So Let's See What Happens

[blaknoize]

No one has patience for anything nowadays, the idea that everyone rolls with is Instant Gratification. I will speak specifically on the fact that the Democrats are actually working to change things for the better and we know of this, BUT since people think that 8yrs of breaking things can be fixed in half the time, it will never work. Break your foot and then rush to the doctors office and make him/her fix it, then 1week later start running on it. Yea... no, its not suppose to work like that. But this is only a mid-term and I'm complaining.

Since Demo lost the House, lets all wait and see what ideas are let go and blocked or shuffled under the wants of corporations. Lets go ahead and watch my job, or your job get pushed over seas and watch as money that could be spent on America, be allocated to help other countries for pure profit and to continue to run this war and the other wars that are justa brewing for those same folks that are still making billions off of us. Because Americans arent important anymore, their money is. So lets wait and watch as our liberties and protections are stripped from us, month after month and watch, we will be even deeper indebted however; this time it will be Obama's fault for not stopping it in the beginning and not "fixing" what he promised to fix.

But I DO have great and affordable healthcare ($42 a month for full dental coverage 100-80% of most everything 50% for major work at a $50 deductable and $8.42 a month for vision $130 allowance for frames, $10 co-pay for lenses of any type single,bi,tri and free eye exams.)

We'll see.

[Total_Blender]

Bohener says the Republicans have been given a "mandate by the American people"... but I don't think so as the GOOP only got the house and the Dems kept the Senate. Honestly I'm surprised the Dems kept the senate as the media narrative for the past 8 months has been "GOP sweeps both houses".

It didn't help that the DNC dropped Howard Dean for Tim Kaine. They threw Dean's brilliant "50 state" strategy that won big in '06 and '08 out the window and just dumped money into supporting Blue Dogs and the candidates most favored to win. Supporting the Blue Dogs was a waste of money... when people are presented with a fake republican and a real one they usually vote for the real thing. A lot of the liberal Dems decided to sit out the election rather than vote for the likes of Blanche Lincoln.

Most of the radical teabaggers like Angle, O'Donnell, etc lost their races. The few that did get in (Paulbot 2.0, etc) will be co-opted into the mainstream. The GOP doesn't like it when you buck them. And these freshman congressmen will want those committee seats and lobbyist dollars.

Some predictions for the next 2 years:

Bohener may not win for speaker. As we have already seen, he's a morose drunk who's motto is "GTL: Golf/Tan/Lobbyists". His work ethic has been questioned by many in the party, most notably current Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Bachmann is also in the running, but she just won't have the support of the "log cabin" set.

Lots of money and time wasted in investigations, subpeonas, and impeachment attempts. I really expect them to go that route as Agent Orange and McChinless have both said that their priority #1 is getting rid of Obama. Since he isn't involved in corruption or sex, they will try to cast him as a subversive/radical. It'll be a new age of McCarthyism.

I don't think they will get a repeal of HCR past the senate and Obama's veto. Also, they don't have a HCR plan of their own and HCR was such a gimme to their corporate overlords anyway that I don't think the will for repeal will be there. The same with doing away with the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Agriculture. That would never pass the Senate or the Veto.

Social security and medicare will be safe... the "O" in GOP does stand for "old" after all and since the GOP base is mostly old people, they won't stand for having their gov't checks and their gov't healthcare taken away.

We will see proposals for escalation of the war, and we will also see them pushing for war with Iran. There will be many resolutions against Iran proposed, and we will hear about more "gulf of tonkin" style incidents on the Gulf. I don't think it will develop into war though. But it will still cost us billions.

The Bush tax cuts will stay. Neither party wants to be seen as the party that "raised taxes," although the Bush tax cuts are actually "spending" on the part of the government. They're damned if they do here because the GOP base wants tax cuts AND spending cuts. But the corporations and millionaire financiers who pay for the attack ads will win out.

De-regulation of banking, telecom, agribusiness, and big oil. We will basically be removing the safeguards that kept the economic mess we are in now from getting worse.

I don't see anything happening with the deficit. The Republicans might make some cuts to keep it from going higher, but these will be offset by their spending on defense and investigations.

DADT, DOMA, and the Patriot Act aren't going anywhere. They might repeal DADT in the lame duck session, but I doubt it.

Obama will have a couple of Dem. primary challengers in 2012 but he will win the nomination. His liberal base is pissed off that he's capitulated so much to the GOOP and they are also pissed that his pledge of "transparency" was bull as most of his administrations business happens in backroom negotiations.

In other words, its pretty much gonna be business as usual.

[BanginJimmy]

I will speak specifically on the fact that the Democrats are actually working to change things for the better and we know of this,

What exactly were they fixing? All I saw them do was run up HUGE deficits with programs that flopped.

BUT since people think that 8yrs of breaking things can be fixed in half the time, it will never work.

I think you meant 4 years of breaking things. The breaking started in 2006 when Dems took over the Senate. Now we can see if anything can get fixed.

Since Demo lost the House, lets all wait and see what ideas are let go and blocked or shuffled under the wants of corporations. Lets go ahead and watch my job, or your job get pushed over seas and watch as money that could be spent on America, be allocated to help other countries for pure profit and to continue to run this war and the other wars that are justa brewing for those same folks that are still making billions off of us. Because Americans arent important anymore, their money is. So lets wait and watch as our liberties and protections are stripped from us, month after month and watch, we will be even deeper indebted however; this time it will be Obama's fault for not stopping it in the beginning and not "fixing" what he promised to fix.

Whose campaign website did you read that off of?


Ignoring the truth doesnt make you right. Dems are just as guilty of forcing jobs over seas, if not more so. The health care bill will ship jobs over seas as employers find ways to eliminate tax burdens and fines. Cap and Trade will force jobs, especially manufacturing, over seas to avoid paying additional fines and fees.

[Total_Blender]

I don't think cap and trade is gonna pass, unless they do it in the lame duck. But what we will see regarding climate change, is a bunch of hearings now that the GOOP has subpeona power. The GOOP will subpoena their array of climate change denier kooks to testify before congress, and the kooky deniers will owned by the real scientists subpoenaed by the Dems.

You can thank your buddy Agent Orange for the jobs going overseas, as his financiers, the "US Chamber of Commerce" have been hosting seminars showing corporate America how to outsource.

[BanginJimmy]

Bohener says the Republicans have been given a "mandate by the American people"... but I don't think so as the GOOP only got the house

They took 65 seats in the house, that is not a minor thing.

and the Dems kept the Senate.

Dems kept the Senate in 4 very blue states and in WV a VERY centric, and leaning right in many areas, Gov. who is also very popular in state won. GOP took Senate seats in every swing state that had one running.

Honestly I'm surprised the Dems kept the senate as the media narrative for the past 8 months has been "GOP sweeps both houses".

I heard it too and I called that BS even then. I did think it was possible several months ago, but that was short lived and since the primaries I knew it wasnt going to happen. Still, 6 Senate seats with 1 more possibility, in a single mid term is significant. Also, keep in mind that GOP lost no Senate seats.

