about Mussolini and fascism. You would be wise to read some things FDR said about both Hitler's and Mussolini's economic policies in the 1930s. The fact is the New Deal mirrors many of the programs instituted in both Germany and Italy. You keep spouting the same failed, debunked socialist bull**** like somehow it fixes everything. But what else should we expect from the Mane's resident ****tard.

:Broncos:


And after tax cuts, the economy created a bubble. And it burst. And now we have ****. Looks like China is on the same course too.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-16-2010, 12:33 AM
oh boy. You really are an angry, bitter man aren't you? Sad.

You do realize the healthcare plan will actually lower the deficit and 90 percent of the current healthcare will remain the same right? In fact, by 2017, the new plan should widen the exchanges up to all businesses (well states will decide) to create a market place for all healthcare programs..aren't you republicans all about competition? You should like this. Point being, our current system will bankrupt our country sooner than later. This is a fact. It has to be reformed. You guys are all so scared of government takeover of healthcare (they spewed this bs about medicare in the 60's too, didnt happen), when its the furthest from the truth. Our healthcare system is not great, there are tons around the world that are both better and cheaper. Ours is a disgusting for-profit industry that has gotten out of hand. perhaps even beyond the point of no return...but **** i hope not.

(whoops, meant to quote the dude you quoted...ah whatever:)

yavoon
01-16-2010, 12:37 AM
And after tax cuts, the economy created a bubble. And it burst. And now we have ****. Looks like China is on the same course too.

hahahaha fannie mae and freddie mac contributed way way more to the bubble than tax cuts. it's so depressing that anything besides a confiscatory tax rate designed to punish the rich is unacceptable to our new democrats cum socialists.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-16-2010, 12:52 AM
hahahaha fannie mae and freddie mac contributed way way more to the bubble than tax cuts. it's so depressing that anything besides a confiscatory tax rate designed to punish the rich is unacceptable to our new democrats cum socialists.

Uh huh:

"But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.

Partly that’s because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income."

Not saying fannie and freddie didnt get caught up in it...but blaming the housing bubble on them. Laughable.

And where did i say tax cuts were to blame for that necessarily? I said tax cuts contributed to the deficit on the hole after bush spent tons of money on wars. And is this not true? Of course it is

Archer81
01-16-2010, 01:12 AM
And after tax cuts, the economy created a bubble. And it burst. And now we have ****. Looks like China is on the same course too.


I dont believe I ever called it Obama's recession or his fault that it happened. It is his recession now because he is President, but the signs of recession were there in late 2007 through 2008, much like they were in early 2000 through 2001. China's issue is for them 10% unemployment is roughly 100 million people. For a totalitarian government to have that many people unemployed equals massive problems that could lead to crackdowns and open rebellion. Which could be a huge problem for world financial markets because the Chinese hold so much foriegn currency and have loaned out so much that they could cut off the spiggot and kick the last leg out of the world's economy.

My take is that government always runs at a cost, it never makes money on its own. Expanding the government is wealth we never get back, and allows the government to take on a bigger role then was intended for it. Borrowing money when the country is looking at economic uncertainty is not a good recipe for economic growth.

:Broncos:

Archer81
01-16-2010, 01:24 AM
Not so fast. I remember you once called this Obama's recession which, in short, false. Obama and his admin severely underestimated the ****hole the last administration left behind. Even according to the CBO, without stimulus, unemployment would have shot up even more. It was on a downward slope and, because employment is a lagging indicator, it was headed south NO MATTER what. Before Obama took office, leading economists predicted the recession would continue to last well into 2010, which is happening. The Obama admin said the stimulus would take UE down to 6 percent, but anyone who knew anything thought they were dreaming with the stimulus plan. The stimulus, and this is FACT, grew the economy. Not as much as they hoped, but it grew as much as economists predicted it would...and they said at the time it wasn't enough. We're not in any danger of inflation, this isn't the 70's, and a deficit is easier to combat when the economy is stronger (and not just the ****ing banks who are doing annoyingly just fine).
The original stimulus needed to be bigger and, now, we need more of it, though political capital for such a request is completely gone. Again, had we done NOTHING, this country would be in a REALLLLL ****hole. And if you try to balance the budget now, the economy will tank again. We've been through this before. We must stay the course, though it appears we wont.

Again, what got us out of the depression? World War 2. What was world war 2 (economically speaking?) a ****ing huge stimulus. What did it leave us with? A functioning economy with massive deficit. Somehow we survived and prospered.

Its really simple to figure out what got us in this mess. I said it earlier, i'll say it again.

1) Bush tax cuts
2) Two unnecessary wars
3) Medicare expansion part D

NONE OF THESE WERE PAID FOR.

Combine the above with the effects of runaway healthcare costs generated by a for-profit industry (uniquely, disgustingly american...there are some countries in euro, switzerland comes to mind, germany i think is another, that has a private industry that works very well with the public sector) and government deregulation, which both parties are to blame for, that created things like the housing bubble and bank failure, and you get a really ****ed up economy. Libertarian paradise I tell you.

And for the person saying something abut the welfare state in 2060, ummm, it'll get reformed. They create this policy knowing it'll get changed. One of the first steps is healthcare reform, as will SS..though thats not really in danger for a while. Believe it or not, welfare states exist and create pretty damn happy populations (yes, on a smaller level, but we'll never ever be a social democracy on par with Sweden, Denmark anyway (for population, diversity reasons, which is sad). BUt there's a happy medium to be had so we can all enjoy simple foundations. (it starts by raising taxes, or at LEAST, letting those awful bush tax cuts expire...which im sure congress will)

I'm not happy with the current state of America and, in my opinion, with our current government system (not parties, but government as a whole) we will never be what we once were. We're too ****ing stubborn, greedy, and resistant to change. The two parties bickering absolutely disgusts me. The republicans absolute refusal to bring anything that is remotely constructive to the table is horrid.

And before you start spewing bull about Europe being insolvent, you know who else is? We are. And this has little to do with our social programs. These programs existed long before our current bull****. It has tons to do with American overextension, corporate involvement, international meddling, and taxes that are entirely too low that makes rich people even richer, yet also causes a huge divide between classes. Too much money in too few hands. Guess what, trickle down economics doesn't work. Sorry.

And you know what, im sure you're gonna have some long explanation of why I'm wrong. I bet you'll call me a commie, an a-hole, roll your eyes, whatever, i really dont give a ****. But ya know what, I'm not wrong. Perhaps your solution might work as well, perhaps your reasons can also be accurate (this is such a massive subject, there are tons of factors, variables), but everything I wrote above is true.


Dejavu...didnt we have this argument before? I actually respect your opinion, so there will be no eye rolling or calling you a commie. There is a taxation disparity in this country. Close to 45% of the people who can pay taxes dont (usually lower middle class to poor) and those who can pay end up carrying an unfair share of the tax burden. Is it any wonder that these people find ways to stash money overseas when our government consistently asks for more and more of what they make? Im tired of the liberal/conservative bull**** argument. Thats opinion. These people were elected to represent us and do whats best for the WHOLE, not a party. If government healthcare coverage IS the best thing, fine. Show us the bill so we can make judgements on it. If going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bum****istan, fine, lay out the case to the people and we will let you know what we think. I am tired of republicans just saying no, and democrats ignoring anything the republicans come up with. Im fed up with it all. Washington DC is a pit, full of ****, that produces more ****. Either fix the problems, or whoever is in power will get voted out. End of story.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
01-16-2010, 01:26 AM
Dejavu...didnt we have this argument before? I actually respect your opinion, so there will be no eye rolling or calling you a commie. There is a taxation disparity in this country. Close to 45% of the people who can pay taxes dont (usually lower middle class to poor) and those who can pay end up carrying an unfair share of the tax burden. Is it any wonder that these people find ways to stash money overseas when our government consistently asks for more and more of what they make? Im tired of the liberal/conservative bull**** argument. Thats opinion. These people were elected to represent us and do whats best for the WHOLE, not a party. If government healthcare coverage IS the best thing, fine. Show us the bill so we can make judgements on it. If going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bum****istan, fine, lay out the case to the people and we will let you know what we think. I am tired of republicans just saying no, and democrats ignoring anything the republicans come up with. Im fed up with it all. Washington DC is a pit, full of ****, that produces more ****. Either fix the problems, or whoever is in power will get voted out. End of story.

:Broncos:


On this we agree!

SonOfLe-loLang
01-16-2010, 01:30 AM
I dont believe I ever called it Obama's recession or his fault that it happened. It is his recession now because he is President, but the signs of recession were there in late 2007 through 2008, much like they were in early 2000 through 2001. China's issue is for them 10% unemployment is roughly 100 million people. For a totalitarian government to have that many people unemployed equals massive problems that could lead to crackdowns and open rebellion. Which could be a huge problem for world financial markets because the Chinese hold so much foriegn currency and have loaned out so much that they could cut off the spiggot and kick the last leg out of the world's economy.

My take is that government always runs at a cost, it never makes money on its own. Expanding the government is wealth we never get back, and allows the government to take on a bigger role then was intended for it. Borrowing money when the country is looking at economic uncertainty is not a good recipe for economic growth.

:Broncos:

In general, i do agree...and i think most would. Its not as if anyone is calling for stimulus when times are good, its an all else fails policy. And when the federal interest rate dropped to essentially zero and there was no relief in site, its keynesian economics that states that money must be flowed into the economy to essentially jumpstart it. It was hardly the first thing they tried, but they needed to do something to rescue the economy from depths and re-energizing it, stimulating it, is really the only play. Now, if the stimulus money runs out and we sink back, then it didnt work (and, as i said, i didnt like this stimulus plan, i thought it was lacking), but its designed to get the economy back on the right foot. So i'll agree THIS stimulus plan wasn't enough and wasn't amazing policy, but the theory behind stimulus itself is pretty sound. But, honestly, Obama did what he could with the political capital he had. He didnt have the votes for a bigger stimulus.

bpc
01-16-2010, 01:33 AM
Dejavu...didnt we have this argument before? I actually respect your opinion, so there will be no eye rolling or calling you a commie. There is a taxation disparity in this country. Close to 45% of the people who can pay taxes dont (usually lower middle class to poor) and those who can pay end up carrying an unfair share of the tax burden. Is it any wonder that these people find ways to stash money overseas when our government consistently asks for more and more of what they make? Im tired of the liberal/conservative bull**** argument. Thats opinion. These people were elected to represent us and do whats best for the WHOLE, not a party. If government healthcare coverage IS the best thing, fine. Show us the bill so we can make judgements on it. If going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bum****istan, fine, lay out the case to the people and we will let you know what we think. I am tired of republicans just saying no, and democrats ignoring anything the republicans come up with. Im fed up with it all. Washington DC is a pit, full of ****, that produces more ****. Either fix the problems, or whoever is in power will get voted out. End of story.

:Broncos:

A truly great take.

yavoon
01-16-2010, 01:36 AM
Uh huh:

"But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.

Partly that’s because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income."

Not saying fannie and freddie didnt get caught up in it...but blaming the housing bubble on them. Laughable.

And where did i say tax cuts were to blame for that necessarily? I said tax cuts contributed to the deficit on the hole after bush spent tons of money on wars. And is this not true? Of course it is

tragicaly uninformed, the list of shenanigans and fannie mae and freddie mac VASTLY exceeded what any other private company could have even been capable of doing because...well...people assumed fannie and freddie would be bailed out.

fannie mae and freddie mac bought billions(maybe even trillions) in packaged derivatives that all contained subrpime loans(they don't make direct loans to people, they operate in secondary housing markets). they switched to auto-loan approval. they were prodded by congress(mostly democrats) to put as many people into a house as possible. fannie and freddie were leveraged out at levels that would be literally impossible for a private corporation, even in the crazy times before the housing bubble. fannie and freddie were so anxious to pump money in to get more people into homes they started to purchase their own paper.

any real accounting of fannie and freddie would determine them completely insolvent w/o taxpayer backing. they did everything bad.

let's forget all the specific misdeeds and fannie and their democratic overlords. the very idea of the fannie and freddie is to create a housing bubble. is to shovel taxpayer money to put people into homes who can't afford them. the private corporations merely oblige this fradulent taxpayer funded risk profile. and as long as that is their mission and as long as their political masters demand it, fannie mae and freddie mac will create housing bubbles.

