%u2022 a 75% subsidy for Congress
%u2022 the "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude
%u2022 the over 1,800 exemptions given to businesses, many to union members
%u2022 lies like Obamacare will "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year"
%u2022 those who don't see the correlation between classifying 30 hours as full-time and employers cutting worker's hours below that number
It makes me sick to think that those of us who have made correct choices all our lives, done without when we couldn't afford and worked hard to get where we are, basically have to support the other half of the population.
It's not enough that we provide an ungodly amount of entitlements, the kicker is you're branded as uncaring if you dare question it, despite what you do in your personal lives through church or other means.
Where else in life do you get so much with no strings attached? I'm subject to drug testing, but if you ask someone on welfare to be drug tested, you're discriminating. Say that voters should have to have a photo ID and you're racist. Politicians must cater to the tens of millions of illegals if they want to have a chance at getting elected. Somehow it's unAmerican to actually follow the law and come to this country legally the way my wife and her family did. Asking people to work hard and better themselves is out-of-line.
I've said it once and I'll say it again - except for the very small percentage of people who are truly unable to work, all handouts need to come with stipulations. You can volunteer, clean up the community, go to a vocational school, but you have to do something. If you want to have kids, then you better be sure you can provide for them. The government is not your nanny. If you can't feed, clothe, provide shelter and be an involved parent, then you should not have kids. And there definitely should not be any incentives for you to do so.
But, even good people often suffer hardships. So let the programs help those TEMPORARILY when they are in need. And yes, everything has a price. I don't care how well-intentioned an entitlement is, it costs boatloads of money.
In case you haven't noticed, the United States is 17 Trillion in debt, a number most people can't even begin to grasp. We're currently borrowing 57 cents for every dollar spent. There's no way this can continue. There's no amount of taxes that can cover our asses. Someone has to make the unpopular choice and deal with it or we can just wait until everything collapses.
My distain is not limited to the Democrats. There are many Republicans who are equally guilty of putting their political careers ahead of the people they are supposed to serve. I pray that one day we will have Congressional term limits, put an end to the influence of lobbyists and somehow rebuild our country.
Rant done.
Well said.
But you can't possibly have ideas contrary to the extreme left, you provided facts, which I've been told people who don't support the left leaning view don't like /s
Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.
FUCKING leeches. . . Is that better?
Once again, your language explains your education level and probably your social economic level too. I recommend you clean your mouth up and then maybe someone will hire you.
Once again, your language explains your education level and probably your social economic level too. I recommend you clean your mouth up and then maybe someone will hire you.
Instead of complaining about his language, why not address the facts he presented? Here, I"ll post them for you again:
Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.
Once again, your language explains your education level and probably your social economic level too. I recommend you clean your mouth up and then maybe someone will hire you.
I admit to being frustrated with this manufactured crisis by those who claim to love this country. As I recall, VP Cheney used some pretty salty language on the Senate floor in speaking to Sen Leahy. I also remember GW Bush calling someone a "major league asshole" on the campaign trail.
I respect your right to watch PG films and to listen only to "clean" songs, but some of us adults use "bad" words when frustrated. Like, say, when a political party tried to circumvent the Constitutional process by shutting down the government to the cost of $300 million lost by the economy per day. All because they can't win at the ballot box.
Sorry to offend your tender eyes and ears. So please lay down on the fainting couch for a minute to gather your thoughts before addressing the actual issues.
I knew that Rush Limbaugh uses Macs. I guess I didn't expect him to be quite so active on this forum, though.
Well, I got news for you.
Plenty of different kinds of people use Macs and Apple products. George Bush used Macs too.
Meanwhile, Obama has trouble operating an iPhone.
On the campaign trail, President Obama is constantly talking about the importance of technology, but he met his match in an iPhone Sunday.
The president had stopped at a campaign office in Port St. Lucie, Fla., to thank volunteers. Then, for the cameras, Mr. Obama was supposed to call two campaign workers who were out working on his behalf.