It didn't help that the DNC dropped Howard Dean for Tim Kaine. They threw Dean's brilliant "50 state" strategy that won big in '06 and '08 out the window and just dumped money into supporting Blue Dogs and the candidates most favored to win. Supporting the Blue Dogs was a waste of money... when people are presented with a fake republican and a real one they usually vote for the real thing. A lot of the liberal Dems decided to sit out the election rather than vote for the likes of Blanche Lincoln.

Most of the Blue Dogs, especially the first and second termers, were in right leaning districts and only got in because of Bush paranoia. Most of them were going to lose no matter what happened. Its much the same as the Dems like Blumenthall, Boxer, and Murray. They all represent VERY blue states and will typically win no matter what. In NH (I think) Mike Castle had a very good chance to win becuse he was well known and liked in state, but he was a VERY liberal republican.

Most of the radical teabaggers like Angle, O'Donnell, etc lost their races. The few that did get in (Paulbot 2.0, etc) will be co-opted into the mainstream. The GOP doesn't like it when you buck them. And these freshman congressmen will want those committee seats and lobbyist dollars.

We will see about that. I think Paul and especially Rubio will avoid the mainstream GOP for at least 1 term. If the tea party support dies off, then they may drift into the mainstream, but if it tea party continues to grow you will see them stay away from the main stream.

Bohener may not win for speaker. As we have already seen, he's a morose drunk who's motto is "GTL: Golf/Tan/Lobbyists". His work ethic has been questioned by many in the party, most notably current Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Bachmann is also in the running, but she just won't have the support of the "log cabin" set.

I would love to see Cantor get it because of his work ethic. I dont think he or Paul Ryan are senior enough though. Bohener makes a great speech, but I havent actually seen him rally anyone together or pull anyone from the left over in his time as minority leader. I also think GOP is going to get younger over the next 2 years and start pushing off some of the very senior members.

Lots of money and time wasted in investigations, subpeonas, and impeachment attempts. I really expect them to go that route as Agent Orange and McChinless have both said that their priority #1 is getting rid of Obama. Since he isn't involved in corruption or sex, they will try to cast him as a subversive/radical. It'll be a new age of McCarthyism.

I realize you are an idiot, but you are getting more ignorant by the second. I realize the country has just neutered your savior, but it really will be all right. You will survive.

There are investigation that need to be conducted though. The most obvious being Obama's decision to drop an obvious case of voter intimidation.

BTW, no one has ever said anything about impeachment. GOP does plan to start working on a repeal of the health care takeover though.

I don't think they will get a repeal of HCR past the senate and Obama's veto. Also, they don't have a HCR plan of their own and HCR was such a gimme to their corporate overlords anyway that I don't think the will for repeal will be there. The same with doing away with the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Agriculture. That would never pass the Senate or the Veto.

None of them will get past the Veto, your right, but it can be defunded. Dept of Education needs to go away or be HEAVILY reformed. GOP should have done it in '94, but blew it off. They need to do it now if we ever want to see education improve in this country.

Social security and medicare will be safe... the "O" in GOP does stand for "old" after all and since the GOP base is mostly old people, they won't stand for having their gov't checks and their gov't healthcare taken away.

I dont remember anyone saying they wanted to get rid of SS or Medicare. Why dont you link us to the quote.

Now, if you want to talk about Paul Ryan's plan I am all for it.

We will see proposals for escalation of the war, and we will also see them pushing for war with Iran. There will be many resolutions against Iran proposed, and we will hear about more "gulf of tonkin" style incidents on the Gulf. I don't think it will develop into war though. But it will still cost us billions.

Got anything to back this up or is just something else you pulled out of your ass? Im sure it is the latter.

The Bush tax cuts will stay. Neither party wants to be seen as the party that "raised taxes," although the Bush tax cuts are actually "spending" on the part of the government. They're damned if they do here because the GOP base wants tax cuts AND spending cuts. But the corporations and millionaire financiers who pay for the attack ads will win out.

Tax cuts have actually shown to produce more tax revenue, not reduce it. We dont expect you to admit this though as Obama didnt say it.

De-regulation of banking, telecom, agribusiness, and big oil. We will basically be removing the safeguards that kept the economic mess we are in now from getting worse.

Exactly what safeguards are you talking about? 2 of the MAIN contributors of the financial meltdown were freddie and fannie and the Dems specificly excluded them from the financial reforms.

I don't see anything happening with the deficit. The Republicans might make some cuts to keep it from going higher, but these will be offset by their spending on defense and investigations.

DADT, DOMA, and the Patriot Act aren't going anywhere. They might repeal DADT in the lame duck session, but I doubt it.

Remember, the dems are the ones that could have simply let the Patriot Act go away last year and decided they wanted to keep it.

Things like DOMA are among the reasons I will never call myself a republican. Gay marriage has absolutely no impact on anyone but the 2 getting married so who fucking cares.

[QUOTE=Total_Blender;39144911]Obama will have a couple of Dem. primary challengers in 2012 but he will win the nomination. His liberal base is pissed off that he's capitulated so much to the GOOP[quote]

When did he do this?

and they are also pissed that his pledge of "transparency" was bull as most of his administrations business happens in backroom negotiations.

We agree here. He is forced to do this though because he knows how unpopular this agenda is and cannot let the details get out before bills get passed. Much like the fact that he ahs ignored pretty much every promise he made on the campaign trail.

In other words, its pretty much gonna be business as usual.

I highly doubt anything of substance gets done in the next 2 years unless Obama moves to the center and brings the liberals in the Senate with him. Outside of that it will be politics as usual in Washington. Hell, we heard on the talk shows this week that GOP and Dems were already positioning resources and vetting candidates for 2012. DNC has been to the Pentagon and FBI looking for info (dirt) on about a dozen possible GOP presidential candidates.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't think cap and trade is gonna pass, unless they do it in the lame duck. But what we will see regarding climate change, is a bunch of hearings now that the GOOP has subpeona power. The GOOP will subpoena their array of climate change denier kooks to testify before congress, and the kooky deniers will owned by the real scientists subpoenaed by the Dems.

I'm not going to look for the link right now but there was an article I heard about that basicly said the programming on the satellite that was measuring ice loss at the polar ice cap and the glaciers on greenland were over estimating by more than 100%.

You can thank your buddy Agent Orange for the jobs going overseas, as his financiers, the "US Chamber of Commerce" have been hosting seminars showing corporate America how to outsource.

You can think Dem financiers, the unions, for more jobs going overseas than anyone else. Dont worry, I wont bore you with details as you will simply ignore them anyways.

[blaknoize]

As I said Jimmy, we'll see. The wars and the debt will increase, it has to increase for Cheney and Bush and even the company I work for to ball in billions a month. The statements I make aren't pulled from TV most of the time. I do lots of internet research when I can, seeing as I do not have the internet at home or TV. I also just look at things, things that aren't any better than what they were less that 10yrs ago and I talk to people, grown, young, middle-aged for my source people that arent up top and are working every damn day like me and you but watching their actual "worth" become less and less.

I dont concern myself all that much with TV, everyone else lets me know of whats going on through their point of view. Ask enough people and you can develop YOUR point of view, which is must better than the 4 main sources we gain our info for news from. Not sure why u expect proof and truth of everything when you know you cant believe everything that is told to you on TV. I am not as politically driven as you Jimmy, its a game to keep us entertained with whatever team we're rooting for, but at least some members do try for things.

I can only speak on one thing I suppose, whether or not it becomes "outsourced" is the healthcare. Your worried bout the cost of it, I'm not and I make less than you (more than likely) why tha fuk does it matter how much it actually costs you, it would cost you MORE without it. Its not like its 50% of ur wages. Now we are all covered and it makes me feel great. I pay a bit more yea, but shoot at least I know that people I dont even know have my back if I really get messed up, just like if they end up disabled, we as a country have each others back. Fuk a dollar, fuk $100 dollars, if we'd work and stand together as a country and not let the media make us seem as though we have to hate and work against each other, we'd be a very strong, tight knit, healthy country, not a sell-out.

[BanginJimmy]

As I said Jimmy, we'll see.

We already know 99% of the script.

The wars and the debt will increase,

If debt and wars HAVE to increase then whats the point in whining about it? It will happen no matter who is in charge.

it has to increase for Cheney and Bush and even the company I work for to ball in billions a month.

In case you havet figured it out yet, Bush is retired. The community organizer is screwing up the show now.

The statements I make aren't pulled from TV most of the time.

Not surprising as it seems they are coming from thin air.

I do lots of internet research when I can, seeing as I do not have the internet at home or TV.

That is definitely easy to understand considering most of your predictions.

I also just look at things, things that aren't any better than what they were less that 10yrs ago

This is kind of what misleading because for 7 of the last years the country was rolling along. Booming economy, relatively low unemployment, stock market was rising quickly. Then we went into a deep recession caused by the housing bubble collapsing.

and I talk to people, grown, young, middle-aged for my source people that arent up top and are working every damn day like me and you but watching their actual "worth" become less and less.

Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean wealth, then unless they cashed out their 401k and other IRAs and put it into a bank they should be gaining wealth at a decent clip right now. It may be down a bit from where it was in early '07, but it is rising. Housing prices only matter if you are selling. If you arent selling your house right now, who cares what its currently worth?

I dont concern myself all that much with TV, everyone else lets me know of whats going on through their point of view. Ask enough people and you can develop YOUR point of view, which is must better than the 4 main sources we gain our info for news from.

I agree with you here.

Not sure why u expect proof and truth of everything when you know you cant believe everything that is told to you on TV. I am not as politically driven as you Jimmy, its a game to keep us entertained with whatever team we're rooting for, but at least some members do try for things.

I learned back in '98 how important politics can be when Congress threatened a shutdown if Clinton didnt sign the budget congress passed. I was looking at not getting paid until they did get it passed. If I remember correctly, it was only a couple of days before payday that the budget was signed. Clinton was against the rank targeted higher pay raises for military. Clinton wanted everyone to get that 2% or whatever it was. If these last 21 months havent shown you how politics directly influences your life then nothing will.

Your worried bout the cost of it, I'm not and I make less than you (more than likely)

Damn right I'm worried about the cost. I am also worried about the precedent it sets with the mandate.

why tha fuk does it matter how much it actually costs you,

Because I actually want to keep as much of the money I earn as possible. Not give it to the govt for them to hand over to someone else who decided not to learn a trade or go to school or not have kids they couldnt afford.

If you arent worried about money at all, I could really use a few grand to get myself out of debt.

it would cost you MORE without it.

Actually, no it wouldnt. My health insurance would likely cost less.

Its not like its 50% of ur wages.

Its getting up close to that. Is that what the magic number is? I should be allowed to have 50% of what I earn so the rest can be spread around to others?

Now we are all covered and it makes me feel great.

Wrong. The largest freeloader population (illegals) will still not be covered under this bill unless Obama lied. I'm not ruling out Obama lied, but I cannot confirm that because I dont understand most of the bill.

I pay a bit more yea, but shoot at least I know that people I dont even know have my back if I really get messed up,

I have that too with my current health insurance plan. I didnt even need daddy govt to tell me what kind of coverage I was required to buy.

just like if they end up disabled, we as a country have each others back. Fuk a dollar, fuk $100 dollars, if we'd work and stand together as a country and not let the media make us seem as though we have to hate and work against each other, we'd be a very strong, tight knit, healthy country, not a sell-out.

No, we would be socialists and everyone would all be living in poverty.

Why has it never occurred to you liberals that every time a new entitlement program is passed, the number of people sponging off productive people grows? Within 5 years of full inception this will cost 500B a year or more, or we will be stuck with a single payer system and the only people that will have access to quality health care will be the rich. Liberals always want to bring to top down to the bottom, but never find the time to try to bring the bottom up to the top. Maybe because they decided that it is easier to convince someone they can be lazy and still profit than it is to show them that hard work leads to success.

[Total_Blender]

Accidentally posted twice. Mods, please delete.

[Total_Blender]

Where are these "Dem financiers"? I am unaware that we have any engines for collecting corporate cash like the ironically governmental sounding "US Chamber of (outsourcing) Commerce" or "(corporate) Citizens United". My local rep outspent his Dem challenger by a ratio of 17 to 1. God only knows how much corporate cash they spent on attack ads against Feingold, Boxer, Reid, and Grayson, but I'm sure if I got the sum cashed out in $20 bills it would literally fill every square inch of space in my house.

Concerning the "New Black Panthers" (and all 5 of their members, lol)

There was nothing in that "new Black Panthers" meme at all. It was just something drummed up by Faux News over a 10 second clip of video showing 2 people with clubs supposedly somewhere near a polling place in a heavily democratic district. There's nothing to show voters were intimidated at all. Its not like any women got their heads stomped on by by a group of 3-4 men, or anything like that...

Concerning the upcoming impeachment circus

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...term-president

[article]
McConnell spokesman Robert Steurer defended his boss’ comments.“Ending the Obama administration’s liberal agenda as soon as possible is Sen. McConnell’s top political priority,” Steurer said. “The American people are clamoring for a focus on jobs and righting our economy … and that's McConnell’s focus for the next two years.”
The Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.[/article]

Note the language - as soon as possible - as in before 2012. Another impeachment circus, in other words. Seems like a bad idea to me though, "no drama Obama" is probably the best friend the GOP ever had on the left of the aisle. Biden... not so much.