Hamrob
01-16-2010, 10:27 AM
Okay Chuckle Nutzs you still have yet to explain nor justify how the Supreme Court Selected GW Bush and his Merry Band of Theives and Murderers managed to almost usher this nation into the SECOND Republican caused Great Depression. How did 9/11 and and a recession give GW The Village Idiot the green light to turn a $230 billion federal surplus into a $1.7 Trillion dollar federal deficit?? Please also explain why GW Bush approved the $750 billion Bail out of which Bush before leaving office made sure $375 Billion was a complete give away to his Wall Street and Monopoly Bankster! Yep Bush's $375 Billion dollar Surplus was a complete give away of tax payers money. At least Obama's Bailouts will not be a complete give away of tax payers dollars.I can't and won't defend GW...nobody can! But, I will point out, Clinton is the one who said that all american's need to be home owner. It was the Clinton administration that started the ball rolling with the housing market and the credit catastrophe.

This country is where it now...because unresponsible people...have mortgaged our futures by taking on loans they can't pay back and continue to produce offspring at an alarming rate while earning $10/hr.

The constant whining is for more, more, more to be handed to the lazy asses who sit on their coaches collecting welfare and popping out babies at an alltime rate.

While, the folks who bust their humps each day in hopes of achieving the american dream the old fashioned way...get ****ed by a society who is too afraid to call out lazy ass liberal free loaders!

broncocalijohn
01-16-2010, 11:08 AM
You do realize the healthcare plan will actually lower the deficit and 90 percent of the current healthcare will remain the same right? In fact, by 2017, the new plan should widen the exchanges up to all businesses (well states will decide) to create a market place for all healthcare programs..aren't you republicans all about competition? You should like this. Point being, our current system will bankrupt our country sooner than later. This is a fact. It has to be reformed. You guys are all so scared of government takeover of healthcare (they spewed this bs about medicare in the 60's too, didnt happen), when its the furthest from the truth. Our healthcare system is not great, there are tons around the world that are both better and cheaper. Ours is a disgusting for-profit industry that has gotten out of hand. perhaps even beyond the point of no return...but **** i hope not.

(whoops, meant to quote the dude you quoted...ah whatever:)

I think the whole HC lower the defecit, and creat a market place is all lip service and wont come about. Maybe in 2017, but shortly thereafter, no. It is sucking our tax dollars now to pay for a program that will suck as much as possible. This HC is brought to us by the same people who have screwed up Medicare, Social Security and other programs once they get their greedy hands on it. There is a reason why this program doesnt start to use its motor once Obama is out of office.

misturanderson
01-16-2010, 11:21 AM
I can't and won't defend GW...nobody can! But, I will point out, Clinton is the one who said that all american's need to be home owner. It was the Clinton administration that started the ball rolling with the housing market and the credit catastrophe.

This country is where it now...because unresponsible people...have mortgaged our futures by taking on loans they can't pay back and continue to produce offspring at an alarming rate while earning $10/hr.

The constant whining is for more, more, more to be handed to the lazy asses who sit on their coaches collecting welfare and popping out babies at an alltime rate.

While, the folks who bust their humps each day in hopes of achieving the american dream the old fashioned way...get ****ed by a society who is too afraid to call out lazy ass liberal free loaders!

I really, really wish we would start placing reproductive limits on people that require government monies to support themselves and the kids they have. If you want welfare, you must have your tubes tied. It really would be so simple and you wouldn't have people taking advantage of the government while simultaneously taking advantage of their children.

It makes me sick that we are so hesitant as a society to remove somebody's ability to produce offspring that they can't or won't support. The people that need to be the most careful with their reproductive abilities seem to be the ones that are the least careful.

peacepipe
01-16-2010, 11:25 AM
I think the whole HC lower the defecit, and creat a market place is all lip service and wont come about. Maybe in 2017, but shortly thereafter, no. It is sucking our tax dollars now to pay for a program that will suck as much as possible. This HC is brought to us by the same people who have screwed up Medicare, Social Security and other programs once they get their greedy hands on it. There is a reason why this program doesnt start to use its motor once Obama is out of office.

Republicans? I can't say I disagree with you. There not much if anything that they don't screw up.

peacepipe
01-16-2010, 11:27 AM
I really, really wish we would start placing reproductive limits on people that require government monies to support themselves and the kids they have. If you want welfare, you must have your tubes tied. It really would be so simple and you wouldn't have people taking advantage of the government while simultaneously taking advantage of their children.