But when White House trip director Marvin Nicholson handed the president his personal iPhone, Mr. Obama couldn’t get it to work. A reporter who witnessed the scene said the president looked “befuddled.”
“It’s not clear he knows how to dial on an iPhone,” the reporter wrote in a pool report.
Finally, Mr. Obama said, “Oh, I got to dial it in. Hold on, hold on. I can do this. See, I still have a BlackBerry.”
Most of you haters on here are simply uneducated about what you hate. Learn the facts about the ACA before spouting off against 30 million people receiving affordable healthcare. Folks like you are what is wrong with this country
Have no problems with finding a way to allow everyone to be insured. Would love to find out how it will impact me specifically, but, alas, site never lets me finish the registration process. That's ok, I'll keep trying and form my opinion once I have the facts for my situation.
4) Insurance premiums in employer-based health care (which is all I have data for; but that accounts for a vast proportion of the private health insurance in this country) have risen substantially faster than inflation in the past couple of decades. In 2012 and 2013 -- since Obamacare was passed and then became law -- the growth has actually slowed!
Look, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
Well, like others have said, it isn't in effect yet, so if it can't be responsible for premiums increasing, it likewise can't be responsible for them decreasing. I will find the link and edit this comment after, but I thought I read something this week about the reduction being more attributable to the poor economy thank any policy.
But bravo for blaming both parties. That is a start.
The Constitution does provide a mechanism to enumerate rights:
The enumerated rights are made in amendments to the Constitution. The first 10 amendments are the ones the founding fathers felt were most important for a start:
And the fact that health care is not in the constitution and is a state right is exactly the point the media never let Romney make. He was not against the idea of the ACA, he was against the idea that it was a federal issue. Huge difference that no one seemed to care about.
That's a myth, since they pay property and sales tax. But I'm pretty sure they don't use the courts, the military, the police, the firefighters, the roads, the educational system, etc to the same extent that these billionaire leeches do.
Are you saying billionaire leeches use more public schools and other services than the commoner? Um, have to disagree with you there.
2. The ACA is essentially the same thing that Romney put into place in MA a number of years ago - with one major exception. ACA focuses on cost reduction while Romney's plan did not - so ACA is arguably more conservative.
4. In case someone has forgotten, Congress actually passed the law with the participation of the GOP. In spite of all the whining, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of most of the plan. So why the complaining?
It's all a big political game for the GOP. They passed the plan 3 years ago and now want to fight it - simply for political reasons.
Couple counter-points.
2. As I stated above, Massachusetts (my home state) is just that, a state (well, technically a Commonwealth, but why split hairs?). The PPACA is a federal program. Not surprising that a Republican (which Romney is actually far from ultra conservative) would favor something at a state level, but oppose it at a federal level. It is in no way hypocrisy, flip flopping, or anything other than completely acceptable and Constitutionalist.
4. Yes, it is nothing more than a political game, but not just on the GOP side. And, to be fair to the GOP, they have been fighting is since it was introduced, this is nothing new.
I just heard this about the complete insanity of Government law writers and regulators...
This is Medicare Law (about 1/5 the size of Obamacare Law):
It seems there is a rising health care hazard caused by belligerent [S]ducks[/S] turkeys attacking people -- so much so that the Feds saw the need to regulate the amount a doctor could bill Medicare depending on the type of [S]duck[/S] turkey attack... some [S]ducks[/S] turkeys bite people while others merely peck people.
The Feds, in all their wisdom, set up a different Medicare reimbursement rate for [S]duck[/S] turkey biters than for [S]duck[/S] turkey peckers...
I just heard this about the complete insanity of Government law writers and regulators...
This is Medicare Law (about 1/5 the size of Obamacare Law):
It seems there is a rising health care hazard caused by belligerent ducks attacking people -- so much so that the Feds saw the need to regulate the amount a doctor could bill Medicare depending on the type of duck attack... some ducks bite people while others merely peck people.