About the US Chamber of Commerce's activities concerning outsourcing...

http://www.smart-sourcing.com/news.html

[website]




Company Announcements
AMCHAM Grassroots Program

• Smart Sourcing has partnered with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/default) to sponsor the China Grassroots Program for 2008-2009. The program consists of a series of forums throughout North America promoting bilateral trade and business opportunities for small and medium size firms in the China market. Upcoming forums will be announced and for more information visit: http://www.uschamber.com/internation...ina_grassroots

The "Chamber" operates as "AmCham" in foreign countries...

http://www.amchamchina.org/workingGroup/forum/50

[website]
Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum

Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum
The mission of the AmCham Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum is to increase knowledge of world-class best practices in manufacturing and sourcing industries in China through bi-monthly meetings in Beijing; to have, on average, at least 15 managers attending each of our meetings; to support AmCham in its PRC & USA government relations efforts which impact manufacturing and sourcing; to advocate for member companies on a variety of manufacturing/sourcing related policies and regulations in China. Our forum values Integrity & No Negative Politics among its members.[/website]


The links between Boehner and the US Chamber:



http://mo.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/butlercountynews/entries/2010/04/28/boehner_honored_by_us_chamber.html

[article]

Republican Representative John A. Boehner (OH-08) was honored today on Capitol Hill by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and presented with the Spirit of Enterprise Award for his pro-business record during the first session of the 111th Congress.
“The Chamber applauds Representative Boehner for supporting the private sector and job growth through these difficult times,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber. “He has demonstrated great courage and we commend him.”
[/article]


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html

[article]

The chamber’s increasingly aggressive role — including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time — has made it a target of critics, including a few local chamber affiliates who fear it has become too partisan and hard-nosed in its fund-raising.
The chamber is spending big in political races from California to New Hampshire, including nearly $1.5 million on television advertisements in New Hampshire attacking Representative Paul W. Hodes, a Democrat running for the United States Senate, accusing him of riding Nancy Pelosi’s “liberal express” down the road to financial ruin.
[/article]



So yeah, Boehner and the other republicans (probably a few DINOS too) are getting campaign money from a lobbying organization that is also actively helping corporations outsource. And people think Boehner and the GOOP will bring the jobs?


Laughable.

[blaknoize]

Ill respond to this one message since I'm leaving for the day:
Its getting up close to that. Is that what the magic number is? I should be allowed to have 50% of what I earn so the rest can be spread around to others?

With this single message u actually explained this top-down "lets spread the wealth" of what Bush and them wanted to instill in the middle-class. We're expecting the richest of the rich's money to be spread around, they obviously aren't so... now we have to. Instead of diversifying the cost of everything with everyone, rich and poor, we avoid the rich altogether and it falls on us. Bush may be retired or "whatever" but his businesses haven't. I may have to revise this message tomorrow, tired. But the idea should be realized in your message.

[David88vert]

We're expecting the richest of the rich's money to be spread around, they obviously aren't so... now we have to.

That is a socialist agenda - wealth redistribution. If you had any clue of how that works long term, you would likely be against it.

Take the wealth from those not in political power (those in Congress would exempt themselves), and spread it to all - to be "fair". You then have a ruling class of aristocrats, and everyone else. That is what the USSR was trying to accomplish, as was China, and Korea. How did that work for them? The regular people all descended into poverty, as government officials became more corrupt with their absolute power.

How much of my money should I "allowed to keep"? I worked and earned it, why should I be forced to give it to someone who did not work to earn it?

Let me ask you this. If the rich are taxed out of their money, where is there incentive to create jobs? If you think that the rich do not create jobs, then show me a poor man who employs a rich man. Is your boss richer or poorer than you? Why do people run businesses and hire others? Last I checked it was to gain money, which is just a physical symbol of power - which is to get others to do what you desire.

The federal government's duties should not include social engineering, nor welfare programs. That should be done on local and state levels. The federal government should conform to the spirit of the law, and follow the original ideas set forth by the founding fathers. I suggest that everyone go back and actually read the documents that they provided as a blueprint.

[Total_Blender]

Giving the rich tax breaks to "create jobs" is just as much "social engineering" as giving tax cuts to the poor. Just because you're giving the money to corporations and the rich doesn't mean it isn't welfare.

[trini_gsr]

Giving the rich tax breaks to "create jobs" is just as much "social engineering" as giving tax cuts to the poor. Just because you're giving the money to corporations and the rich doesn't mean it isn't welfare.

"tax cuts" to the poor, when it exceeds whatever their tax burden is to start with, is a handout. this is definitely wealth redistribution. the "rich" already pay the lion's share of the tax income to the gov't as it stands now. i don't have a problem with this, i believe the tax rate should be progressive, because $50 to someone making $200 a week feels a lot different than to someone making $2000 a week. but at the same time you can't demonize the successful in this country and take it too far - that's class warfare.

like someone else said...you never got a job from a poor person. the "rich corporations" aren't going to sit back and let their profit margins fall...they are going to pass the costs onto consumers, cut back (meaning less jobs), or take their business elsewhere. we need to give them incentive to keep their business right here, and profit is one of the best motivators there is. that's why ppl sacrifice and go to medical school, law school, learn trades, etc - to earn more $$$ which is the primary indicator of success. i don't understand why ppl don't get this.

[BanginJimmy]

Where are these "Dem financiers"? I am unaware that we have any engines for collecting corporate cash like the ironically governmental sounding "US Chamber of (outsourcing) Commerce" or "(corporate) Citizens United". My local rep outspent his Dem challenger by a ratio of 17 to 1. God only knows how much corporate cash they spent on attack ads against Feingold, Boxer, Reid, and Grayson, but I'm sure if I got the sum cashed out in $20 bills it would literally fill every square inch of space in my house.

Concerning the "New Black Panthers" (and all 5 of their members, lol)

There was nothing in that "new Black Panthers" meme at all. It was just something drummed up by Faux News over a 10 second clip of video showing 2 people with clubs supposedly somewhere near a polling place in a heavily democratic district. There's nothing to show voters were intimidated at all. Its not like any women got their heads stomped on by by a group of 3-4 men, or anything like that...

Concerning the upcoming impeachment circus

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...term-president

[article]
McConnell spokesman Robert Steurer defended his boss’ comments.“Ending the Obama administration’s liberal agenda as soon as possible is Sen. McConnell’s top political priority,” Steurer said. “The American people are clamoring for a focus on jobs and righting our economy … and that's McConnell’s focus for the next two years.”
The Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.[/article]

Note the language - as soon as possible - as in before 2012. Another impeachment circus, in other words. Seems like a bad idea to me though, "no drama Obama" is probably the best friend the GOP ever had on the left of the aisle. Biden... not so much.

About the US Chamber of Commerce's activities concerning outsourcing...

http://www.smart-sourcing.com/news.html

[website]




Company Announcements
AMCHAM Grassroots Program

• Smart Sourcing has partnered with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/default) to sponsor the China Grassroots Program for 2008-2009. The program consists of a series of forums throughout North America promoting bilateral trade and business opportunities for small and medium size firms in the China market. Upcoming forums will be announced and for more information visit: http://www.uschamber.com/internation...ina_grassroots

The "Chamber" operates as "AmCham" in foreign countries...

http://www.amchamchina.org/workingGroup/forum/50

[website]
Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum

Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum
The mission of the AmCham Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum is to increase knowledge of world-class best practices in manufacturing and sourcing industries in China through bi-monthly meetings in Beijing; to have, on average, at least 15 managers attending each of our meetings; to support AmCham in its PRC & USA government relations efforts which impact manufacturing and sourcing; to advocate for member companies on a variety of manufacturing/sourcing related policies and regulations in China. Our forum values Integrity & No Negative Politics among its members.[/website]


The links between Boehner and the US Chamber:



http://mo.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/butlercountynews/entries/2010/04/28/boehner_honored_by_us_chamber.html

[article]

Republican Representative John A. Boehner (OH-08) was honored today on Capitol Hill by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and presented with the Spirit of Enterprise Award for his pro-business record during the first session of the 111th Congress.
“The Chamber applauds Representative Boehner for supporting the private sector and job growth through these difficult times,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber. “He has demonstrated great courage and we commend him.”
[/article]


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html

[article]

The chamber’s increasingly aggressive role — including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time — has made it a target of critics, including a few local chamber affiliates who fear it has become too partisan and hard-nosed in its fund-raising.
The chamber is spending big in political races from California to New Hampshire, including nearly $1.5 million on television advertisements in New Hampshire attacking Representative Paul W. Hodes, a Democrat running for the United States Senate, accusing him of riding Nancy Pelosi’s “liberal express” down the road to financial ruin.
[/article]



So yeah, Boehner and the other republicans (probably a few DINOS too) are getting campaign money from a lobbying organization that is also actively helping corporations outsource. And people think Boehner and the GOOP will bring the jobs?


Laughable.

I had a whole thing typed out for this and I accidently hit the back button ans lost it. Put simply, the only thing thats laughable is your responses.

You are trying to claim that GOP wanting Obama to be a 1 term president means they are going to impeach him? Are you really this stupid or are you just that dense?

[BanginJimmy]

the "rich corporations" aren't going to sit back and let their profit margins fall...they are going to pass the costs onto consumers,

Exactly. Companies, especially larger corporations, dont pay a single cent in taxes no matter how high you raise them. You, the consumer, pay their taxes as part of the product or service you buy from them. If taxes make up 10% of the cost of a product you buy then the manufacturer's taxes go up 10%, the price of the product rises by 1%, at least.

[David88vert]

Giving the rich tax breaks to "create jobs" is just as much "social engineering" as giving tax cuts to the poor. Just because you're giving the money to corporations and the rich doesn't mean it isn't welfare.

You aren't giving the rich anything at all - they are just keeping more of their own money. The government just takes less from them - the money that the rich already earned and own. The government is not giving them anything. It isn't welfare if they are not being given anything - instead they are keeping the money that they earned. This is how capitalism works.

Now, taking the money from those that earned it, and then giving it to those who did not earn it is called wealth redistribution, and is a cornerstone of socialism. That is how you create a true welfare state, complete with those that live on the meager subsitance that the government gives them.

While I have no problem with giving someone a foothold to build their life from, do you really think that the government should be giving people so much that they become comfortable with not working? I suggest that you research Seebohm Rowntree's 1910 study on poverty in York, England. If you want the short story from it, watch "A Life Without Work" on BBC.

[BanginJimmy]

You aren't giving the rich anything at all - they are just keeping more of their own money. The government just takes less from them - the money that the rich already earned and own. The government is not giving them anything. It isn't welfare if they are not being given anything - instead they are keeping the money that they earned. This is how capitalism works.

Now, taking the money from those that earned it, and then giving it to those who did not earn it is called wealth redistribution, and is a cornerstone of socialism. That is how you create a true welfare state, complete with those that live on the meager subsitance that the government gives them.

While I have no problem with giving someone a foothold to build their life from, do you really think that the government should be giving people so much that they become comfortable with not working? I suggest that you research Seebohm Rowntree's 1910 study on poverty in York, England. If you want the short story from it, watch "A Life Without Work" on BBC.

You are talking to a not very smart hardcore liberal. Anything that doesnt align perfectly with his beliefs he will simply ignore as lies.

[blaknoize]

You aren't giving the rich anything at all - they are just keeping more of their own money. The government just takes less from them - the money that the rich already earned and own. The government is not giving them anything. It isn't welfare if they are not being given anything - instead they are keeping the money that they earned. This is how capitalism works.

Now, taking the money from those that earned it, and then giving it to those who did not earn it is called wealth redistribution, and is a cornerstone of socialism. That is how you create a true welfare state, complete with those that live on the meager subsitance that the government gives them.

Well the income tax takes money from those who "earned" it. Even though its Unconstitutional. Also, how is it that a big "earner" can be more resistant to paying their affordable dues to the country than a person who makes less which creates more of a burden for them? The person at the bottom is forced to request some assistance from government services, while the person at the top can just pay for it and even waste it.

Then when the person at the top makes a mistake or does it wrong, they are "forgiven" (bailed-out) or protected because they're already up there at the top. Unlike the person trying to get up to the top who makes a mistake and it can ruin their entire existence and REALLY create a situation where they will need "hand-outs" or "free money." Then they are all critized for where they are in life for whatever mistake (bad financial decision, risk, helping out others in their same "class," got SICK, car broke or business closed because it got purchased by another business that then outsourced its workers.)

Also, the "now" business billionaire got his money from someone or just inherited it from their parents which got that money from somewhere. They or their parents have asked for donations and help in hard times during their growth, assistance from government and tax cuts just as much, so they can be insured of their future. Their communities of "poor" wealthy and alike all contributed to the growth of that said business. From purchasing their goods in hard times (because u know, back then America was America and American's cared for each other and their lifes work) and even solitating their city or towns product.

[nelson9995]

What exactly were they fixing? All I saw them do was run up HUGE deficits with programs that flopped.



I think you meant 4 years of breaking things. The breaking started in 2006 when Dems took over the Senate. Now we can see if anything can get fixed.




Whose campaign website did you read that off of?


Ignoring the truth doesnt make you right. Dems are just as guilty of forcing jobs over seas, if not more so. The health care bill will ship jobs over seas as employers find ways to eliminate tax burdens and fines. Cap and Trade will force jobs, especially manufacturing, over seas to avoid paying additional fines and fees.

Like I said in another thread; your a republican deep down inside; you are COMPLETELY against Democrats ( the party that works for the PEOPLE and not the already wealthy).

[David88vert]

Well the income tax takes money from those who "earned" it. Even though its Unconstitutional. Also, how is it that a big "earner" can be more resistant to paying their affordable dues to the country than a person who makes less which creates more of a burden for them? The person at the bottom is forced to request some assistance from government services, while the person at the top can just pay for it and even waste it.