It makes me sick that we are so hesitant as a society to remove somebody's ability to produce offspring that they can't or won't support. The people that need to be the most careful with their reproductive abilities seem to be the ones that are the least careful. Well if you & your kind are willing to be the 1st in line for such procedures i'm all for it. otherwise STFU!

BigBad
01-16-2010, 11:30 AM
Remember, when Clinton left office, there was a 200 billion dollar surplus.

1) Bush tax cuts
2) 2 unnecessary wars
3) Medicare part D expansion

He and the republicans paid for none of the above.


How does the government PAY for tax cuts? I'm with you on 2 and 3 though.

BTW a surplus means they are taxing us more than they spend. That shouldnt be considered a good thing. Its called theft.

peacepipe
01-16-2010, 11:36 AM
How does the government PAY for tax cuts? I'm with you on 2 and 3 though.

BTW a surplus means they are taxing us more than they spend. That shouldnt be considered a good thing. Its called theft. No, it simply means our budget is being managed well.

misturanderson
01-16-2010, 11:36 AM
Well if you & your kind are willing to be the 1st in line for such procedures i'm all for it. otherwise STFU!

Why? I'm not using welfare to support myself while having kids every year to increase the check I get from the government. That is not the intention of that program, but that is how it is being used by far too many people.

Why is it a bad idea to prevent people that can't support their children from having children? We wouldn't be castrating them just requiring that they stop contributiing to the problem that they are causing.

I don't know what "my kind" is, but I'm not a conservative if that's what you're saying. Just someone that see's people taking advantage of their ability to reproduce while doing nothing to support those children. That, in turn, contributes further to poverty and therefore crime, energy crises, food shortages and essentially every other problem that comes along with people being irresponsible with their ability to procreate.

peacepipe
01-16-2010, 11:41 AM
Why? I'm not using welfare to support myself while having kids every year to increase the check I get from the government. That is not the intention of that program, but that is how it is being used by far too many people.

Why is it a bad idea to prevent people that can't support their children from having children? We wouldn't be castrating them just requiring that they stop contributiing to the problem that they are causing.

I don't know what "my kind" is, but I'm not a conservative if that's what you're saying. Just someone that see's people taking advantage of their ability to reproduce while doing nothing to support those children. That, in turn, contributes further to poverty and therefore crime, energy crises, food shortages and essentially every other problem that comes along with people being irresponsible with their ability to procreate. I have no issue if someone chooses to have an abortion because they can't afford to raise a child but to suggest that forced sterilization is the answer is a pretty ignorant statement to make.

misturanderson
01-16-2010, 11:52 AM
I have no issue if someone chooses to have an abortion because they can't afford to raise a child but to suggest that forced sterilization is the answer is a pretty ignorant statement to make.

If someone continues to have children that they can't afford to raise without the assistance of welfare, why should they not have their funding cut off and their children taken to someone that can afford to raise them until they make an effort to stop having children they can't support on their own?

It is really the only solution that I can think of that would actually help decrease the number of people on welfare each year. Can you think of a better idea?

I see it as a system that is too easily taken advantage of with very few checks in place to make sure that people aren't taking advantage of it. It is a necessary program simply because those children didn't choose to be put into that situation, but their parents should have some consequences other than a monthly check for having kids. Maybe the loss of one's ability to procreate would be enough of an incentive to stop people from having children they can't support on their own.

Maybe having their tubes tied is too permanent, maybe they should be required to get an IUD or birth control implant, but that isn't really an option with the men, who are probably a bigger problem in many of these cases than the women.

Which leads into how ridiculous it is that birth control and family planning education isn't funded heavily by the government so as to make it more easily accessible and it's use more widespread. That's a whole other topic however.

Hamrob
01-16-2010, 12:24 PM
I have no issue if someone chooses to have an abortion because they can't afford to raise a child but to suggest that forced sterilization is the answer is a pretty ignorant statement to make.What's astonishing to me...is that we would rather cry about peoples rights and allow our poverty line to grow deeper and wider by the day.

Statistics show, that people who are living in poverty are producing children at a far greater rate then the rest of society. In fact, 20 years from now, our great country will become an impoverished nation...unless we stop this problem now and do something about it.

I'm not saying that we should take the type of action that limits ones ability to have children....what I believe is that we need to start saying that...it's not o.k. It's not right. It's irresponsible...for people who are in poverty to bring children into the world that they cannot support.

I grew up poor and I can tell you...most of the folks around me...had very little ambition to change. They were fine with collecting welfare and not working. We created this monster.

What would happen if welfare wasn't there, if foodstamps weren't available...if people really had to work to feed themselves. Would they continue to pump out kids that they couldn't affor to feed...or would they become more responsible for their actions?

The first step is...to say loud and clear from the highest levels...that its not o.k., it's not right...and having 3, 4, 5 kids when you don't have a job is not acceptable!

DarkHorse30
01-16-2010, 12:41 PM
Yeah and the Republican controlled house, senate, and presidency of a few years ago were the model for integrity, honesty, and competancy... LOLThe DEMs are ALL-IN on this one. You might remember that Pelosi became speaker in 2006......which is about the time the country started going in the crapper. Coincidence?

You can talk about how Bush failed by going into Iraq after 9/11, but the majority of congress was FOR it. You can try to revise history but the record is clear....MOST of the country was for that war when it started.

You might also realize that excessive government is an anathema to the people. I swear, you dems are wanting a tyranny - and you think that taxing the rich will fund what ever you want. Keynes is/was an idiot and you guys are still following his failed logic. But you thing everything is great as long as you're in charge - while anybody with a different viewpoint is labled as a neo-con or a Limbaugh supporter. Speaking of waking up, you should wake up and notice how B HO is trashing your country. Unemployment WAY UP. Taxes going WAY UP...and they'll decide who gets to pay. Before the election, those tax hikes were on people making 250k or more. Watch what it is now, that they can put the screws to whoever they want to.

Taxation without representation was the problem that our forefathers decided to protest against.....and that started this GREAT country. And it is great, no matter how much Obama and his idiot minions want to apologize for everything that is so good about it. What a clown. Impeach him for appointing these unelected czars.....it shouldn't really be that difficult.

Just an opinion, Dave. Try to debate the issue, rather than making it personal.


until this country figures out a way to keep money and special interest from controlling our government "We the people" will continue to get screwed. Are you joking here? Money controls everything, and always will.

TheDave
01-16-2010, 01:15 PM
Just an opinion, Dave. Try to debate the issue, rather than making it personal.



I never tried to make it personal... I simply said that we have a political system that is broken. You keep saying "You Dems" referring to me... Sorry boss, but you have the wrong guy. Neither the Dems or Repubs have done nothing to garner my support. Obviously you fell different.

If you want to revise history and excuse away your parties wrongs while vilifying the other side... have at it. IMO, anyone who can not figure out that Dems and Repubs are just 2 sides of the same corrupt coin, then there isn't enough common ground to even have a debate.

barryr
01-16-2010, 01:26 PM
We were told our current healthcare system wasn't fair, yet this bill with all of these backroom deals happening where people that didn't need special privileges are getting them all in the name of politics and who you know and support, just how the hell is this any more fair than what we had? But there are still bozos out there that won't see the injustice of any of this since have to defend Obama at all costs on everything and try to defend this crap as "politics as usual" despite even that notion was supposedly changing too. This is plain sickening.

bpc
01-16-2010, 02:16 PM
I really, really wish we would start placing reproductive limits on people that require government monies to support themselves and the kids they have. If you want welfare, you must have your tubes tied. It really would be so simple and you wouldn't have people taking advantage of the government while simultaneously taking advantage of their children.

It makes me sick that we are so hesitant as a society to remove somebody's ability to produce offspring that they can't or won't support. The people that need to be the most careful with their reproductive abilities seem to be the ones that are the least careful.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT! You would be cutting off people's right to receive extra income streams! ;)

bpc
01-16-2010, 02:21 PM
How does the government PAY for tax cuts? I'm with you on 2 and 3 though.

BTW a surplus means they are taxing us more than they spend. That shouldnt be considered a good thing. Its called theft.

I can see why you would say Iraq was an un-neccessary war in hindsight. For me, I can understand both sides though.

I don't see how ANYBODY gives terrorists a pass saying we didn't need to go into Afghanistan. That's just un-American bull****.

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/september%2011" target="_blank"><img src="http://i334.photobucket.com/albums/m439/kujichagulia1/september_11_2001.jpg" border="0" alt="911 Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

The worst part is, this isn't even just about us. These terrorists threaten everybody and it's not going to stop on our home soil. We've only scratched the surface. So do you play on the defensive or go out and find these bastards and eliminate them?

bpc
01-16-2010, 02:23 PM
We were told our current healthcare system wasn't fair, yet this bill with all of these backroom deals happening where people that didn't need special privileges are getting them all in the name of politics and who you know and support, just how the hell is this any more fair than what we had? But there are still bozos out there that won't see the injustice of any of this since have to defend Obama at all costs on everything and try to defend this crap as "politics as usual" despite even that notion was supposedly changing too. This is plain sickening.

Healthcare is fair... if you're a democrat or liberal because 85% of them won't be footing the bill for it.

bpc
01-16-2010, 02:34 PM
<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/nancy%20pelosi" target="_blank"><img src="http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h249/ohsomojo/san-fran-nan.jpg" border="0" alt="Pelosi Sucks and Blows Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

Bronx33
01-16-2010, 02:35 PM
Yeah and the Republican controlled house, senate, and presidency of a few years ago were the model for integrity, honesty, and competancy... LOL
Give me a break... Step away from the Rush Limbaugh show and wake up. Everyone of these SOB's is bought and paid for. Until this country figures out a way to keep money and special interest from controlling our government "We the people" will continue to get screwed.


It wasn't right then and it isn't right now and i totally agree on the second statement.

TheDave
01-16-2010, 02:41 PM
It wasn't right then and it isn't right now

100% agree with that...

Rock Chalk
01-16-2010, 05:20 PM
And after tax cuts, the economy created a bubble. And it burst. And now we have ****. Looks like China is on the same course too.

You know what cracks me up about you stupid ****ing liberals.

Bush inherited a tanking economy from Clinton but you utopian dumb ****s dont remember that. After Clinton wrecked our economy and failed to address any terroristic threats in teh world, cowtowing instead to the inept United Nations. Bush took over, inherited an economy in ruins because of liberal policies FORCING banks to give out ****TY ****ing loans to UNQUALIFIED liberals who would rather make ****ing babies than get off their ass and work.

Then when the economy crashes over 9/11 you ****ing dip****s blame Bush but fail to acknowledge the ENTIRE GOD DAMN mess was instituted by democrats in the previous administration.

Now you defend this stupid ****ing communist who is one of the most corrupt politicians I have ever seen.

cutthemdown
01-16-2010, 07:00 PM
Wow the Dems are going off the deep end to pass this reform. I can't remember anything quite like what is going on to pass this bill ever before.

So now certain states dont have to pay. Unions members don't have to pay. What a joke.

cutthemdown
01-16-2010, 07:03 PM
What Obama is doing has nothing to do with trying to fix economy. Obama letting economy just fix itself. he figures it's still 3 yrs until he has to have economy better to win re-election.

He just wants to pass healthcare regardless of whether it's fair to all Americans or even for sure going to lead to better care.

IMO it leads to insurance companies getting even more customers, the avg standard of care going down, and all of us, well most of us paying more tax. Hell join a union, move to Nebraska.

Bronco_Beerslug
01-16-2010, 07:04 PM
You know what cracks me up about you stupid ****ing liberals.

Bush inherited a tanking economy from Clinton but you utopian dumb ****s dont remember that. After Clinton wrecked our economy and failed to address any terroristic threats in teh world, cowtowing instead to the inept United Nations. Bush took over, inherited an economy in ruins because of liberal policies FORCING banks to give out ****TY ****ing loans to UNQUALIFIED liberals who would rather make ****ing babies than get off their ass and work.

Then when the economy crashes over 9/11 you ****ing dip****s blame Bush but fail to acknowledge the ENTIRE GOD DAMN mess was instituted by democrats in the previous administration.

Now you defend this stupid ****ing communist who is one of the most corrupt politicians I have ever seen.Wait, let me see if I remember this correctly. You actually admitted you fleeced the government (American taxpayers) in the form of taking Medicaid money to pay for the birth of your child while you were currently earning 60K+ a year. So you are bitching about the people who are part of the "socialist/communism state"? And what does that make you exactly?

bpc
01-16-2010, 08:11 PM
Wait, let me see if I remember this correctly. You actually admitted you fleeced the government (American taxpayers) in the form of taking Medicaid money to pay for the birth of your child while you were currently earning 60K+ a year. So you are b****ing about the people who are part of the "socialist/communism state"? And what does that make you exactly?

I think I would trade Alec to the liberals for a bag of ****, and a turd to be named later.

Majik
01-16-2010, 08:18 PM
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/catalogExp/watermark.aspx?i=36334549

http://images5.cafepress.com/product/388841655v3_480x480_Front.jpg

cutthemdown
01-16-2010, 09:03 PM
I have no issue if someone chooses to have an abortion because they can't afford to raise a child but to suggest that forced sterilization is the answer is a pretty ignorant statement to make.

I think if someone is on 3rd abortion, at that point to get govt to pay for it they should have to agree to sterilization.

Now if you can pay for it, then govt has no right to interfere. You should be able to have as many as you want.

bpc
01-16-2010, 09:11 PM
I have no issue if someone chooses to have an abortion because they can't afford to raise a child but to suggest that forced sterilization is the answer is a pretty ignorant statement to make.

Then again, we're dealing with some pretty ignorant people who are blatantly abusing the system. What else is new on that front? That's what dems are all about. Get something, while doing nothing and ruining all those kids lives along the way.

TheDave
01-16-2010, 09:32 PM
Then again, we're dealing with some pretty ignorant people who are blatantly abusing the system. What else is new on that front? That's what dems are all about. Get something, while doing nothing and ruining all those kids lives along the way.

You and errand need to talk.. you guys would get along just fine Hilarious!

Pony Boy
01-16-2010, 09:50 PM
Let me throw this out there.... I'm a small business owner with a pre existing condition, so if I drop my insurance plan I would not be able to get another company to write me a policy. I pay $600.00 a month for a policy that has a $5000.00 deductible. I have had this policy in place for over 20 years and it goes up every year. This is no longer a heath care policy but an insurance policy to protect me from a catastrophic heath incident. As a small business owner I pay 100% of the cost of my policy out of my pocket. I never cover my deductible so I pay all my routine office visits, medications and heath tests out of my pocket on top of my monthly premium.

Now put me on record that I’m not for the health care legislation as proposed but something needs to be changed. Don’t even get me started on how much taxes small business owners pay.

oubronco
01-16-2010, 10:08 PM
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/catalogExp/watermark.aspx?i=36334549

http://images5.cafepress.com/product/388841655v3_480x480_Front.jpg

Hilarious! ROFL! LOL

Bronco_Beerslug
01-17-2010, 06:10 AM
Let me throw this out there.... I'm a small business owner with a pre existing condition, so if I drop my insurance plan I would not be able to get another company to write me a policy. I pay $600.00 a month for a policy that has a $5000.00 deductible. I have had this policy in place for over 20 years and it goes up every year. This is no longer a heath care policy but an insurance policy to protect me from a catastrophic heath incident. As a small business owner I pay 100% of the cost of my policy out of my pocket. I never cover my deductible so I pay all my routine office visits, medications and heath tests out of my pocket on top of my monthly premium.

Now put me on record that I’m not for the health care legislation as proposed but something needs to be changed. Don’t even get me started on how much taxes small business owners pay.And that is the problem, most people have no idea. The current healthcare system is breaking the country. We (taxpayers) have to pay for the uninsured anyway. You hear the Right roaring about socialism, communism, etc... but what is their plan to pay for healthcare for everyone? Drug companies and health insurance companies are raping this country but you don't hear the Right complaining about that (not very loud anyway).

cutthemdown
01-17-2010, 01:06 PM
And that is the problem, most people have no idea. The current healthcare system is breaking the country. We (taxpayers) have to pay for the uninsured anyway. You hear the Right roaring about socialism, communism, etc... but what is their plan to pay for healthcare for everyone? Drug companies and health insurance companies are raping this country but you don't hear the Right complaining about that (not very loud anyway).

ok but then why did Obama get elected, the go straight and make a backroom deal with both insurance and drug companies?

His overhaul only makes people have to buy insurance, it doesn't help keep costs down. He caved to the drug manufactures in a big way because he is worried like every President you could stifle innovation by allowing generic and cheaper drugs into country in bigger amounts.