"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 10

I think your point here is quite valid; the repeal of ObamaCare is the very least that needs be done by the new Republican majority after November, in addition to an immediate halt on deficit spending! Not a single Democrat is even mentioning ObamaCare in their campaigns and this was suppose to be the signature Democrat achievement! Most Americans were against ObamaCare and are still against it... Democrats must be willing to accept the will of the majority of Americans and repeal ObamaCare as soon as possible... Further along, an immediate 20% across the board cut in all federal spending is needed....

Good luck with that one!

Actually Obama didn't even come close to what he said should be done.

Answer that question yet?

By asking that he has to provide some of what he believes. Something you refuse to do yourself!

Take it to the other thread.

I know...Krugman wanted trillions more to be spent. What the heck it isn't his money. It isn't his job. Krugman is a first class idiot.

Ok. Already did.

The could just simply gut it and starve it. That might work. Unfortunately remnants of its destructive distortions will likely live on and screw up and already screwed up system which will lead to further asinine claims that the "free market" in health care has failed ("See! See how fucked up it is! We need the government to DOOOO something!") At which point a bunch of mindless lemmings, like the ones who were dumb enough to believe what Obama promised during his campaign, will start dragging us further down the road toward the destruction of health care in this country. Or we could try freedom, but what fun would that be.

Can't be done, without at least a simple majority in both houses.

Then, they'll have to grow some balls. Like hers:

God please! I just ate.

Ugh. I wonder if she gets eye socket lint.

Few are familiar with what a "free market" in health care means, despite the fact it's incredibly easy to find out.

Try going to a doctor or dentist and asking up front what a visit or procedure will cost. Explain you do not have insurance and that you will be paying cash. Reasonable question, right? Most of the time you'll get a blank stare or the answer will be "what insurance company do you use", so you have to reiterate the question and explain what "cash" means. You might have to do this with several doctors, that's OK, there are lots of them (at present). Some even speak English.

Eventually you'll find one that will say "cash? You betcha! Office visit, sixty bucks." Or something. If it's too much take your business elsewhere. I've been doing this for years. I estimate I pay about 1/3 of what would the cost would be with insurance.

You also see the free market at work with cosmetic surgery (see pic above) since most of that is performed outside the insurance realm. Apparently she went the cheap route. Perhaps the expensive ones didn't want to go there.

Now, of course you need insurance for unexpected events and continued care, but routine office visits and minor procedures are negotiable, and - for the time being - legal.

Sounds like an improbable idea to implement on a wide scale? I understand your skepticism. Read how this company is doing it right now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/te...r=1&ref=global
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536722522229323.html

Like it? So did Obama, who publicly endorsed the plan, saying "...we are open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one." Meanwhile, the bill he signed into law last March kills it in 2014! Apparently "helping employers" was utter bull. Surprise!

Is it any wonder Americans are fed up with these guys?

Former Obama apologist Peter Orszag favors extending the Bush tax cuts... all of them.


Close, Mr. Former Apologist, close. Congressional deadlock works in our favor.

Obama, between vacation breaks, sticks to his guns - which means sticking it to US:

White House Rejects New Orszag Proposal

Those evil, obstructionist Rs say "Good idea - why didn't we think of that?"

Boehner Offers Concession on Tax Cuts

It would appear he's now "howling with laughter".

Republicans are telling the country they have raped that she actually liked it and let's compromise by submitting to further rape.

You "progressives" are quite fond of violent hyperbolic descriptions of things aren't you?

They have to show they're "progressive" by moving beyond such things as courtesy, moderation, and civil discourse. Those are such outdated, "conservative" notions, anyway. It's much more effective to get your point across using vulgarity, crudeness, and hyperbole. That's why MSNBC dominates in the ratings.

It's an attempt to compensate for their unique inability to predict history.

this is not even a sentence.

predicting history???
I predict your history: You will be born from an anus. You will also be voted the least intelligent person ever measured.

wow this must be the worst juxtaposition of words I have ever seen.