Then when the person at the top makes a mistake or does it wrong, they are "forgiven" (bailed-out) or protected because they're already up there at the top. Unlike the person trying to get up to the top who makes a mistake and it can ruin their entire existence and REALLY create a situation where they will need "hand-outs" or "free money." Then they are all critized for where they are in life for whatever mistake (bad financial decision, risk, helping out others in their same "class," got SICK, car broke or business closed because it got purchased by another business that then outsourced its workers.)

Also, the "now" business billionaire got his money from someone or just inherited it from their parents which got that money from somewhere. They or their parents have asked for donations and help in hard times during their growth, assistance from government and tax cuts just as much, so they can be insured of their future. Their communities of "poor" wealthy and alike all contributed to the growth of that said business. From purchasing their goods in hard times (because u know, back then America was America and American's cared for each other and their lifes work) and even solitating their city or towns product.

You are confusing individual taxes with corporate taxes. They are not the same.

Our income tax system is progressive - which means those that earn more, pay more. You seem to think that even though the rich pay more, they should get less of a tax cut than someone who paid less.

I don't know why you are putting quotes arounder the word "earner". If you sell a product, or provide a service, you earned your money.

As for income tax being unconstitutional, the last I checked, the 16th Amendment was still in effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen...s_Constitution

[David88vert]

Like I said in another thread; your a republican deep down inside; you are COMPLETELY against Democrats ( the party that works for the PEOPLE and not the already wealthy).

The Democratic party works for their party platform, which happens to be whatever will get the most of its members elected into power. They are not for the people or business.
The Republican party works for their party platform, which happens to be whatever will get the most of its members elected into power. They are not for the people or business.

[Browning151]

Well the income tax takes money from those who "earned" it. Even though its Unconstitutional. Also, how is it that a big "earner" can be more resistant to paying their affordable dues to the country than a person who makes less which creates more of a burden for them? The person at the bottom is forced to request some assistance from government services, while the person at the top can just pay for it and even waste it.

Why do you quote earned like it's some mythical term and people who are rich just woke up that way one day? As far as paying their affordable dues, the top income earners already pay the majority of the tax burden, but I suppose we should just tax them til they're poor like everyone else, then who will provide you with a job? Also, who cares if the person at the top wants to waste money, that's their right, they earned it and they don't OWE anyone a damn thing.


Read this
and this
The tax burden for those who make less is just too high, so high in fact that 36% of them pay no federal income tax after all credits and deductions and some actually get more back on a refund than they paid in. When you factor in people who don't make enough to file a tax return that number goes up to 47% who pay no federal income tax. All that is just from a quick google search and based upon 2009 tax figures, I haven't done serious in depth research on the matter.


Here's a very simple redistribution analogy: You are a student who works their ass off and earns the top grades in the class and maintain a perfect A and there is another student who just can't quite cut it and only has a C. The end of the semester the professor comes to you and says, well since you have such a good grade and he has such a poor grade, you can afford to give him some of your points even though you earned them and he didn't. I'm going to redistribute your grades so both of you have a B average. Are you completely ok with giving up something you worked your ass off for so that someone else can have the same thing as you even though they didn't earn it?

[BanginJimmy]

Like I said in another thread; your a republican deep down inside;

And as I told you before. I am a fiscal conservative. There is a difference, you might want to look up the big words so as not to confuse them again.

you are COMPLETELY against Democrats ( the party that works for the PEOPLE and not the already wealthy).

Yea, the dems really are working for "the people" They passed the health care overhaul which will cost "the people" more money more money to purchase insurance. That same bill also put added taxes on those evil people that employ "the people". And for an encore, the bill has caused the largest writers of child only health care plans to discontinue the product.

The dems helped "the people" in other ways too. In the house they passed the cap and trade bill which will cause energy prices to rise sharply. It will also cause the price of good manufactured in the US to rise. We will ignore the fact that these added costs will send employers overseas to find a less restrictive environment to do business and just ship their products here.

BTW, since when did working hard and becoming successful exclude you from being counted as one of the American "people"?

[nelson9995]

And as I told you before. I am a fiscal conservative. There is a difference, you might want to look up the big words so as not to confuse them again.






Yea, the dems really are working for "the people" They passed the health care overhaul which will cost "the people" more money more money to purchase insurance. That same bill also put added taxes on those evil people that employ "the people". And for an encore, the bill has caused the largest writers of child only health care plans to discontinue the product.

The dems helped "the people" in other ways too. In the house they passed the cap and trade bill which will cause energy prices to rise sharply. It will also cause the price of good manufactured in the US to rise. We will ignore the fact that these added costs will send employers overseas to find a less restrictive environment to do business and just ship their products here.

BTW, since when did working hard and becoming successful exclude you from being counted as one of the American "people"?

I rather pay more and know i have healthcare and I can go to the hospital and not have to worry about paying thousands of dollars later on (which is over priced anyways) than see myself in situations like i have where I am dying in pain and I'm afraid to go to the hospital. Health is more important than a couple extra dollars.

Also, this will end up helping because people won't be afraid to go to get check ups which in return help with preventive care and save millions of dollars.

No, they are making sure that the people you defend which are the businesses don't exploit people and treat them like humans.

[David88vert]

I rather pay more and know i have healthcare and I can go to the hospital and not have to worry about paying thousands of dollars later on (which is over priced anyways) than see myself in situations like i have where I am dying in pain and I'm afraid to go to the hospital. Health is more important than a couple extra dollars.

Also, this will end up helping because people won't be afraid to go to get check ups which in return help with preventive care and save millions of dollars.

No, they are making sure that the people you defend which are the businesses don't exploit people and treat them like humans.

QUALITY of care is important. We already have a shoartage of doctors. With Obamacare, we see more doctors already planning to leave their profession before 2014, and a reduction in those looking to go to medical school. Prior to Obamacare's passage, we were already looking at shortages in the amount of doctor's available, now it appears that it will get worse. What good is it if the doctor who see's you, has been rushed through medical school, and has little experience?

Obmamcare benefited only one group - businesses. It is cheaper to pay the fine, and let the government pay for healthcare. Every other country that has government run healthcare has longer lines and poorer quality care than America.

[BanginJimmy]

I rather pay more and know i have healthcare

Before Obamacare I was paying less and still knew I had health care. In my world, the only thing I got out of Obamacare was added taxes and higher premiums.

and I can go to the hospital and not have to worry about paying thousands of dollars later on (which is over priced anyways)

if you have health insurance you dont have to worry about that now. If you dont have health insurance, why are you complaining about about having to pay for products and services you are receiving? Show me proof that it is over priced. She me where the same quality care is cheaper anywhere else in the world.

than see myself in situations like i have where I am dying in pain and I'm afraid to go to the hospital. Health is more important than a couple extra dollars.

So health is more important than a couple of dollars, but you are afraid to goto the doc because of money? Would it be reasonable to say then, that you believe that your health care is worth the money, just so long as it isnt your money?

Also, this will end up helping because people won't be afraid to go to get check ups which in return help with preventive care and save millions of dollars.

Wrong, I found a study a while back that says there is no real cost benefits to preventive care when looked at on a macro scale. Individual cases such as people found with early stage cancer will be cheaper, but the 100k other people that got check-ups and found nothing wrong used those same dollars that were saved on the cancer patient. If you care to look there is a link in one of the Obamacare threads here.

This bill also failed to account for some of the largest drains on our healthcare system.

1. Illegals are not going to be covered under this plan according to Obama. They are already the largest population of sponges on the system and hospitals typically have to write off everything they consume because they dont pay for services.

2. No tort reform or malpractice reforms were made. Because of the rising costs of malpractice insurance docs have to raise their rates. Malpractice insurance rates are going up because of the huge number of claims that are filed, a very vast majority of which turn out to be bogus. To protect themselves against malpractice suits, a doc will routinely engage in protective medicine. They will order tests and procedures that they know are useless or unneeded to protect themselves from these bogus claims.

Here is a pretty good article about defensive medicine.
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

3.No reforms to medicaid and medicare to eliminate the hundreds of billions a year in fraud. Eliminate the fraud and you can cut 20% of their budget with absolutely no change in payouts for legitimate patients and treatments. Also, docs raise their costs to private individuals and insurers to make up for the money they lose on every medicare patient they see. The doc I go to has a sign up saying they are not accepting any new medicaid or medicare patients. This will get more and more common and the level of care medicare and medicaid patients receive will continue to fall unless reforms are made to actually pay docs what it costs to see these patients.

No, they are making sure that the people you defend which are the businesses don't exploit people and treat them like humans.

How are they doing that? It was a pretty simple question and you follow it up with yet another vague answer that really doesnt answer anything. HOW are businesses exploiting people and WHAT laws did the dems pass to prevent it.

And you didnt answer my last question.

How did it come to pass that working hard and becoming successful was a stigma? How does hard work and the benefits of it make you evil?

[nelson9995]

nm

[nelson9995]

Before Obamacare I was paying less and still knew I had health care. In my world, the only thing I got out of Obamacare was added taxes and higher premiums.




if you have health insurance you dont have to worry about that now. If you dont have health insurance, why are you complaining about about having to pay for products and services you are receiving? Show me proof that it is over priced. She me where the same quality care is cheaper anywhere else in the world.

It has affected you, you say; has it made your life harder or has your lifestyle changed? Now think of all the people it has benefited, and now can have peace of mind. It's time to soften up more and think of EVERYONE. Also, that's because you have a FULLTIME job that offers benefits. Not all of us are that fortunate. Please don't think I'm a lazy ass. I'm 20, in school for Multimedia and Design on my third year, graduating in winter of 2011 trying to find a full time/ part time job meanwhile to help me cover my expenses.

I know people with medicaid and they can't just walk into clinics or dentist. Matter of fact, no dentist takes them because they don't pay them enough which is bullshit because if you call and see how much it is to pay with money is one amount but when you have insurance the amount is always greater.

So health is more important than a couple of dollars, but you are afraid to goto the doc because of money? Would it be reasonable to say then, that you believe that your health care is worth the money, just so long as it isnt your money?

When you don't have a job and can't pay back you think about it. When you have a job, I can care less about paying a little extra for insurance.

How are they doing that? It was a pretty simple question and you follow it up with yet another vague answer that really doesnt answer anything. HOW are businesses exploiting people and WHAT laws did the dems pass to prevent it.

Many businesses here pay minimum wage in jobs where workers are being exploited. What I mean by that is the working conditions. Also, making a worker work 40+ hours and not hiring them fulltime is enough exploitation to me.

And you didnt answer my last question.

How did it come to pass that working hard and becoming successful was a stigma? How does hard work and the benefits of it make you evil?

It doesn't. I am for working hard, but while working hard, it would be nice to receive back what you work for.

If you are referring about the other thread where I was talking about help please let me know and I'll get back to it.

[nelson9995]

QUALITY of care is important. We already have a shoartage of doctors. With Obamacare, we see more doctors already planning to leave their profession before 2014, and a reduction in those looking to go to medical school. Prior to Obamacare's passage, we were already looking at shortages in the amount of doctor's available, now it appears that it will get worse. What good is it if the doctor who see's you, has been rushed through medical school, and has little experience?

Obmamcare benefited only one group - businesses. It is cheaper to pay the fine, and let the government pay for healthcare. Every other country that has government run healthcare has longer lines and poorer quality care than America.

This all depends on the individuals. I'm sure a standard must still be met. Doctors are not going to be given positions that they can't handle since the hospital knows all this will lead to is law suits.

[Browning151]

This all depends on the individuals. I'm sure a standard must still be met. Doctors are not going to be given positions that they can't handle since the hospital knows all this will lead to is law suits.

Quality of care will be diminished because there will be more people to cover and fewer doctors to treat them.
Even if the number of doctors stays the same that only works out in one of 2 ways:
(1) Doctors see more people per day, which means they are rushed and therefore provide lower quality of care. You can't expect someone to double or more the amount of work they need to do in a given time and expect quality to not suffer.
(2) Doctors continue to see the same number of people per day, but with more people to see the line stacks up much longer and you have to wait much longer to be treated yourself therefore quality of care is lower because it takes you longer to be able to receive treatment. Whatever illness you have will be more advanced due to the longer wait times.

So which do you prefer, sloppy healthcare or a more advanced illness when you finally receive treatment?

[BanginJimmy]

It has affected you, you say; has it made your life harder or has your lifestyle changed? Now think of all the people it has benefited, and now can have peace of mind. It's time to soften up more and think of EVERYONE.

We are back to that whole Karl Marx thing again.

Also, that's because you have a FULLTIME job that offers benefits. Not all of us are that fortunate. Please don't think I'm a lazy ass. I'm 20, in school for Multimedia and Design on my third year, graduating in winter of 2011 trying to find a full time/ part time job meanwhile to help me cover my expenses.

If you are younger than 26 you can get on your parent's plan. Its one of several parts of Obamacare I am a fan of.

I know people with medicaid and they can't just walk into clinics or dentist. Matter of fact, no dentist takes them because they don't pay them enough which is bullshit because if you call and see how much it is to pay with money is one amount but when you have insurance the amount is always greater.

Thanks for proving my point. Without serious changes to medicare and medicaid, you will find it harder and harder to find docs that will take on new patients. Docs LOSE MONEY, by seeing them. It is ALWAYS cheaper to pay for a procedure with cash than it is for an insurance company. That is a correction to amke up for the added expenses caused by denied coverage and administrative costs. This is one of the reasons me and my wife are seriously considering changing our coverage to a health savings plan for routine stuff and a major medical plan for high dollar accidents or illnesses.

When you don't have a job and can't pay back you think about it. When you have a job, I can care less about paying a little extra for insurance.

When you have a job you think you should be able to keep as much of the money you earn as possible. I have a whole lot of problems with paying more for something just so someone else can get it cheaper or free.

Many businesses here pay minimum wage in jobs where workers are being exploited. What I mean by that is the working conditions. Also, making a worker work 40+ hours and not hiring them fulltime is enough exploitation to me.

minimum wage is FAR from exploitation. These days minimum wage is actually a decent wage for a high schooler. Anyone outside of HS that is still making minimum wage is likely a loser that is constantly changing jobs in very low end industries. Working 40 hour weeks without a tag on your file that says "full time" is far from exploitation. Not offering someone benefits is FAR from exploitation.

It doesn't. I am for working hard, but while working hard, it would be nice to receive back what you work for.

I agree. That is why I am fully against the wealth redistribution agenda of this administration.

Think of it this way. If the Bush tax cuts arent extended and I become a supervisor at my work, and my wife does the same at hers (which is possible for both of us in the next year) it is likely that we will cross that 250k/yr threshold. If that happens, we would have HALF of our earnings taken away in the form of taxes. That would be 125k a year paid directly to the federal govt, state govt, and county govt. Why should I pay 50% of my income when you have a full half of this country that pays in no federal income taxes and little to no state taxes?

[BanginJimmy]

This all depends on the individuals. I'm sure a standard must still be met. Doctors are not going to be given positions that they can't handle since the hospital knows all this will lead to is law suits.

So where are the docs going to come from? As David said, there is already a massive shortage, and as pointed out in the article I posted that you didnt read, those shortages are affecting poorer regions FAR more than more affluent regions.

[nelson9995]

We are back to that whole Karl Marx thing again.




If you are younger than 26 you can get on your parent's plan. Its one of several parts of Obamacare I am a fan of.



Thanks for proving my point. Without serious changes to medicare and medicaid, you will find it harder and harder to find docs that will take on new patients. Docs LOSE MONEY, by seeing them. It is ALWAYS cheaper to pay for a procedure with cash than it is for an insurance company. That is a correction to amke up for the added expenses caused by denied coverage and administrative costs. This is one of the reasons me and my wife are seriously considering changing our coverage to a health savings plan for routine stuff and a major medical plan for high dollar accidents or illnesses.





When you have a job you think you should be able to keep as much of the money you earn as possible. I have a whole lot of problems with paying more for something just so someone else can get it cheaper or free.




minimum wage is FAR from exploitation. These days minimum wage is actually a decent wage for a high schooler. Anyone outside of HS that is still making minimum wage is likely a loser that is constantly changing jobs in very low end industries. Working 40 hour weeks without a tag on your file that says "full time" is far from exploitation. Not offering someone benefits is FAR from exploitation.




I agree. That is why I am fully against the wealth redistribution agenda of this administration.

Think of it this way. If the Bush tax cuts arent extended and I become a supervisor at my work, and my wife does the same at hers (which is possible for both of us in the next year) it is likely that we will cross that 250k/yr threshold. If that happens, we would have HALF of our earnings taken away in the form of taxes. That would be 125k a year paid directly to the federal govt, state govt, and county govt. Why should I pay 50% of my income when you have a full half of this country that pays in no federal income taxes and little to no state taxes?

We are finally agreeing on some things lol. The ones that we are not are about exploitation, and distribution of wealth. There is NO distribution of wealth. The Government is not taking money from the rich and evenly spreading it to the poor. All this is is about healthcare not currency.

[BanginJimmy]

The ones that we are not are about exploitation, and distribution of wealth. There is NO distribution of wealth. The Government is not taking money from the rich and evenly spreading it to the poor. All this is is about healthcare not currency.

Are you sure about that? I know for a fact that there are people getting tax returns for more money than they paid in to start with. People get welfare checks still dont they? Medicaid is still heavily subsidized by the govt isnt it? In the healthcare plan, people will get subsidies wont they? If this isnt redistributing someone else's weath then I dont know what is.

[David88vert]

We are finally agreeing on some things lol. The ones that we are not are about exploitation, and distribution of wealth. There is NO distribution of wealth. The Government is not taking money from the rich and evenly spreading it to the poor. All this is is about healthcare not currency.

Please study our current tax system and welfare benefits. We already tax money at a progressive rate, and the last I checked, the rich do not qualify for welfare. That is redistribution of wealth.

As for healthcare, it appears that you think that Obamacare is universal coverage. It is not. I suggest you read this article. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._obamacar.html
It sounds like you are looking more for universal coverage.

[Total_Blender]

ignorant social Darwinist crap

"letting people keep more of what they earn" how would that be any different from shifting the tax cut to the middle and working classes? Are they somehow less entitled to the money they earn just because they sweat more in earning it?

[Browning151]

"letting people keep more of what they earn" how would that be any different from shifting the tax cut to the middle and working classes? Are they somehow less entitled to the money they earn just because they sweat more in earning it?

If EVERYONE is entitled to keep the money they earn then why don't we institute the Fair Tax and tax everyone equally on what they spend instead of progressively on what they earn.

[David88vert]

"letting people keep more of what they earn" how would that be any different from shifting the tax cut to the middle and working classes? Are they somehow less entitled to the money they earn just because they sweat more in earning it?

Do you understand that not everyone pays in the same rate? It seems that you do not understand that simple concept. Since they do not, why do you think that everyone would get the same tax cut, or those that paid in less should get the same cut? See the table below and see that not everyone pays in the same. Why should someone who is in the 25% bracket get the same tax break as someone that is in the 35% bracket? How is that providing equality for all? Just because you work smarter, you should be penalized?

If in 2010, your taxable income was $100K:
( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00 in taxes.


Do you happen to realize that if the tax cuts are not passed, that those who are at the very bottom, and only pay 10% now, will revert to 2000 rates, which are 15%? Do you realize that affects all US taxpayers?




Single Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]

• 10% on income between $0 and $8,375
• 15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
• 25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
• 28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
• 33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
• 35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]

• 10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
• 15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
• 25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
• 28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
• 33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
• 35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50

Married Filing Separately Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Y-2, Internal Revenue Code section 1(d)]

• 10% on the income between $0 and $8,375
• 15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
• 25% on the income between $34,000 and $68,650; plus $4,681.25
• 28% on the income between $68,650 and $104,625; plus $13,343.75
• 33% on the income between $104,625 and $186,825; plus $23,416.75
• 35% on the income over $186,825; plus $50,542.75

Head of Household Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Z, Internal Revenue Code section 1(b)]

• 10% on the income between $0 and $11,950
• 15% on the income between $11,950 and $45,550; plus $1,195
• 25% on the income between $45,550 and $117,650; plus $6,235
• 28% on the income between $117,650 and $190,550; plus $24,260
• 33% on the income between $190,550 and $373,650; plus $44,672
• 35% on the income over $373,650; plus $105,095

[Total_Blender]

If EVERYONE is entitled to keep the money they earn then why don't we institute the Fair Tax and tax everyone equally on what they spend instead of progressively on what they earn.

The "Fair Tax" is not based on what you EARN, its based on what you CONSUME. As such it would be balanced against those who consume more of their income than they save.