The Feds, in all their wisdom, set up a different Medicare reimbursement rate for duck biters than for duck peckers...
In the words of Yakov Smirnoff: "The USA -- what a wonderful country!"
There are also diagnosis codes (ICD-9,ICD-10, which Medicare bases reimbursement on) for collision with a space craft, amount other things. Can't be too careful!
Feels like iPhone activations right after a new model comes out. They said on the news that they were getting millions of hits in the first 90 minutes in single states.
Have no problems with finding a way to allow everyone to be insured. Would love to find out how it will impact me specifically, but, alas, site never lets me finish the registration process. That's ok, I'll keep trying and form my opinion once I have the facts for my situation.
Well, like others have said, it isn't in effect yet, so if it can't be responsible for premiums increasing, it likewise can't be responsible for them decreasing. I will find the link and edit this comment after, but I thought I read something this week about the reduction being more attributable to the poor economy thank any policy.
But bravo for blaming both parties. That is a start.
And the fact that health care is not in the constitution and is a state right is exactly the point the media never let Romney make. He was not against the idea of the ACA, he was against the idea that it was a federal issue. Huge difference that no one seemed to care about.
Are you saying billionaire leeches use more public schools and other services than the commoner? Um, have to disagree with you there.
Couple counter-points.
2. As I stated above, Massachusetts (my home state) is just that, a state (well, technically a Commonwealth, but why split hairs?). The PPACA is a federal program. Not surprising that a Republican (which Romney is actually far from ultra conservative) would favor something at a state level, but oppose it at a federal level. It is in no way hypocrisy, flip flopping, or anything other than completely acceptable and Constitutionalist.
4. Yes, it is nothing more than a political game, but not just on the GOP side. And, to be fair to the GOP, they have been fighting is since it was introduced, this is nothing new.
Are you suggesting that billionaires don't benefit from a taxpayer-educated workforce, taxpayer-funded police force, taxpayer-funded roads for customers & employees, taxpayer-funded military, etc?
The fact is that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. Which is fine, as long as they are paying their fair share and not stashing their money in offshore accounts.
Are you suggesting that billionaires don't benefit from a taxpayer-educated workforce, taxpayer-funded police force, taxpayer-funded roads for customers & employees, taxpayer-funded military, etc?
The fact is that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. Which is fine, as long as they are paying their fair share and not stashing their money in offshore accounts.
Let's keep going round and round on this, shall we? Billionaires benefit from an educated population, yes. But that is a long way to go to try and make your point. You can't honestly believe that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. The only way your argument works is if they are the ONLY ones to benefit. Guess what? They aren't. We all do. I benefit from the billionaire starting a company, and employing me. The Fed benefits by getting taxes from the billionaire on his income, from his business income, from my income (money that was taxed when the billionaire earned it, but that's ok, let's keep taxing it every time it changes hands). Then, I spend that money. I pay taxes on the purchase. And the business owner pays taxes on that income. Round and round we go.
And please stop with the "fair share" party line. It has been stated many times, and even in this thread (Post #97) that people like Warren Buffet, who claim to want to pay more taxes, that they aren't paying their "fair share" have zero obligation to take every deduction allowed by the laws we have in place. They are more than able to claim the standard deduction. Yet it would not rile up the masses. So that point not only makes their argument moot, it does the same for anyone who follows suit.
Want to talk about "fair share"? Let's not even count the people who pay zero income taxes. What about those that receive a refund in excess of the amount they paid in? If you want fair, you must be for a flat tax, or a consumption based tax, correct?
No, I doubt you are, because then the political agenda of class warfare goes away.
Medicare’s actuarial experts confirm that the lion’s share of the slowdown in health spending could be chalked up to slow growth in the economy and greater cost-sharing. As AEI scholar Jim Capretta pithily put it:
An important takeaway from these new projections is that the CMS Office of the Actuary findsno evidence to link the 2010 health care law to the recent slowdown in health care cost escalation. Indeed, the authors of the projections make it clear that the slowdown is not out of line with the historical link between health spending growth and economic conditions (emphasis added).
".... Sebelius went on to compare the instances of motion sickness caused by iOS7 to the wrenching stomach upset caused in some citizens by the very idea of government helping citizens get health care."
People also hated the idea of Medicare when it was announced.
Some people hated the idea of iOS7 when they saw those first Kandy Crush icons.
People hate the _idea_ of radically altering what they already know.
Whether they love or hate it once they experience it, is another question.
People on crack have a hard time giving it up, too.
I benefit from the billionaire starting a company, and employing me. The Fed benefits by getting taxes from the billionaire on his income, from his business income, from my income (money that was taxed when the billionaire earned it, but that's ok, let's keep taxing it every time it changes hands). Then, I spend that money. I pay taxes on the purchase. And the business owner pays taxes on that income. Round and round we go.
It's too bad that you haven't had the opportunity to understand how this system works. All money that a business pays to employees are not double taxed, as you claim. The salary paid to employees are a tax deduction! If the owner also takes a salary, it's also a tax deduction for the company. It's part of the operating costs. Business are get taxed on the profit, not revenue. Those salaries then have income taxes. Maybe when you start your own business, you will get to learn more about this instead of sitting in front of your TV all day long watch Fox "News" and getting mad at the world. Sales taxes are completely different and are typically local taxes.
I admit to being frustrated with this manufactured crisis by those who claim to love this country. As I recall, VP Cheney used some pretty salty language on the Senate floor in speaking to Sen Leahy. I also remember GW Bush calling someone a "major league asshole" on the campaign trail.
I respect your right to watch PG films and to listen only to "clean" songs, but some of us adults use "bad" words when frustrated. Like, say, when a political party tried to circumvent the Constitutional process by shutting down the government to the cost of $300 million lost by the economy per day. All because they can't win at the ballot box.
Sorry to offend your tender eyes and ears. So please lay down on the fainting couch for a minute to gather your thoughts before addressing the actual issues.
I didn't say I was offended. I said it shows your education level. Very few successful people in life use that word in public. With respect to the issues, you have been provided the facts and you choose 3rd grade arguments that fall flat on their face when confronted with history books and facts.
ha! If the government designed a smartphone it would cost $10,000 and have only a few crappy apps and two hours of battery life.
And the hard working folks would have to buy two. One for themselves, and one for a irresponsible liberal who WON'T (not can't) provide for themselves. Why not make it an entitlement. :-)
Comments
Well said.
But you can't possibly have ideas contrary to the extreme left, you provided facts, which I've been told people who don't support the left leaning view don't like /s
Let me try again:
Mitt Romney paid ZERO taxes for years. Paul Ryan was only able to attend college due to Social Security survival benefits (something he's ostensibly against. . at least, for everybody but him). Cheney parlayed his government experience into being CEO for Halliburton, which subsists almost entirely on overcharging taxpayers.
FUCKING leeches. . . Is that better?
Once again, your language explains your education level and probably your social economic level too. I recommend you clean your mouth up and then maybe someone will hire you.
Instead of complaining about his language, why not address the facts he presented? Here, I"ll post them for you again:
I admit to being frustrated with this manufactured crisis by those who claim to love this country. As I recall, VP Cheney used some pretty salty language on the Senate floor in speaking to Sen Leahy. I also remember GW Bush calling someone a "major league asshole" on the campaign trail.
I respect your right to watch PG films and to listen only to "clean" songs, but some of us adults use "bad" words when frustrated. Like, say, when a political party tried to circumvent the Constitutional process by shutting down the government to the cost of $300 million lost by the economy per day. All because they can't win at the ballot box.
Sorry to offend your tender eyes and ears. So please lay down on the fainting couch for a minute to gather your thoughts before addressing the actual issues.
I knew that Rush Limbaugh uses Macs. I guess I didn't expect him to be quite so active on this forum, though.
Well, I got news for you.
Plenty of different kinds of people use Macs and Apple products. George Bush used Macs too.
Meanwhile, Obama has trouble operating an iPhone.
On the campaign trail, President Obama is constantly talking about the importance of technology, but he met his match in an iPhone Sunday.
The president had stopped at a campaign office in Port St. Lucie, Fla., to thank volunteers. Then, for the cameras, Mr. Obama was supposed to call two campaign workers who were out working on his behalf.
But when White House trip director Marvin Nicholson handed the president his personal iPhone, Mr. Obama couldn’t get it to work. A reporter who witnessed the scene said the president looked “befuddled.”
“It’s not clear he knows how to dial on an iPhone,” the reporter wrote in a pool report.
Finally, Mr. Obama said, “Oh, I got to dial it in. Hold on, hold on. I can do this. See, I still have a BlackBerry.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/9/tech-challenge-obama-has-trouble-iphone/#ixzz2gWQiyCKj
Have no problems with finding a way to allow everyone to be insured. Would love to find out how it will impact me specifically, but, alas, site never lets me finish the registration process. That's ok, I'll keep trying and form my opinion once I have the facts for my situation.
Well, like others have said, it isn't in effect yet, so if it can't be responsible for premiums increasing, it likewise can't be responsible for them decreasing. I will find the link and edit this comment after, but I thought I read something this week about the reduction being more attributable to the poor economy thank any policy.
But bravo for blaming both parties. That is a start.
And the fact that health care is not in the constitution and is a state right is exactly the point the media never let Romney make. He was not against the idea of the ACA, he was against the idea that it was a federal issue. Huge difference that no one seemed to care about.
Are you saying billionaire leeches use more public schools and other services than the commoner? Um, have to disagree with you there.
Couple counter-points.
2. As I stated above, Massachusetts (my home state) is just that, a state (well, technically a Commonwealth, but why split hairs?). The PPACA is a federal program. Not surprising that a Republican (which Romney is actually far from ultra conservative) would favor something at a state level, but oppose it at a federal level. It is in no way hypocrisy, flip flopping, or anything other than completely acceptable and Constitutionalist.
4. Yes, it is nothing more than a political game, but not just on the GOP side. And, to be fair to the GOP, they have been fighting is since it was introduced, this is nothing new.
This is Medicare Law (about 1/5 the size of Obamacare Law):
It seems there is a rising health care hazard caused by belligerent [S]ducks[/S] turkeys attacking people -- so much so that the Feds saw the need to regulate the amount a doctor could bill Medicare depending on the type of [S]duck[/S] turkey attack... some [S]ducks[/S] turkeys bite people while others merely peck people.
The Feds, in all their wisdom, set up a different Medicare reimbursement rate for [S]duck[/S] turkey biters than for [S]duck[/S] turkey peckers...
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/312451-citing-turkeys-house-republican-seeks-to-change-medicare-policy
In the words of Yakov Smirnoff: "The USA -- what a wonderful country!"
Edit: My bad... I corrected it above it wasn't [S]ducks[/S], rather turkeys. IDK, but there may be different regulations for ducks!
Are you suggesting that billionaires don't benefit from a taxpayer-educated workforce, taxpayer-funded police force, taxpayer-funded roads for customers & employees, taxpayer-funded military, etc?
The fact is that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. Which is fine, as long as they are paying their fair share and not stashing their money in offshore accounts.
Are you suggesting that billionaires don't benefit from a taxpayer-educated workforce, taxpayer-funded police force, taxpayer-funded roads for customers & employees, taxpayer-funded military, etc?
The fact is that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. Which is fine, as long as they are paying their fair share and not stashing their money in offshore accounts.
Let's keep going round and round on this, shall we? Billionaires benefit from an educated population, yes. But that is a long way to go to try and make your point. You can't honestly believe that the wealthy disproportionately use our public resources. The only way your argument works is if they are the ONLY ones to benefit. Guess what? They aren't. We all do. I benefit from the billionaire starting a company, and employing me. The Fed benefits by getting taxes from the billionaire on his income, from his business income, from my income (money that was taxed when the billionaire earned it, but that's ok, let's keep taxing it every time it changes hands). Then, I spend that money. I pay taxes on the purchase. And the business owner pays taxes on that income. Round and round we go.
And please stop with the "fair share" party line. It has been stated many times, and even in this thread (Post #97) that people like Warren Buffet, who claim to want to pay more taxes, that they aren't paying their "fair share" have zero obligation to take every deduction allowed by the laws we have in place. They are more than able to claim the standard deduction. Yet it would not rile up the masses. So that point not only makes their argument moot, it does the same for anyone who follows suit.
Want to talk about "fair share"? Let's not even count the people who pay zero income taxes. What about those that receive a refund in excess of the amount they paid in? If you want fair, you must be for a flat tax, or a consumption based tax, correct?
No, I doubt you are, because then the political agenda of class warfare goes away.
Oh, I found that article I mentioned earlier.
Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four
Medicare’s actuarial experts confirm that the lion’s share of the slowdown in health spending could be chalked up to slow growth in the economy and greater cost-sharing. As AEI scholar Jim Capretta pithily put it:
Threads like these make me glad I'm not in Marvin's shoes.
".... Sebelius went on to compare the instances of motion sickness caused by iOS7 to the wrenching stomach upset caused in some citizens by the very idea of government helping citizens get health care."
People also hated the idea of Medicare when it was announced.
Some people hated the idea of iOS7 when they saw those first Kandy Crush icons.
People hate the _idea_ of radically altering what they already know.
Whether they love or hate it once they experience it, is another question.
People on crack have a hard time giving it up, too.
It's unfortunate that, even here, right wing ignorance is alive and well.
I benefit from the billionaire starting a company, and employing me. The Fed benefits by getting taxes from the billionaire on his income, from his business income, from my income (money that was taxed when the billionaire earned it, but that's ok, let's keep taxing it every time it changes hands). Then, I spend that money. I pay taxes on the purchase. And the business owner pays taxes on that income. Round and round we go.
It's too bad that you haven't had the opportunity to understand how this system works. All money that a business pays to employees are not double taxed, as you claim. The salary paid to employees are a tax deduction! If the owner also takes a salary, it's also a tax deduction for the company. It's part of the operating costs. Business are get taxed on the profit, not revenue. Those salaries then have income taxes. Maybe when you start your own business, you will get to learn more about this instead of sitting in front of your TV all day long watch Fox "News" and getting mad at the world. Sales taxes are completely different and are typically local taxes.
I admit to being frustrated with this manufactured crisis by those who claim to love this country. As I recall, VP Cheney used some pretty salty language on the Senate floor in speaking to Sen Leahy. I also remember GW Bush calling someone a "major league asshole" on the campaign trail.
I respect your right to watch PG films and to listen only to "clean" songs, but some of us adults use "bad" words when frustrated. Like, say, when a political party tried to circumvent the Constitutional process by shutting down the government to the cost of $300 million lost by the economy per day. All because they can't win at the ballot box.
Sorry to offend your tender eyes and ears. So please lay down on the fainting couch for a minute to gather your thoughts before addressing the actual issues.
I didn't say I was offended. I said it shows your education level. Very few successful people in life use that word in public. With respect to the issues, you have been provided the facts and you choose 3rd grade arguments that fall flat on their face when confronted with history books and facts.
ha! If the government designed a smartphone it would cost $10,000 and have only a few crappy apps and two hours of battery life.
And the hard working folks would have to buy two. One for themselves, and one for a irresponsible liberal who WON'T (not can't) provide for themselves. Why not make it an entitlement. :-)