History is in the past. Prediction is for future events. Now, you may want to rewrite history all you want in an attempt to claim that Republican policies didn't fuck 95% of the country against their will, but the facts are the facts and you can't do a goddamn thing to change them.

I saw a comment on reddit earlier and it very much rings true. All this nonsense with the mosque and immigration before that and homosexuality before that...all this stuff is to keep the 95% of the population split against each other. Racial warfare keeps the 95% who get fucked by Republican policies in check. Racial warfare distracts the 95% from what Republicans fear the most: class warfare.

When a CEO gets a bonus because he met fiscal goals by slashing wages or jobs, that's fucked up. That's what the 95% of Americans should be angry about. We shouldn't be fighting each other. We should be shouting in unison that corporate greed at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the population NEEDS TO STOP.

I'm guessing you'd have unkind things to say to liberals if they treated your leaders with the same childish disrespect.

I suppose I have to put [joke] tags around comments that are not meant to be taken seriously, now.

Where's your sense of humor? Look at the picture. Her eye sockets are cavernous.

Alright alright don't get your magic underwear in a bunch. Fine, I'll play your game, too. Glenn Beck seems like a reasonable representative of how batshit crazy mormons are. I mean, seriously. His empty skull is cavernous!

You think I consider him a leader. Now THAT'S funny.

I've tried to tell the Spinmaster this but he won't listen. He either replies with stuff that doesn't relate to what I've said or he uses the typical Republican talking points. It's colossal waste of time. And of course if the Republicans win big this election and they can't change things over night like they wanted Obama to do then we're " truly fucked " according to him because of course the Republicans are our only hope and they'll make it all better. Just like they did last time

Since humor requires a minimum amount of intelligence to appreciate, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend a thing I wrote.

Which, by the way, I meant precisely as written.

Yes you're so superior. What a crock!


Some humor is unintentionally funny. Sometimes it takes a little more grey matter to appreciate that.

And pretty telling also!

Cute straw man.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Actually, it's not just the facts. Because if it was the facts then the cartoon would portray all of the things that Obama is doing (or proposing)...not just one thing...and look at the entire body of policies and run that up against the accusations people are making and labels their claiming.

Select "facts".

Where's Bush 41? Carter?

Cute quip.

It's addressing one subject!

Yes, and it's implying that people are labeling him in a particular way because of only one subject. That's an error. A big one.

Not only that, but it focuses on only a single tax (top marginal income tax rate). There's no mention of capital gains tax rate going up, or the tax for people who don't buy health insurance. Or any other taxes. The whole cartoon is silly and stupid. It's a typical liberal tactic. Focus on one specific thing, ignore all the other crap that's going on and assume that that one thing is what everyone it up in arms about. Morons.

They're all fixated on who occupied the Oval Orifice. As I've stated many times in the past, it's a simplistic and meaningless comparison, and appropriate only for the simpleminded. The "chart" is a cartoon, devoid of any meaningful information.


Found 'em. Kennedy, and Truman too:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshg...rent+taxes.gif

Note the rapid rates of increase under LBJ, Carter, and Clinton.

As I've said the President is of little consequence. What matters is not the top tax rate - which no one pays anyway - it's not even taxes collected as %GDP as depicted in the chart above. As you see, for the past 60 years it's remained within a small range no matter what the top tax rate happens to be. What matters is GDP itself, an indicator of prosperity as well as predictor of total Treasury revenue.

What I don't understand about you socialists is if you want higher tax revenue to support your big fat government ideas, why do you support high tax rates?
If anything, the two bear an inverse relationship to one another.

Taxing an activity results in less of it. Higher taxes equates to less GDP. Tax policy that encourages economic growth resulting in increased GDP is the only way out of our present economic mess.

Only someone with that mindset would see it that way.

I think what you mean is that only someone who saw the cartoon would it it that way.

Now...back to those modest tax increases:

Business Income to Shoulder Over a Third of Tax Increase on Top Earners: