Dan D:

The article is not from Money Magazine. It was written for Fortune Magazine.

Like I said, tunnel vision.

Dan D:

"Fake conservatives"? That's a first.

The paragraph you were referring to above is a reason why government programs are so difficult to end once they are in place. It is not a defense for keeping dysfunctional programs, it's an explanation why these programs continue beyond their usefulness. Especially if the people who want these programs are your constituents.

I think your problem is that you have such conservative tunnel vision you can't see or understand anything outside of it. You seem to be a complete black or white thinker, I've known a lot of conservatives who are. That's why you have trouble understanding people who aren't like you, esp. those of us who realize that a lot of life's problems fall into a gray area that require original and creative thought to solve. Conservatives seem to live by a predetermined blueprint. If a problem is not on the blueprint, you simply don't deal with it. I really think this is part of the reason conservatives and liberals have such a hard time understanding each other.

You are completely wrong in how you have interpreted my comments. But I'm letting it go, because I believe you lack the capacity to understand it any other way.

wt

I agreed with the first paragraph, the second is what is off base, it contradicts the first and is the root cause that people do nothing. This is what I was referring to.

"The problem is, once a program is in place, the people who have grown to depend on it do not want to see it ended, even if the program is inefficient and isn't working as intended, or in the case of agricultural subsidies, the people who these programs were intended to help don't need the help anymore but refuse to give up the freebies. Who would?"

And you amplified it on your latest post. I have not time for "fake conservatives".

And find me the financial statements on the USPS. I tried, could not find them. I do not care what Money magazine says, a source for ignorant people, not a credible financial journal.

Dan D:

Ok, so here is my post of April 28 12:48 PM:

"No, I am not in favor of all government programs. I believe a lot of them probably should be scaled back and eventually abolished, only keeping those that are really deemed necessary. You just want to eliminate all government programs across the board, that's what I don't favor. I believe this would be destructive to our society, that we have to choose carefully which programs to end and also where to invest future $ for social programs. Government programs and capitalism can coexist, it's been doing so in the U.S. for decades already. I think the best systems have elements of both.

The problem is, once a program is in place, the people who have grown to depend on it do not want to see it ended, even if the program is inefficient and isn't working as intended, or in the case of agricultural subsidies, the people who these programs were intended to help don't need the help anymore but refuse to give up the freebies. Who would?"

So please point out where I am "going off"? Where is the "ranting"?

This is the comment that you said sounded like you could have made it. So are you accusing YOURSELF of going off and ranting too?

You are seriously confused, dude.

And regarding the P.O., you really don't know as much about a lot of things as you like to pretend. So now your problem with the P.O. is that even tho it's been successfully self-sustaining for over two decades, you KNOW it will never pay back the money it is currently borrowing from the Fed. You base a lot of your opinions on your pessimistic visions of the future rather than current reality. Here's a start on current reality. For maximum understanding, read past the first paragraph:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/03/news/companies/usps_postal_service_privatize.fortune/

My entire point about government programs that you continually miss is that government programs are not solely a LIBERAL problem. Many conservative, Republican, red-as-you-can-get states benefit from government handouts and lobby frantically against losing them, even when these programs are no longer working as intended. Case in point: agricultural subsidies. The people fighting to keep these are not LIBERALS! And they don't need the subsidies, it's just free money from the government. CONSERVATIVES fight tooth and nail against losing unnecessary government handouts paid for by U.S. taxpayers. This is an AMERICAN problem, not just a liberal one, and won't be solved by getting rid of liberals or liberal policies in government. Republicans love government programs and establish them too. They just do it for a different class of people.

But take heart! Obama addressed the waste of agricultural subsidies during his campaign. This corporate welfare program will at some point be under fire, and then you can watch the Republican lawmakers and their lobbyists GO NUTS in opposition. That should be fun.

This is fun, too: regarding your comment about the USPS being a dinosaur, perhaps it is, just like everything else in our Constitution. That's right, the P.O. was one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, empowers the government "to establish post offices and post roads." And despite this, it receives no public funding and must be self-sustaining. Dinosaur, indeed.

JQP,

As to roads, I disaggree. Take the Eisenhower. The road was rebuilt around 1983 to 1985 (excluding Ryan's moving of the Hillside Strangler) and has was designed for a 50 year life. We are making the mid stream maintenance. Same for the Tollways. Same for DuPage County.

If you want a higher standard or are their deficiencies, sure, then we could spend more. But in general, we are providing what we can afford, not leaving behing billions of dollars in deficits.

Now there are pockets in this country where infrastructure is wearing out, but I think the funding in the last ten years has addressed that. Also, the costs have not skyrocked like other areas.

And WT, keep your ranting. The post office never pays back its debts. (At least they do not lie about it like GM!!). They waste billions and it is gone. Don't make such silly comments. And yes, they are a dinasour. Just like the horse and buggy. Except we have NOT restructured them yet.

And you really missed my point about the "poor farms." You chided me against such a deplorable concept. My point is that many elderly despite social security (or maybe its inadequacies) and other factors end up "poor." Martin Apartments and the CHA Senior Apartments have waiting lists. But they are not tenaments with broken windows. They are good poor farms.

And to your ranting, I was referring to your post ofApril 28, 2010 12:48 PM A great start, but then ended in you can't do anything about it and then your later posts.

By the way, there is one government program that does well, the Department of Agriculture cafeteria. The best place for lunch near the mall!!

See Ya!

Dan D,

Roads vs. Social Security is not really a very good comparison, as we don't project the costs of road maintenance 40 years into the future. For that matter, I've heard time and again over the past few years that our infrastructure is in need of some pretty extensive repairs, and that current funding levels are nowhere near the level to meet this need, so I wouldn't say that this is a good example of a program that pays for itself.

I'm not going to jump into the debate about Obama, as past experience has taught me that people on both sides rarely budge from their starting positions. And I am not any different from anyone else here in that respect.

-JQP

Dan D:

"But notice that she went off later. No levity whatsover."

Went off where? Reality check: no posts to not Shakespeare. I must have gone off in your dreams.

I've made the above statement about social programs in the past, you've just ignored them. You've always been more focused on railing on the nanny state than anything else.

I don't see how the P.O. is not a good example. Your answer was to turn it over to the private sector. You weren't aware this was done over 25 years ago, and it's been doing just fine in the private sector all this time competing against the other players in the field such as UPS, Fed Ex and DHL. The problems the P.O. is having now are a result of changes in technology that are reducing its market. Like this never happens in other businesses? I know you would probably love to see the P.O. fail more than anything, since you seem to get off on the failure of others, but chances are they will restructure, pay back their loan and go on, just like other businesses do all the time. Bummer.

And if Martin Avenue Apartments and Chicago Public Housing are poor farms, then you should be HAPPY! Yay, you get the satisfaction of seeing people who fail live in misery after all! So how is this a problem?

JQP

I think a program that can be self sustaining. We fund roads with road taxes, drivers fees, and other charges. We don't spend more than we have avaiable.

In contrast, Social Security is not actuarially sound, it should be. So we pay out too high of benefits than the funding mechanism provides.

Does every program need to be perfect? no. Can see sustain the OBE deficits of $2 trillion per year? He criticized Bush's $150 billion deficit (and his $900 Billion), then he proceeds to put us on a ruinous course.

Profit is never heard of in the government sector.

Dan D wrote,

You would have thought I said this. One caveat. I will be in favor of keeping ANY program that is working and financially viable. Here is the problem, name one.

How do you define "financially viable" when it comes to a government program, since these programs are not supposed to turn a profit?

-JQP

Bard,

YOu are correct. But notice that she went off later. No levity whatsover.

The following WT quote is interesting.

"No, I am not in favor of all government programs. I believe a lot of them probably should be scaled back and eventually abolished, only keeping those that are really deemed necessary. You just want to eliminate all government programs across the board,...The problem is, once a program is in place, the people who have grown to depend on it do not want to see it ended, even if the program is inefficient and isn't working as intended"

You would have thought I said this. One caveat. I will be in favor of keeping ANY program that is working and financially viable. Here is the problem, name one. WT's weak attempt with the Post Office is in MY view laughable. We should go to two to three day a week delivery. Let Fed Ex, UPS and the Internet deal with more immediate needs. When the post office fires half their staff, then it MIGHT break even.

So back to WT. What government programs work? The tests are provide services not avaiable in the private sector, and are financially viable. I would like to add not being a socialistic redistribution of wealth, but I think our country under OBE is socialist. I'll focus on the first two (by the way, fixing those destroyed the socialist Soviet Bloc!!). Social security could work, I outlined a plan. I do not object to the program, I object to its failure that will destroy our society. Same with OBECARE.

As to Poor Farms, WT everyone knows I initially raised it. They also know that you railed on the matter. But I will give you two examples of EXISTING POOR FARMS. Go check them out and report back. They are:

Martin Avenue Apartments
Chicago Public Housing Authority Senior Housing Programs

And to JQP, this is true in the private sector. GM, Citigroup. Companies that should have be put out of business. And many others. But they have been forced to eliminate ranks to survive. And just because some companies fail is not a reason for government to also fail.

By Dan D on March 23, 2010 8:25 AM

"But in general, government should build roads, run the military, house indigent people (WT's poor farms) . . ."

Oh, really Dan? MY poor farms? I copied this statement of yours from one of your first posts on this thread. The statement originated from YOU:

"If somebody opts out and fails, they should fail. Move to the poor farm like the old days, be denied health coverage if they exhausted their resources. That is what FAILURE means."

The POOR FARM is your solution to the uninsured, not mine. In addition, you said the poor should be denied health coverage if they exhaust their resources, which means they should be allowed to die untreated if they don't have money.

If you're going to make such outrageous statements, have the stones to own up to it. Don't try sticking it on someone else later. That's what cowards do.

Help me, Dan D. ----am I just getting soft, or for the first time ever does she sound sane on her post By What the? on April 28, 2010 12:48 PM ?

though, to be fair, she is still sure she knows exactly how oyu think and feel!

Dan D wrote:

Managers of government are more concerned with the number of direct reports to increase their salaries rather than being productive and providing all these critical services that only government can do. This is a plausible explanation why government has not become efficient like the private sector.

Really? Have you ever audited private companies?

Dan D:

No, I am not in favor of all government programs. I believe a lot of them probably should be scaled back and eventually abolished, only keeping those that are really deemed necessary. You just want to eliminate all government programs across the board, that's what I don't favor. I believe this would be destructive to our society, that we have to choose carefully which programs to end and also where to invest future $ for social programs. Government programs and capitalism can coexist, it's been doing so in the U.S. for decades already. I think the best systems have elements of both.

The problem is, once a program is in place, the people who have grown to depend on it do not want to see it ended, even if the program is inefficient and isn't working as intended, or in the case of agricultural subsidies, the people who these programs were intended to help don't need the help anymore but refuse to give up the freebies. Who would?

Oh No!

what the? shall ignore me because I call her on her ideaology as a far left progressive hack for the Democratic party.!

So she can ramble and make things up and pass her opinion as fact, but when she is called to answer for it she cries, picks up her ball, and goes wah, wah, wah all the way home!

Perhaps I need to send her a letter via USPS as it seems to be her speed ----- inefficient, over-priced, questionable talent, and paid for by others!

“Come, come, you wasp; i’ faith, you are too angry.”

WT You are all over the board.

Does a wrong program mean it should simply be maintained? Look at the Russians, they overthrew their socialism. The Chinese have effectively dropped their practice of Socialism except for "slave aspects" that keep down their opponents (otherwise referred to as human rights violations).

In summary, you like all this, I don't. We could eliminate at least $1 trillion if we simply got rid of wasted government programs. If that would happen, unemployment would be down to 4% (the people with no skills to work in a 21st century economy). If they learned, we would be at 0.

By Anonymous on April 26, 2010 10:14 PM

I will answer your question in two parts. First, I think government jobs need to be run like the Air Traffic Controllers of the FAA. They need a specific task and do it well. They know they are responsible for the safety of people.

But if you dig down into the bowls of government, you will find people who are simply making work. I use to audit governments. Two observations. One guy spent his whole day preparing a "cash position analysis". If what he was doing was based on solid numbers, it would have been useful. However, we discovered he made up two numbers, so the schedule was worthless. When he realized his job would come to an end, he declared exhaustion from his hard work and went on disability. Another guy was to maintain ledgers for certain activities. When we were checking on his progress, he had only compiled two months of information in 12 months. He too claimed disability.

Managers of government are more concerned with the number of direct reports to increase their salaries rather than being productive and providing all these critical services that only government can do. This is a plausible explanation why government has not become efficient like the private sector.

My second concern relates to programs that simply do not work. Many of them cited. We could fix social security. The government should set up a separate pension plan for these funds and not use it to pay for other government programs. Borrow the money at today's low rates to fully fund the program. Essentially, eliminate the Ponzi scheme. Have benefits tied to the performance of the fund. If it does not generate sufficient returns in a given year, then there would be no cost of living increases.

If the Social Security program was fully funded, people could opt to withdraw their funds. Just like people can take lump sum distributions from corporate pension plans. They could then manage their own money, but they would have to suffer the consequences.

And the taxes might have to be re calibrated to fund the program. As a starting point, I would fund benefits based on 9% of the contribution being applied to benefits and the other 3 to 4% being applied to fund the deficit that was not funded. If the deficit gets paid off in 50 years, then the tax could be cut or the benefits increased.

But in general, government should build roads, run the military, house indigent people (WT's poor farms), run the Central Bank (this has been one of the most successful programs, by the way--subject to one's position on asset bubbles), and courts (and others, these are the main items that come to my mind). If we eliminated the fluff, the GDP that is wasted on these other actions would make our economy the best in the world.

I corrected that. It was merely a mistake...

Anonymous on April 26, 2010 3:37 PM:

Yep, that certainly was the whole quote. But my understanding was that Obama was referring more to conservatives, not liberals. Conservatives are associated with Bible-thumping, gun-toting, anti-immigrant sentiments, not liberals. If I remember correctly, the right took this comment personally as well. Aren't they the ones that labeled Obama "elitist" for saying it?

Dan D:

You get confused because you're not paying attention. Let's try this again: The Post Office has been operating as a private entity in the private market since 1983. It is a quasi-governmental agency. There is oversight by the Fed, but it operates independently. The USPS relies only on the revenue generated by the sale of postage and services. The last taxpayer subsidy paid to the USPS was in 1984, it has been self-sustaining ever since. You can't turn the PO over to the private sector, IT ALREADY IS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. They even have overpaid CEOs receiving big compensation packages at the same time the post office has been losing money and trying to restructure. Sound familiar? Like GM and Goldman Sachs? It acts like every other big corporation. And as a big corporation, it's taking the same steps any other business would when faced with a loss of business. Get it now?

Same thing with my previous post about the article. You only focused on the word SOCIALISM, obviously missing the entire point, which is Americans are already very dependent on government programs, and many times they don't realize it is run by the government. Remember the infamously stupid Tea Party sign "Keep you government hands off my Medicare"!? Americans don't realize how much the government already handles. And as the Tea Partiers showed, people would go nuts if you tried to take these entitlements away. (If you were a Tea Partier, you would protest losing government entitlements while simultaneously protesting against socialist government programs. It's already been done.)

Socialism has been coexisting with capitalism in the U.S. FOR DECADES. These programs have been around so long that many people don't realize they are government programs, they just take them for granted. Reps used to be against Medicare, now they are one of the program's most vigorous defenders. Attacking Medicare or SS would be the kiss of death for any politician. Reps know this as well as Dems. So you can bitch about these programs as much as you want, Dan, they are not going anywhere. Americans have already shown that they want them. The problem is no one wants to pay for them; that is the disconnect. Get it now?

"All of the GOOD programs are bankrupt". What? You said insolvency made these programs a FAILURE, like the PO. Now they're "good"? Overlooking that contradiction, this is of course an erroneous generalization.

"Liberal ideas have never worked anywhere in the world. Look at Greece."

Look at Germany. Part of the EU too, the 3rd biggest economy on the planet. Another erroneous generalization. It's working in Germany very well indeed.

Question for Dan D.

You don't like Social Security. Medicare, the Postal Service, or agricultural subsidies. Is there any government plan or department you do think is needed or doing a good job?

What about the departments like the FDA, EPA, FAA or VA?

Or, the SEC or Mine Safety and Health Administration. Both have let this country down recently. Do we keep them or try something else?

Sorry I meant that Obama was not speaking of conservatives in general.

Not Shakespeare:

I'm going to start ignoring you now, because your last post was totally nuts. It sounds like ramblings from the rubber room.

Hope you feel better soon.

Here is the actual quote of what Obama said that What The referred to earlier
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/ 4th paragraph

When you read the quote in context, it is much different than the little tiny bit that What The pulled out. Obama is not speaking of liberals in general, but a very specific portion of the population who have had some rough times over the last couple decades - including during the Clinton era.

WT Says

"The USPS works very well... It is currently borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury to pay its deficits while it looks for other revenue sources and cuts costs, but it is not a black hole sucking in taxpayer money."

How can anyone even have a sane discussion with such contradictory comments? I was trying to find out the total losses of the post office. $2.6 billion in 2008, $9 billion in 2009.

These are staggering numbers. Why not just shut it down. Let the private sector figure out how to deliver mail. Or raise the cost of a stamp to $5 minimum. I read that 100 million trees are being cut down to send out junk mail. Where are the Greenies? They should have a policy if someone sends you a letter that you do not want, you can return it and the the party who sent it pays triple the 1st class rate. That would end junk mail.

Everything WT talks about costs everyone else BILLIONS. She likes living off our backs so she can mail a letter in Rome. I again see this as a foolish system.

All of the GOOD programs are bankrupt. Let's give the government more to destroy.

And to your point about health care, the current system will be gone by June 1, 2014. It simply cannot survive. I plan to drop all coverage and pay my people two times the penalty to game the system. Why bother carrying insurance? I have already been solicited by a company that will make sure all my employees get on the government plan BEFORE they have an issue and fund the cost with pre tax dollars. They claim $15,000 savings per employee. You only need insurance before you are admitted to a hospital. The company has 24 hour guaranteed insurance coverage, can't beat it.

Keep plugging on your Liberal ideas. They have never worked anywhere in the world. Look at Greece. Pat Quinn should take a field trip, he is next to be crucified.

OMG!

Alas! Poor what the? We know her all to well as a gabby void of intolerance of those who are not like her!

I guess earlier posts are true when they say what the? actually cannot read!

She proves this with her 4/26 1:07 am post where she says I am ”…not shy about my contempt for being taxed to provide for the less fortunate”

Her far-left partisanship and progressive dogma oozes through her attempts to redefine that which others actually say/post.

It is apparent that when others do not toe her ideological line, her first course of action is to attack them and attempt to marginalize them, usually through a gross misrepresentation of their true stance and argument.

Hey, by the way ---- has what the? ever answered the open questions on appropriate tax rates, or at what point people should be allowed to pay no taxes?

Of course not ---- she would actually have to stand up and be counted as an individual and couldn’t hide behind the talking points of the progressive left of the Democratic party.

Instead, she attacks and insults. Much easier than using her brain (??) and accepting that there are others with different viewpoints that are just as valid as her own.

Oh, she also subjectively makes up things about others because it fits her particular dogma. She just throws out crap like we “,,abhor spreading the wealth”, and “…pay for many "socialist" programs from which they benefit and enjoy”. So now she knows us, know how we spend our time, knows our tax returns and what we donate, etc., AND she is sure as to how the rest of us define social programs? Please grow up.

Let me close with a quote that fits the situation well:

“Come, come, you wasp; i’ faith, you are too angry.”

By the way, I was Anonymous on April 25, 2010 3:44 PM

For the record, I have been opposeed to Social Security since I began paying it in the 70's. The program was created as a fraud, Roosevelt and his devious Democratic cronies created a benefit that very few people would earn. The average life expectancy of a 40 year old worker was 64 years old. NO BENEFITS.

So put me in the crank column. Here is a program that a typical worker only gets back half of the payments he contributes. If Social Security would offer me a lump sum payment at 50% of the funds paid on my behalf plus 5% interest, I would take it in a second. Keep the other 50% for those who want socialism.

Imagine, if 30% of the people took this deal, the actuarial deficit would be reduced by at least 25%. The remaining 70% would have to contend with cuts to future benefits from the bankrupt plan.

And I feel that agricultural subsidies should be ended. At the same time, the government limits on where farmers can sell their output should be eliminated. If they want to sell to China at two times the government controlled price to keep the grain in the US, too bad.

These are fundamental differences of opinions. If all people are able to purchase goods in a REAL market, everyone benefits. I'll say it again, it would be great if the meidical insurance markets were opened up so we would have the choice of Geico, Progressive, All State, State Farm, Nationwide, Farmers, etc. competing for our business with quality coverage and low costs. By the way, in Florida or California, you cannot buy low cost housing insurance. The state created shared pools and companies left.

The WT's and the other Followers of Debs cite how government needs to protect people against themselves. That is what jail is for. People who violate societies laws do not deserve complete freedom. If you use your retirement fund (if Social Security was left to all people) for the wrong purpose, you are stealing from society.

But instead of dealing with the few that cannot deal with their own financial affairs, WT and her Fellow Followers of Debs restrict the freedom and choices of the other 90% of Americans.

Last question. The SEIU and Central States pension plans (Union Pension Plans) are so underfunded that they violate US Pension laws. When will the Justice department declare these plans insolvent, transfer them to PBCC, and the pensions for the union members (both active and retired) be cut by 75%? Or will OBE and his Followers of Deb BAILOUT this plan?

Lastly, to WT, your article points to the socialistic nature of our government. And you seem to be now admitting you are a socialist. Debs will be proud of you. As I have said, the Democratic Party of Jackson no longer exists in the US!!

So there we have it. First Ken lost his sanity, then his convictions, and now he's lost his . . . underwear! Ack!! I guess as long as you're shedding scruples, you may as well toss your dignity.

Oh, and FYI: that Limbaugh defense piece had nothing to do with anything. My comment simply was that he bragged about not giving one VOLUNTARY cent to the Haitian relief effort, and he didn't. Nothing more. It appears you've lost your buttinski reading ability too.

Dan D:

And you are back to trying to garner support through the use of snides "asides". Is it really that hard to stand on your own two feet?

I think you watched too many John Wayne westerns. People did help each other out, and it was reciprocal. They served as each other's safety nets, because that's all they had.

No one is being forced to buy health care insurance. Those who choose not to can pay the fine instead, and go blissfully on their way enjoying the benefits of a social program that they don't pay for, which is how Americans like their entitlements. This is why I think a public option will eventually be our only option. I don't necessarily want a public option, but I know that if given a choice between a government run program or going without that program entirely, Americans will choose the government program. We've been doing it for decades already. And that's why I believe all those Tea Partiers with signs that read "End socialism, keep your government hands off my Medicare" are complete and total morons. Forget about them forming a third party. They can't even form an intelligent opinion.

We will have to disagree, because I believe what you want would destroy the quality of life our country is known for. Look at the essay I referenced above and the short list of "socialist" programs that spreading the wealth supports. CAPITALISM PAYS FOR NONE OF THOSE THINGS. We have decided as a society that we want or need these services and chose a system where we let the government provide them and we provide the cash via taxes. That simply will never change, because that's how the majority of Americans like it.

I take exception to your comment earlier about the U.S. Post Office being a failure. The USPS works very well, I know because I use it to send letters and packages all over the globe, have for many years. Everything always gets there within the stated time frame and has never been lost or damaged (yet). Once I mailed a post card from Rome to a friend in Utah. It took nearly a month to get there. This is what I consider a failure. How is the reliable, efficient service the USPS provides a failure?

And you may not know this: In 1983, the USPS was reorganized into an independent organization. It became self-sufficient and has not directly received taxpayer dollars since. It was doing fine until mail volume began to decline due to increased usage of e-mail. It is currently borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury to pay its deficits while it looks for other revenue sources and cuts costs, but it is not a black hole sucking in taxpayer money. Changes in technology that are forcing the USPS to change its business model does not mean it is a failure. The USPS has existed in some form for over 200 years. It has succeeded very well indeed.

Regarding the "Bible hugging" as you call it, you're the one who considers yourself so religious that you feel you've been persecuted because of it. Conservatives don't own Christianity, far from it. I think you need to do less Bible hugging and more Bible reading. It appears to me that there is A LOT you have forgotten.

Anonymous on April 25, 2010 12:16 PM:

Ok, so Obama's comment doesn't apply to you. But it certainly does to many conservatives I have talked to. See Dan D., Ken and The Bard above. They are not shy about their contempt for being taxed to provide for the less fortunate in our country. They abhor "spreading the wealth" in any form, even if it is spread to pay for many "socialist" programs from which they benefit and enjoy, including but not limited to:

public and national parks
libraries
police
fire fighters (forest fire fighters also)
public schools
Unemployment insurance
Temporary disability insurance
National School Lunch Program
Federal flood insurance
Coast Guard
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA
Veterans Administration
Prison system
Roads and highways
Agricultural subsidies
U.S. post office
Etc., etc., etc.

I ran into this great essay which reflects a lot of not only what I've been saying but what I've been reading from many conservatives here:

http://www.occams-razor.info/2008/11/america_loves_socialism.html

"If programs that redistribute wealth are socialism then clearly Americans are comfortable with socialism. We could have eschewed taxes when our country was formed. We learned that it is hard to protect the nation by hoping many unpaid farm hands toting guns would show up when faced with insurrection or invasion. We form governments to handle common societal problems too big to be solved individually.

Moreover, if we are going to promote rugged individualism, what is with all those hundreds of billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies? Most of that money goes to predominantly red states. How many farmers who voted for McCain/Palin are anxious to lose their subsidies and take their chances in the free market?"

This next part talks of exactly what you've been saying, Dan, about how you believe only those who pay federal income taxes should be allowed to vote and your referring to all who don't pay taxes as "takers" and "deadbeats":

"No, when Republicans rail against expanding the size of government, what they really mean is they do not want to expand it for those they feel are not “enfranchised”, i.e. not “real” citizens (people like them). This means they are perfectly okay with programs like the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, but are leery about programs that, say, subsidize housing for the poor. The way Republicans see the world, the poor need to be more miserable, because if they are more miserable then they will have more incentive to escape from poverty through their own wits. Then maybe they will be part of the enfranchised class and get more of those nice federal benefits, like that sweet home mortgage interest deduction.

These “socialist” programs continue year after year because they are popular and they generally seem to work. If they were not they would be abolished. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Americans tend to like government programs in general. If there is a disconnect, it is that while Americans want these programs, they do not necessarily want to pay for them. This really is the root of our deficit spending problem."

Actually, wt, you have it wrong as usual. I did state that my time was to valuable to waste on you, but also included that a token comment would not take up to much of my valuable time. I realize that you have a huge reading comprehension problem, but do wish you could at least quote others right instead of getting it wrong all the time. I also realize that wish is a waste of time too, but I can still hope for some change.

Wt, when you answer my questions, I will answer yours. In the meantime, you will just have to fantasize about me wearing what ever turns you on the most. If you can't concentrate enough for that, just picture me wearing none at all. Hope that helps you out...

Hey, didn't Ken just state on the other thread that he had come to realize that his time was too valuable to waste on me? Yet here his is, submitting post after post to me again. Your convictions aren't really convictions if you can't stick to them, Ken.

And I have asked a very specific question that you never answered. I'll ask it again: boxers or briefs?

WT as usual skirts the basic issues, now hugging the Bible in doing so.

"What you forget about "rugged individualism" is that when we were an agricultural society, people helped each other out A LOT. They had to depend on each other to survive."

You watched too much John Boy as a child. People were indvidualists. If there was cooperation, it had to generally be reciprocated. People lived off the land and tried to barter for what they could not produce. The barn raising were limited to specific societies (Quakers, I think) and were the exception rather than the rule. Not because people were mean, rather, they were simply trying to survive for themselves.

And even in John Boy's world, if a person did not produce, they were kicked out of the society, go somewhere else to beg (generally the big cities where they slept in the streets. They were not retained in the agricultural areas.

But instead of being rude to myself and others, just accept that fact that we disagree. I do not believe in government, you do. Too bad we can't set up health care like in Chicago or my hometown today. You want the public option, you go to Cook County Hospital or the Public Health Clinic. If you purchased insurance or wanted to pay more, you can choose your own health provider. Just like every other aspect of life.

Then all these liberals will be singing a different song.

Instead we force all people, like Hiteler and Stalin, to join this public program. This is where I feel our rights are being eroded and freedom is disappearing.

The only governments that take these actions. SOCIALISTS.

And as to charity, Ken is totally right. Obe uses our money for what he wants to do. What a hypocrite.

And as to Brady (Bring back the workhouse), Brady had losses in his business for two years, he still paid more taxes over five years then Quinn did. This also illustrates something that people overlook. A business does not generate a smooth revenue stream, there are good and bad times. That is called risk. You can make huge amounts of money and then lose it.

Also BBTW, I was concerned that 47% did not pay taxes. Here is what is interesting. The increase from 35 (or 37%) is not because of the Stimulus bill. It is because of the 20% of the people who are under or unemployed. These people DO NOT WANT OBE HANDOUTS. They want to work and pay their taxes. There is hope.

Still, 35 to 38% is still too high, we will soon have to build opium dens for people who don't want to work (the Chinese might financne them for us since they have eradicated that dependency).

Not Shakespeare:

Thou be a shameless boil-brained dewberry, or ye hast drunk of Circe's cup.

I'm so flattered than Ken enjoys quoting me and always refers to my statements as "gems". They are. I bet he's keeping a journal of my quotes too. Awwww, that's so sweet!

"Obama was very right about conservative middle Americans: they're bitter people who cling to guns and religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them."

The statement above does make me angry.
As a mostly conservative, I do not support in the NRA's stance on guns. I think there should be more regulations than there are now. I am Christian but not to the point that I feel everyone else should believe the same as I do. My kids had quite a few Hindu and Muslim friends in high school who I absolutely loved. I sent my kids to a preschool in downtown Aurora in order to allow them to have a better view of the world and minorities than some of my neighbors seemed to have. My family gives about 25% to charities that we support. In addition, I spend over 20 hours a week volunteering at a few charities. One is a homeless shelter (6 hours a week), one is an organization that advocates for children with Down's Syndrome (10 hours a week - and no I do not have a child or a relative with DS, I just love the kids I get to spend time with each week), and I also spend anywhere from 4-8 hours week volunteering to help out a few elderly people who no longer get out mush - I run their errands, do their shopping and anything else I can help them with (yes my parents, but also their friends.) My kids are both going into social service for their careers. Both volunteer on a regular basis. (My son with the Boys and Girls Club in Champaign, my daughter with quite a few different organizations in Chicago.)

Am I bitter? Absolutely not. But does it make me angry when anyone makes a blanket statement like that? Absolutely. If that is truly what Obama thinks, then he has gone down considerably in my book. While I did not vote for him, I have never been anti-Obama. I have not liked all of his decisions or policies, but as a person, I never felt anything negative about him. He has a great wife, a great marriage, and two great kids. But statements like that are not going to ever do him any favors with those of us in the conservative community who may respect him as our president but not his polices.

Honestly What The, you do not do your causes any good with some of your more radical statements and you attacks. And yes others who attack you also do not do their stances any good either. If all of you would stick only to policy without any derogatory remarks toward other posters, then you all would be taken more seriously by those of us who rarely comment and mostly just read.

Alas, poor wt?, We know her, Ken! A chick of infinite progressiveness, of most excellent lack of data.

wt? endorsing violence as the acceptable action by a group, in this case a group SHE determines is not getting enough freebies from the rest of us.

What a hypocrite given her tired old red tirades against conservatives and TEAs as supporting violence (Remember the rumors of spit and the such).

Now she encourages her posse to take arms against a sea of perceived (in her smaller mind) troubles and by opposing, spend them?

Wackadoo World, baby!

Wt's increasingly rabid rants are pathetic, considering her claims can all be debunked with simple google searches. One of her latest gems:

Plus it's what Christ asked us to do, so it's a win-win. I see that we help ourselves by helping others, but you only talk of helping yourself. I really don't know what's happened to conservatives over the years that makes so many "religious" people so selfish, hateful and practically misanthropic, like you. Obama was very right about conservative middle Americans: they're bitter people who cling to guns and religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them. That sounds just like you, Dan.

First of all, I don't recall Christ asking us to form government programs to enable the welfare generations that exist here today.

Second, you have no idea what charitable donations Dan makes, wt, but if he follows the usual conservative pattern, he gives 30% more than you and your liberal ilk do. Google Democrat vs Republican charitable donations if you don't believe me. This includes the Obama's and the Biden's, both whom seem willing to redistribute everyone's money but their own (much like you wt;as that is the only conclusion I ca draw from your non-answer to my question).

Last but not least, wt, your claim that the poor in this country are going revolt if they don't get their handouts is one of the wackiest ideas you have espoused, and you have had some real winners in the past. Past history shows that even when the poor do rise up and riot, they only destroy their own neighborhoods, so no big loss except to the business owners willing to work there. After each riot, the poor seem amazed that a business owner doesn't re-open so they can destroy him once again in the next riot. Mostly, the poor won't rise up because they know they will meet many of those bitter gun clinging people protecting what they worked for that the government hasn't already taken away.

It's kind of sad, wt, that the words that you keep trying to put in Dan's mouth just highlight your usual vapidness instead of damning Dan.

Wonder if Dan D, thinks that Republican Gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady deserves the vote. He hasn't paid Federal income taxes since 2007. Dan D. says "No vote for this deadbeat!"

He must be really angry that the number of taxpayers paying no Federal income tax increased from 38% in 2008 to 47% this year, Why? Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. Brady took advantage of this credit to escape paying taxes. I'm sure he sent Obama a note thanking him.

And let's not forget senior citizens. Many of those with modest incomes not paying income taxes are the elderly. Can't let them vote either it seems.

Dan D:

And you hate the "nanny state" because it forces you to care for your fellow man, which you, as a "religious" conservative, couldn't care less about doing.

What you forget about "rugged individualism" is that when we were an agricultural society, people helped each other out A LOT. They had to depend on each other to survive. Families didn't let each other starve if there was a bad crop, they would share food; they'd help each other build, barn raisings and quilting were social events, and on and on. Communities were very interconnected and interdependent when this country was young, but there was more ruggedness than individualism. That's what you don't seem to understand. This interdependency was lost when towns became cities and the people too numerous. Charities then became more prevalent, but those alone weren't sufficient as the population grew, so government eventually took over assistance to the poor.

I admit that the government being a reliable provider has created a host of other problems, long-term dependency, fraud, on and on, and I'm not disputing the fact that this is neither desirable nor acceptable. But what you don't realize, and many other people do, is that a huge population, perhaps millions, of hungry, homeless, sick and destitute people would be an internal national security risk if not provided for. Desperate people do increasingly desperate things to survive, they wouldn't just sit quietly on a "poor farm" where you want to put them and stay out of your way until they die. They rebel and go after the "haves", which would be you. Look at history, look at present day third world countries. So while you may resent the nanny state, Dan, providing all people with the basic needs of survival is good public policy in that it keeps ALL OF US SAFER and maintains society. You may not like it, but wiser people know it is necessary, and because of this, social programs will never be totally eliminated, as much as you would like to do this. To suggest as much shows a complete lack of cause-and-effect common sense.

Plus it's what Christ asked us to do, so it's a win-win. I see that we help ourselves by helping others, but you only talk of helping yourself. I really don't know what's happened to conservatives over the years that makes so many "religious" people so selfish, hateful and practically misanthropic, like you. Obama was very right about conservative middle Americans: they're bitter people who cling to guns and religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them. That sounds just like you, Dan.

And Palin's coming to town? You must be thrilled! Yay, an afternoon of God and guns with Palin! Praise the Lord and pass the ammo!

It would be nice if Limbaugh would use his enormous fortune to hunt down people like wt who libel him, although he has stated it would be a waste of his time. It is quite obvious that wt never listens to Limbaugh, as even an occasional listener such as myself knows that wt's entire diatribe is a lie.

Limbaugh on Haiti:

"RUSH: I'm gonna respond to this absolute BS that I said don't donate. But, you know, I do not make this program about me. I try very hard not to make this program about me. So if I have time to deal with that, I will. I'm confident everybody in this audience knows what I said and what I didn't say. Even the Washington Post says without the context, "What Limbaugh said is horrible." All I said was, if you paid your income taxes, that's how you donate to government for aid, and sure enough, here comes Obama announcing $100 million from the government for aid to Haiti, fine and dandy. But, you paid for it, it's your taxes. All I said was if you're going to donate do it outside the government, pure and simple. I was attacked, folks, because I am the leading voice of mainstream conservative views, not for any other reason. And this outrage is totally feigned, just as Tony Blankley said, all this outrage at me is totally faked up. They know exactly what I said, and they know for a fact that I would never tell people not to donate to any charitable cause like this, so it is what it is.

Limbaugh is also listed as the 10th most generous celebrity donator, at 4.5 million a year for the past few years. Seems like the only person suffering from hubris is wt, who enjoys making up lies about those she hates.

This entire post is totally amazing. The policies of Obe and his Fellow Followers of Debs is the correct Christian act! For a party and group that openly oppose religious display in society. Give me a break. These posts are hypocritical.

WT characterizes my attitude as "rugged individualism". That is totally true. That has made this country a success. Imagine if the political philosophy was to say to Thomas Edison or Bill Gates you have to share the wealth. How about Warren Buffett--his preaches that OTHERS pay more in taxes, he pays less than his secretary. GREAT HYPOCRITES.

My point and those of other conservatives is clear. We object to the NANNY STATE. All of these programs to protect people from themselves are unnecessary. I simply feel that EVERY time government does something for us, we get nothing.

To repeat over and again, social security, medicare, medicaid, and the post office are total failures. The liberals will claim the military is a failure (the lack of weapons of mass destruction). Really, the intelligence sections are failures.

Now word is coming out that Obecare will cost trillions more, just like the OMB estimates for Medicare were off by factors of two to four. (OMB HAS BEEN ANOTHER GOVERNMENT FAILURE!!) And the 30 million that the plan will help will not help 15 million (the invincibles) because they will pay the penalty and use insurance only when they need something. Of the other 15 milllion, those who get the medical care free (3 million) will take it (although today 20% of Medicaid eligible people do not take it, maybe because of pride?). Of the rest, even having to pay only 30% of the cost, they will not do it. My summary, of the 30 million, the plan might, MIGHT, cover 5 million.

And buckle in. All of the other private insurance will go away. The WSJ stated that an alternative private insurance that created a higher care than the govnernment plan would evolve, but that is explicitly prohibited by Obe. The Nanny State, as seen by the Followers of Debs, has to be a socialistic state.

By the way, for all you new Bible huggers, Sarah Palin is in town next month.

Dan D:

"They want to control what people have, they want to prevent people from doing more for others."

Again, what the hell are you talking about?

You really need to stop taking your moral guidance from Rush Limbaugh. You idolize the man and his money, you follow and parrot him like a present day Christ, yet what he preaches is the antithesis of Christ--fear, hatred, intolerance, resentment towards the poor, the different and the unfortunate and anger towards the government who dares get into his overflowing pockets to help these people out. The man is worth $400 million, yet he is so full of hate and hubris that he bragged about not parting with one voluntary cent while the world worked to alleviate suffering in Haiti. THIS is what you admire? Is this what Jesus would have done? I find people like you and Rush Limbaugh repugnant and distasteful. The only thing you two worship is the almighty dollar.

Goats eat paper, you know. Just thought you should know.

WT

Clearly a person like Dan D. who thinks that hard working, job holding, Americans are unworthy of the vote and are not participating in socitey, even though they go to work every day but aren't paid enough to pay federal income taxes, probably by people like him! will have some real explaining to do in the next life.

From Matthew 19:21-24

21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Have no fear, there are many of faith who understand "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Anon ONE:

No, that last comment was not directed to you, it was directed to Dan and his philosophy of rugged individualism, that everyone needs to take care of himself and be responsible for himself. The whole "I am not my brother's keeper" thing. He refers to people without money and in need as "takers" deadbeats" "losers" whose only goal in life is to "live off the rest of us". Doesn't sound very Christ-like, does it? Yet Dan considers himself a very religious person. Sitting in a pew every Sunday doesn't make one a good Christian anymore than sitting in a garage makes them a car.

Christ taught that we ARE our brother's keeper on the most basic of levels. You don't walk by and ignore someone injured and dying in the street, you get them help; if someone does not have adequate clothing against the cold, you give them something warm if you have it to spare, etc. etc. This is not difficult stuff. Dan angrily talks about people "needing" to be given houses and trips to Hawaii, but Christ talked about sharing the basics of survival: food, clothing, shelter, care and comfort to the sick. This is really very easy, just random acts of kindness that take little from the giver. This is not the houses and trips that Dan fears he will have to provide.

Even my youngest knows better and displayed it when she was in the 5th grade. We were in Texas during the holidays. This is southern Baptist, revival-holding, come-to-Jesus country. I took her to the local Kroger to get some art supplies to start a Christmas break project. While in the check out line, a boy about her same age was ahead of us trying to buy a pack of gum but was about 15 cents short. He counted and recounted his change, and everyone could see the distress on this child's face, but none of the adults in line did or said anything. In fact, they seemed annoyed that this little boy was holding up the check out. My youngest looked up at me and said "Mom?" and I said "sure", and she squeezed ahead of the woman in front of us and gave the boy the few cents he needed to purchase his gum out of her own pocket. He seemed surprised, told her thanks, and that was it. But what amazed me was that no adult watching this could be bothered to help out a child who just wanted some gum. Have we all become a nation of Dans, so hard-hearted to the simplest of kindnesses that a few lousy cents has become too much to ask?

Dan would probably say that I'm teaching my children to enable freeloaders. That boy now will never learn to make sure he has the money he needs to make a purchase if he thinks a stranger is going to bail him out, that every time that boy wants something he'll think all he has to do is hold up a check out line by not having enough money and someone else will pay his way, so forth and so on. Right, Dan?

This is the same kind of philosophy he brings to the health care debate. He has said that people who take a chance by not having health insurance, or who don't have the money to purchase health insurance--same thing--and then get an illness they can't afford should not be society's problem. He resents being taxed to pay for the medical care of these deadbeats. He has said they should be put on a poor farm and go without if they can't pay. If they die, it's their own fault. That's what failure means. Seriously. Look at his post above, another variation of the same thing.

If this is what religious people are like, I definitely think the world would be a lot better off without religion.

wt wrote: "But to label an ENTIRE class of people as deadbeats because of their financial status or life situation, and use this as justification to allow them to suffer, is definitely NOT what Christ intended, that much is very clear, or at least it is to me. My opinion."

________________

I agree and hope you don't think this is what I meant? I think you are directing this specific comment toward someone else?

Yes. Jesus taught us to love one another, and treat others as we would like to be treated. I believe we can do this, but being human, we can still be disappointed in how others act. i.e. Jesus taught us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Doesn't mean we should stop helping others because a few are "gaming" the system. Penalizing everyone for the actions of a few is like when Jesus said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"!! (Of course Jesus didn't actually say this, but we could use some comic relief once in a while).

There were deadbeats in Jesus' day for sure, that's why he said some of the things he did. There are references throughout the bible about working hard: Colossians 3:23 "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men."

I will repeat again. I did not say people who owned land, rather, people who paid taxes, that participate in society. I think land owners were no more than 20% of society. I think tax payers should be 80% of society.

And Chris, I thought namecalling was not to be tolerated on this web site, particularly with words that would be censured in your print edition. It is a shame that the writer had outlined good thoughts and then

Both Ken and Anonymous ONE highlight the basis of my comments. And many people do lose their right to vote such as convicted felons.

I will repeat my comment. I think this country was founded on the premise that all citizens participated and contributed to the common good. They NEVER thought of the concept of welfare.

But take another view. Remember how Dick F. could not vote on his court case. Conflict of interest. How can people who are looking for the government to support them not have a similar conflict of interest?

And to Anony-Mess, when did the government become a charity? I have a totally different view of government than Obe's (new Rush name, very fitting) and His Fellow Followers of Debs and probably yourself. Government should only handle those services that cannot be done by the private sector. They handle jails, courts, military. On a more complex plain, they must handle aspects of the economy that a private sector will shun such as medical costs for truly poor people.

I do not believe in spreading the wealth. I think that all social programs should be left to the individual. But the Party of Debs led be Obe does not agree. They want to control what people have, they want to prevent people from doing more for others.

Here is a little example from the 1970's when the Predecessor to Obe controlled Illinois. They passed legislation prohibiting local school district from offering more than the median level of service. The law targetted the "well to do" in New Trier. School Districts were prohibited to provide more than the average.

I do not know about the rest of you, but I find all of this repugnant and distasteful.

To the question on taxes, we should have a flat tax and it should start at 125% of the poverty rate. And also remember that on one of these blogs I advocated for a very generous negative income tax and the elimination of all welfare programs including Obecare. We need to take government out of our life, rather than allow it to take over our life.

Anon ONE:

When I was growing up, I understood the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" to mean that one should not sit around on one's butt and wait for God to provide or solve problems, but to look for your own solutions. I've heard the saying attributed to Ben Franklin, but I don't know if this is true. Regardless of its origin, it does have a lot of truth in it so it's a good one to pass on. But it is not scripturally based, and I often hear it used by "religious" people as if it were, and usually in the context of justifying hard-heartedness toward others. I hear a lot of this hard-heartedness from Dan.

I understand the teachings of Jesus to be guidelines for how he wants us to treat each other. I'm sure there were deadbeats and people looking to take advantage even in biblical days, and I'm certain Jesus was aware of this. But I understand his teachings to mean he wants us to continue to reach out to these people. That doesn't mean we let them take advantage of us, but we at least make some attempt, we offer assistance, even if it's small. It won't always make a change in someone's life, but sometimes it does. And that's why it's worth doing.

That means sometimes the unworthy will get help, the lazy will take advantage, that's how it goes. Like you said, we're not omnipotent, we can't easily tell the difference between someone who truly needs help and someone who is conning us. But to label an ENTIRE class of people as deadbeats because of their financial status or life situation, and use this as justification to allow them to suffer, is definitely NOT what Christ intended, that much is very clear, or at least it is to me. My opinion.

I think the statement, "God helps those who help themselves" is along the lines of "finders keepers losers weepers" and the "early bird catches the worm", etc. Certainly not scripturally based, but do have some truth in them and generally people know what you are talking about - regardless of agreement.

Luke 12:48 says: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

This verse, along with many others about "being hungry and you gave me food", and "turning the other cheek" are all commandments from Jesus to his followers. These are all the basis for giving of your time, and money to those less fortunate, and hopefully principles that people try to follow.

The hardest part of this is that there are "some" people who make no effort at all, and are "gaming" the system (to use a term being used on this blog). The bible also has things to say about lazy people, and about people for whom something has been given, but make absolutely no effort.

(Proverbs 21:25) “The desire of the lazy man kills him, for his hands refuse to labor.”

(Proverbs 26:14) “As a door turns on its hinges, so does the lazy man on his bed.”

(Matthew 25:29) "For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?passage=Matthew+25%3A14-30

So the struggle for me is that I truly want to help people who need the assistance, but I have been soured because some of the people who receive assistance have come to not only rely on it, but demand it as a government entitlement even though they are capable of working. The problem is, unless you are omnipotent, you don't always know who needs assistance, and who's just lazy.!

Andy, wt?, anon-mess, etc., all are good at attacking comments of others, especially those who think differently.

Howeve, in their attacks they never actually give a specific alternative. In this case I refer to Federal Income taxes.

Please advise: "Exactly what IS the correct amount of income at which a person should not have to pay federal income taxes?"

This is no trick question, it is an honest attempt at getting a line in the sand.

Right now, close to 50% (I think the very latest is 48%) of wage earners pasy no Fed income tax. Is this okay with all of you?

Would you like to see that nukmber expanded or contracted?

I would be interested in Dan D & Ken's responses (and anyone else), also.

I will go first to start the debate: Given the demographics of the U.S. and the fact that our society is the most mobile in the world (ie approx. 1/3 of the people in each econ sector move into another sector about every 3 years)I will state that for now, the only people who should pay ZERO Fed Income taxes are those in the bottom quintile.

Anyone else?

AJ's Ghost:

Bravo, Sir! It appears your comment about the jackass applies to Ken as well.

When Tea Partiers say "We need to take our country back", I think they mean to 1776.

Ken, I have asked you a very specific question that you haven't answered: boxers or briefs?

Andrew Jackson, I think you are being a little too harsh on Dan. I wonder if you would feel the same if you were working in the low income areas of Chicago and heard a car with loudspeakers going around extorting all to get out and vote to make sure they kept getting their government checks. While I may not agree with Dan's conclusion that only taxpayers should vote, I can certainly see his point that the non-taxpayers only vote to make sure they can live off the rest of us, especially if those people never seem to be able to find a job but can always find a welfare office.

Wt, I have asked a very specific question that you never answered. I'll ask it again. You claim your husband is a doctor. How much of his practice is devoted to medicare/medicaid patients?

Another question. Since you seem to believe in redistribution of wealth, how much of your income do you voluntarily give up, either through not using tax loopholes or charitable contributions? According to the Obama administration, you don't need more than $250,000 a year. If your husband is a specialist, he should be making considerably more than that. Do you give all the excess to the less fortunate, or do you selfishly fund the "brainiac's" world travels while the less fortunate can't even afford a trip to the Dells?

Mr. D. Do you suffer from amnesia? Perhaps you can’t be bothered to read your previous writings?

Let me help you. These are your words; ”I think that the country made a mistake when they allowed people who do not own land to vote. They should have only allowed those who pay taxes vote.”
Anyone who has read any history, American or European, knows that one of the signal accomplishments of Western Civilization is the slow expansion of voting rights to all, and here in America we are a stronger country for it. Your views are, frighteningly, that of a wealthy late 18th century Virginia landowner fighting the expansion of voting rights.

Almost immediately after the Revolution the desire for voting reform was intense. Many returning soldiers felt they deserved the vote. Thomas Jefferson was a vocal supporter “"Let every man who fights or pays, exercise his just and equal right in their election."

Adams disagreed; “Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.

Franklin, ever the wit had great fun with Adams and his followers; "Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"

It took too long, and many of the rich and the powerful who shared your views, fearful of losing control and looking down on what they considered their inferiors, fought the expansion for years. But during Andrew Jackson’s presidency most states enacted expanded voting rights. Britain, for all their history of ever increasing civil rights, took until 1832 to do the same.

For you to say in the year 2010 that our founders made the wrong decision so long ago and that we should disenfranchise people as a safeguard, because they do not have sufficient income to pay federal income taxes, implying they are deadbeats as you do, Makes you the Jackass, Sir.

Anony-Mess on April 22, 2010 3:23 PM:

Looks like you beat me to it. Well done.

Dan D:

I was taught "God helps those who help themselves" when I was growing up too. And I've always remembered it and lived by it. But God didn't say this, nor is it in the Bible. Somebody made it up. Jesus said, "Give to those who would ask of you". Jesus did say this, and it is in the Bible. I can only imagine what choice words you would have for Jesus about that! Probably something like "Are you nuts?! Those "takers"?! Why should I help them? If they worked hard they would succeed, their failures aren't my problem. Spreading the wealth is sinister. Forget about it."

Or here's some philosophy for you: "as ye have done unto the least of my brethren, ye have done unto me". In case you need a refresher:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:33-46)

Looks like you're going to have some 'splainin to do, Dan! Hope you like goats.

Odd that I see so little Christian spirit from someone who claims to be so religious.

And as far as you wanting specific answers, then ask some reality-based questions. First you're asking "what do people making under $40k/year need? Should I give them my house?", then "what do people making under $90k/year need? Should we send them to Hawaii?"

What the hell are you talking about? You're asking about situations that DO NOT EXIST. Try phrasing your question another way; you are making absolutely no sense to me.

To AJG

I did not say land owners, I said people who paid taxes.

I think that the framers of the constitution only wanted people who have a stake in government to have a say. A very unique safeguard.

People can complain about a private company all they want, but they do not get to vote to change the company. They need to own the company to take that action.

Should felons vote? How about illegal aliens?

But AJG, don't overstate my comment. I think our founding fathers expected that all citizens would be productive members of society and would not be dead beats. They would be astounded that people got unemployment insurance for doing nothing for two years.

There are ten people who would like to get into our country for every dead beat.

Ah, Mr. D.

"Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me."

Though it sounds like you will fail this test, doesn't it?

Shame.

Is Mr D. an some kind of spectral apparition of an 18th century tyrant? He thinks people who are not landowners, or don't make enough money, shouldn't be able to vote?

Shall we overturn almost 200 years of law - and amend the Constitution - and return to the days when only wealthy white male landowners could vote?

He's willing to say this in public, in the year 2010? How totally ignorant of him.

I do not know if I got a tax decrease. I pay too much in taxes. And I am not about to reveal my income. It's bad enough we have an IRS.

This 95% tax got a tax decrease. The tax decrease was $400. I think when you hit $100,000, it was $20. This tax decrease was:

1. Ineffective. Based on a non existent economic theory called Trickle Up Economics created by Robert Reich (who is not an economist). Voodoo Economics

2. Irresponsible. People should all pay taxes, not matter how much money you make. I think that the country made a mistake when they allowed people who do not own land to vote. They should have only allowed those who pay taxes vote. As Dennis Miller said yesterday, the ultimate nanny state. People not paying taxes, get two years of money for nothing and now give them medical marijuanna funded through Obamacare. All that is missing is the brownies.

3. Unknown. The entire cut was a farce.

A more effective stimulus would be to extend the Bush tax cuts five years and reverse the $1 trillion Obama deficit increase. GDP would increase 8 to 10%. The Chinese are doing this!!!! We are reverting to socialism and the Chinese are taking market approaches.

And I do not know why we bother with WT?. Spews info, but does not provide a specific answer. I think she knows that providing specifics makes her philosophy look bad. Hey, I would like to help EVERYONE. But then I am reminded that God helps them who help themselves.

Dan D:

"As it relates to this blog, I think WT? simply ducks the important issue. The comments she cites are NOT extreme. Rather, what is the next step in the Obama/Debs Party to "help" people below $90,000 (?)? I forgot, should we provide all people with a two week vacation to Hawaii?"

Of course, that's definitely what people need "help" with, a Hawaiian vacation! Michael Steele's been there so much recently he could serve as their tour guide.

Oh what the heck, why stop at Hawaii? Why don't we fly them to the moon and let them play among the stars?

You may consider a Hawaiian vacation for the working folk an important issue, but I don't. I consider it EXTREME. And personally, if we're going to go with extreme, I'd prefer the moon trip.

Hey Dan, were you one of the 95% of Americans who paid less income tax this year? I doubt you're in the top 1%, so it looks like a little of that wealth was spread your way. I'm not surprised you'd take the cash and not mention it. You might actually have to credit Obama's tax cuts.

Sorry, no time right now. I'm dealing with a "Brainiac vs. the Volcano" situation.

Not Shakespeare:

Please come up to speed. See my response to Dan on April 15 at 12:11 AM

Who you kidding, Willis?

This is directed at you, what the?: You ask Dan to give you REAL questions questions for you to answer, but we all know you refuse to answer actual, real questions:

Earlier Anonymous sumary post:

MY QUESTION

And this "progressive" garbage about the lower 40% not benefiting. What should be done? Do they deserve a salary increase? Why did they not get one? Who will pay them more money and how?

BARD'S QUESTIONS

1)What are the RIGHT federal individual income tax rates to use? Be specific. Is it 50%? 100%? 10%?

2)Should anyone be allowed to make wages and not pay taxes? If so, exactly what is the cut-off you would use for that zero rate?

3)Should someone who pays no taxes deserve tax credits via the tax code? If so, again, what is the cut-off for that?

4)If you believe 2), above, is a good thing, can you explain why it is better to do it through a tax code (a device that was originated to collect from wages the funds needed to fund the federal government init's constitutional chores) than through the more appropo way of welfare?

As it relates to this blog, I think WT? simply ducks the important issue. The comments she cites are NOT extreme. Rather, what is the next step in the Obama/Debs Party to "help" people below $90,000 (?)? I forgot, should we provide all people with a two week vacation to Hawaii?

This is at the root of the medical case. People choose not to buy insurance and Obama/Debs wants to "Spread the Wealth". When does this stop?

Dan D:

You do tend to talk in extremes a lot; maybe you're not aware of how much. There's no answer to questions such as "Should I give them my house? Maybe yours? Should I pay their rent or mortgage?", so I just skip over it.

And I'm going to have to google the Eugene V. Debs party. It's late; I'll get back to you later.

WT

I lay our very specific questions. You dismiss almost EVERYTHING I say as extreme, tea party, Limbaugh, etc. Another time, you complain that I do not address your comments specifically (althought MANY threads were out there). If you do not have the time, wait until you do before your post. But to display the arrogance of the Eugene V. Debs party is ridiculous. No, I do not think that anybody should be thanking Obama for what he is doing. That is his job. He has not done anything extraordinary.

I will touch base on the comments.

VAT

The Volker, Pelosci and crew need to raise another $1 trillion. They are looking at VAT for new taxes, not to reform. To repeat my point, to implement a VAT to replace the corporate income tax is a great idea. Maybe some increased revenues. But not the trillions in new deficits from the Debs party.

$40,000 SALARY QUESTION

Is that really enough? There are reports that such people are already looking for FREE health care. So they pay 7% for retirement and health care, 0 for income tax, and get subsidized health insurance. Is that enough share the wealth?

When do people have to start paying income taxes? %75,000? $100,000? Just want to know how many people need to be subsidized. Yes, they are takers.

The only reason this was not a REAL question is that the answer is silly. It is silly to explain HOW to Share the Wealth. In fact, I find it to be sinister.

On this note, the number of people who did not pay income taxes under Bush and Clinton were 35%. The number has exploded to 47%. If you look at the situation, a couple of bleading heart liberals plus these 47% and they have a voting bloc that cannot be stopped. Next step Bermuda!!

But the reason for the increase (12%) is that people have lost their jobs. They would rather have a job and pay taxes. PHEW!!! They can look to Obamanomics and this Debs party as the reason they cannot have what they want.

The 95% tax cuts. A total waste. No stimulus. These people did not hire employees. The Robert Reich trickle up economics has no support and is a failure. We should have fired the 20,000 teachers last year. We just wasted $1 billion (cost of 20,000 teachers at $50,000 for one year). You don't have access to the Wall Street Journal, but the number of teachers exploded in the last ten years while the number of student DECREASED. So mismanagement of schools (on a macro basis) caused as $1 billion of waste. These people should be looking for other employment when they would not drain the tax revenues.

No, I am not rooting for a failure of the economy. There is not a plausible explanation of how consumer spending can increase, individual income being flat or declining (this is the new Debs rallying cry), and debt being repaid all at the same time. No plausible explanation. And the three people I know that are looking to dump their houses reinforce this view. As do the banks that I deal with.

And TRILLIONS of new Obama debt (he will incur more debt in two years than Bush did in 8--he does not admit that). This is not well.

I bet against the economy in 2008 and won. And the bump from 6,500 to 10,500 dow. I am seriously trying to evaluate the current economy. I am not back in stocks at all.

Dan D:

"As a conservative, I would support a VAT if the corporate tax were totally eliminated. But the good old Obamaians will not replacet the tax, they will add the tax. In just one year, Obama has increased taxes over $700 billion."

Are you certain about this or just assuming it? I only have the article Anon 5678 linked to refer to, but this article says a VAT would be used to REFORM our tax system. Just adding a VAT to the existing structure wouldn't reform anything, so my impression is that it would be used to replace corporate taxes. Remember the article said that the last time a VAT was on the table, it was favored by GOP economists during the Reagan administration. I'm sure they weren't planning on adding it to the existing code, it would be used as a substitute for what we're currently using. The VAT system being discussed now is the exact same thing that was discussed then, so I don't think this is true. Unless Pelosi and friends have specifically said this, but I don't see this anywhere in Anon's article or in any of the other links in this article. So if this is fear mongering, let's keep in out of the discussion, please.

"When a business calculates its VAT payment, it deducts the tax paid at the previous stage, based on records every company along the chain keeps."

Is this the credit for VAT paid you were talking about?

"Tell us what we should do for people making $40,000, paying no income taxes and soon to get a subsidy for health insurance. What else do they deserve? Should I give them my house? Maybe yours? Should I pay their rent or mortgage? How does this "share the wealth" work?".

Is this the question about individuals you say I'm ducking? I ignored it because your comments were extreme and outside the realm of reality, which you tend to do a lot. I also saw something you asked about a comment Laura Ingram's mom made. Now just being a mom makes one an expert?

So if you want a real answer, ask REAL questions. What do you mean by what else do people making under $40,000/year deserve? How does this share the wealth work? You're looking at it. 95% of all Americans paid less income tax last year. People under a certain income level will get a subsidy to help make health insurance affordable for them. The unemployed are getting extended benefits during a time of crisis. What more do you want? Stop with the extremist language. You don't need to do this to make your point. I'm not a Tea Partier; this kind of rhetoric doesn't get me worked up, it turns me off.

"Not to root against a recovery, but a disturbing observiation. Consumer debt has decreased in the first three months of this year. Not because consumers have paid off debt, but because they defaulted.One related observation from an economist collegue. The increase in consumer spending is short term. The people who are walking from their houses have stopped paying mortgages and are waiting to be evicted. They are using that money to make purchases. Long run, this cannot be sustained."

Consumer debt has decreased because more consumers are filing for bankruptcy? Could be true, bankruptcies could definitely be a part of this. Is this a way of taking something positive away from Obama before the Dems claim credit for it? Have the Dems claimed credit for the decrease in consumer debt? I haven't heard.

As far as the increased consumer spending, it seems like you are looking for ways to explain this other than suggesting that maybe the economy is recovering. That people who are losing their homes are going on spending sprees with their mortgage payments sounds like a stretch. Not that some people wouldn't do this, but to the extent that it accounts for most of the increased consumer spending, I don't think so.

And I think rooting against a recovery is exactly what a lot of conservatives are doing. Not necessarily you, but many, yes.

Ah, what the? cannot admit, even to herself, the extent of her liberal bias!

You take on XOM and state, as if it is a fact, that “…Yet they (Exxon) still pay no federal income tax. It seems that wealthy corporations are benefiting from the U.S. tax code a lot more than poor families are.”

Now, now, our little corporate-bashing Redski, let’s see some numbers. you know, data is so harmful, so uncalled for, so “against your dogma”!

First, 2009: XOM revenues about 302 bil, before tax income about 96 bil, and total taxes paid of about 61 bil. They managed to pay out about $1.66 in dividends on around $3.99 in earnings (both per share). These are pretty damn good numbers, and socially balanced as stand-alone points.

Second, in 2007 XOM paid the single largest federal income tax bill in history (about $30 bil), which was a tad higher than their prior record of 28 bil in 2006. These numbers have since been exceeded.

Third, XOM’s effective total tax rate in 2008 was 46%

Fourth, from 2004 to 2008 XOM’s total U.S. tax bill was $68 bil, or 19 bil LARGER than their total U.S. earnings for the same time period.

You can all see that XOM, like ALL OTHER U.S. –based corporations, paid its fair share (and than some!) of taxes to our greedy, out-of-control uncle. Let me add that XOM, again like all other U.S. –based corporations, is treated the same and is held to the same levels of scrutiny and tax laws that we all are (though as I hope you know the tax laws are different for corporations).

Sadly for what the?’s failed argument, XOM indeed does pay U.S. taxes, pays them in record levels, and in the process manages to employ tens of thousands of Americans and pay ample dividends to it’s shareholders, which includes every major union pension in America (thus, if you believe the hype, all the “common men & women”).

It certainly sounds like the citizens of America, including a certain percent of the “poor” (depending on how you define poor) are in fact enriched by XOM

So yet again, we have what the? in either a deliberate lie or an omission of ignorance. Either way, her credibility has again been highlighted as lacking.

To answer the VAT tax

Depends if you give a credit for VAT paid. Huh?

To make a VAT tax work, you need to give all companies in the food chain credit for VAT paid. Otherwise, if a product, take oil, goes through 5 companies and the VAT rate is 20%, then the VAT would approach 100% of the value of the good. (20%*5--lower since initial processeors would be charging a lower price).

But if Exxon bought their barral of oil from their subsidiary in Africa at $70 per barral, but that either has import customs or VAT @ 20% and then sells the refined gas at $71 per barrel, they pay VAT only on the $1.

The Volkers of the world have not addressed how VAT will apply to imports.

As a conservative, I would support a VAT if the corporate tax were totally eliminated. There are issues, but it would work.

But the good old Obamaians (it is not fair to real Democrats to refer to Obama and Pelosi as Democrats--they seem to be the party of Eugene V. Debs) will not replacet the tax, they will add the tax. In just one year, Obama has increased taxes over $700 billion.

By the way, not to root against a recovery, but a disturbing observiation. Consumer debt has decreased in the first three months of this year. Not because consumers have paid off debt, but because they defaulted.

One related observation from an economist collegue. The increase in consumer spending is short term. The people who are walking from their houses have stopped paying mortgages and are waiting to be evicted. They are using that money to make purchases. Long run, this cannot be sustained.

Dan D:

Had a brain blast, sorta kinda.

I don't really buy that the majority of Exxon's profits come from overseas exploration. A quick review of this brings up articles discussing this very thing. As recent as 2008, Exxon was blaming their reduced exploration on nationalism, and they've been under fire before for returning too much of their profits to shareholders rather than using it for increased exploration. So let's put that aside for now.

The fact is, here is a multi-billion dollar corporation doing business in North America, based in the U.S. The U.S. bears the brunt of their environmental damage, oil spills, air pollution and what not. Yet by using a tax code that favors special interests, they are able to locate subsidiaries overseas and keep their profits in off-shore accounts, avoiding U.S. taxes altogether. So Exxon is using the U.S. to enrich themselves while returning nothing. Exactly what you claim the poor are doing by not paying federal income taxes, only on a MUCH LARGER scale. It's always amazed me how conservatives are absolutely fine with rich, powerful interests dodging their tax liability, but resent it if they think a poor, powerless individual is getting something for nothing.

So my thinking is, couldn't the VAT system that Anon 5678 was talking about be used to recoup some of this lost revenue?

To JQP

A misplaced human tragedy. Partially due to false security in the levies (I did not see anybody from the Army Corps of Engineers fired) and Nagin corruption. The latter cause similar to the cruel treatment of people ranging from Stalin and Hitler to Chavez and Castro. Not conscientious people like George Bush (no matter what his shortcomings are).

To WT

Freeloaders "--this is why participation is mandatory"

That is the socialistic approach to the problem. Without going into extreme detail, there is a free market alternative, focussing on pre existing conditions (PEC). Right now there are two groups of people who are impacted by PEC

1. those who lose their group coverage and cannot joing another group before their COBRA runs out.

2.People who either never purchased insurance or let their insurance lapse (maybe financial).

All other people are covered. If you have cancer and worked for Exxon Mobile and took a job at BP, you would not lose your coverage. Your new employer would accept you since you are shifting from one group plan to another. This probably causes problems for these insurers since they have to eat this plan.

Now two alternatives (and there may be more).

1. Make the previous insurer (Exxon Mobile) responsible for the coverage in perpetuity.

2. Create a reinsurance program that would cover both the subsequent insurance, both employer and private. All insurance companies would pay into a program to fund either alternative.

This would be a better system then we currently have. The way the new bill is written, the PEC is another government UNFUNDED MANDATE. So the only way to enforce it is through a SOCIALISTIC MODEL.

As for other people, as long as you purchased insurance when you entered the work force (either out of high school or college or when you turn 27 and are off your parents coverage), you would also be covered. But if you decide to go "naked", then the insurance company that would insure you would have a claim for the amount of premiums you should have paid. This obligation could not be discharged in bankruptcy. The government could take 15% of your salary as a withholding to repay the insurance company.

This last part I think was similar to my previous post. This is too PUNATIVE?

Better yet, employees should have the option to purchase the insurance directly themselves and not partcipate in the company plan. Let's say that a 27 year old works for Exxon Mobile. The single insurance premium reflecting the entire work force is $800 per month. The company pays 75%. So the 27 year old had to pay $200. If this person purchased insurance directly, they could get it (before Obamacare) for $250. The company would give the employee $600 to purchase insurance and the employee would have an additional $350 in income (less taxes of course). Older people would have to pay more, but they generally make more money.

This latter example would allow our 27 year old to change companies and not have to worry about health insurance. But corporate plans are like "mini" Obamacare plans. They force young people to subsidize older employees. They trap employees since the insurance they are provided cannot be transported. And this is not to lower costs. It is generally to create a barrier for employees to seek better employment. This hurts our economy.

So here are two ideas that would REALLY address PEC much better than Obamacare's socialistic approach.

You say "A public option would be a lot easier and much more expedient."

If you support socialism. I support choice and free markets.

You list all of the government programs. People love them because they are getting something for nothing. But these program are all FAILURES. They cannot be sustained. People will HAVE to lose benefits or everyone will lose when the government shuts down and China determines who gets paid (THEY WILL TAKE THE MONEY FOR THEIR DEBTS AND WE GET NOTHING).

To maintain our freedom, we have to fix our economy. And we cannot do it by maintaining programs that are broke and increasing deficits. Rome failed. The AustroHungarian Empire failed. We are on a path to failure.

Your comment about Exxon. It does not matter where their offices are. They do not make money at these offices. They make money in Canada and Africa where oil exploration goes on. Refining and retail operations LOSE money. They have to buy their oil from overseas. Refineries are looking to close through the entire country with the goal to drive up prices and TRY to make money. Many of the major companies are exiting these businesses. BP divested of their entire retail operation. Those stations you see are owned by franchisees who are making less than minimum wage for their effort. A very bad investment.

In short, if a company is not paying US taxes, they have not made money in the US. And they will relocate, even BP has moved much of its corporate staff to England. Shell maintains a dual charter.

Since you duck my other questions for individuals, I will ask you about this issue. If a company reduces operations in the US due to laws that prevent them from operating (limits to oil drilling) and redeploy their capital to other countries, should they pay taxes in the US anyway? How do your calculate them? Remember, they pay taxes overseas. They only pay US taxes if they bring the money back to the US. And it is netted against the foreign taxes. You harp on this issue, so tell us how it should work.

My opinion is the US has screwed up and they lost. No profits, no taxes.

Dan D,

Everything you say may be true, but you are still missing the point: Katrina was a much bigger human tragedy, hence the far greater media coverage and analysis.

-JQP

About Exxon:

I thought oil prices were the driving force behind oil company profits, not exploration.

And it's interesting that Exxon's global headquarters are based in Irving, Texas, their exploration and chemical divisions are based in Houston, and their marketing, refining, and retail operations are based in Fairfax, Virginia, all in the U.S. Yet they still pay no federal income tax. It seems that wealthy corporations are benefiting from the U.S. tax code a lot more than poor families are.

Dan D:

"WT, the old line is the devil is in the details. In your latest post, you advocate that people who did not pay insurance premiums be forced to pay a penalty by paying premiums they missed and maybe more when they enroll. What a great idea! A penalty for the deadbeats instead of this socialism BS.

I PROPOSED A PROCESS SIMILAR TO THAT EARLIER ON THIS BLOG!! You picked up a conservative idea. (I was more punitive in my penalty.)"

Oh no, conservatism rubs off?! What should I do if I get any on me?!

Couldn't resist, but maybe this is true. We've been on this subject for quite a while. All the same, I am not a bleeding heart liberal, far from it. I'm a big proponent of individual choice and responsibility, I'm just not as punitive about it as you are. I think consequences need to hurt in order for people to choose differently in the future, but if consequences are too draconian, then they tend to have the opposite effect. It's a delicate balancing act. It works the same way with parenting. The goal is to change behavior, not just punish.

We may be closer in opinion than I originally thought, with a few major exceptions. When it comes to social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, disability, federal flood insurance, social security, student loans, health care reform, any of the dozens of government programs available, there are two things that are an automatic given: 1) people will game it, and 2) if the penalties for gaming are not substantially more painful than compliance, it will get gamed A LOT. This is true in everything like this.

And this is a big flaw in the CURRENT health care reform bill--it has no teeth. If employers or individuals do not comply, they pay a fine and move on. I still think the consequences for this will be harder on employers than individuals, since employees will not be loyal to an employer who games the system to save money while workers go without coverage, but it will be fairly simple for individuals to do this. Mass is a prime example.

We talked about this before--this is why participation is mandatory. If this is to work, everyone has to participate, there can be no freeloaders. Mass has a freeloader problem that it has not taken steps to solve and after 4 years it has reached critical mass. We'll see what they do, but they really only have a few choices: toughen up the avoidance penalties to reduce freeloading (you'll never totally eradicate it) or go to a public option and make people pay premiums through payroll deductions just like other taxes. A public option would be a lot easier and much more expedient.

The funny thing was, throughout the months of the health care "debate", the only people I heard complaining about the reform bill not being tough enough were the Progressives. The conservatives were spending all their time fear mongering on imaginary things like death panels and throwing people in jail for not buying health insurance, which were totally bogus. The Tea Partiers were protesting that mandatory compliance was "socialist" and overstepping states rights, which is also not the case. The only group who I heard talk consistently about loopholes in the bill that freeloaders could exploit were the Progressives. They didn't like the reform bill because it didn't go far enough, not only in not giving every American coverage, but also in not giving the bill the ability to block freeloaders, which for reasons I don't completely understand, the Democrats didn't have the stomach to do at the time of the bill's passage. If this program is going to work, they will have to give it teeth at some point.

Here's our biggest difference: I think the state of health care delivery in our country has become bad enough to take this risk. I never said the bill was good enough as is, I always said it was a "good start". It will have to be tweaked and toughened up over time or a public option will be the only alternative in the long term. I'm simply willing to take this risk. Obama and other Dems always said they were open to doing this, so I'm willing to give it a shot. Maybe we don't know what we'll get, but we certainly know what we've had, and that is unsustainable.

More later.

Dan D. and Psyche:

Regarding Dan's and Psyche's comment:

"Because of corruption and/or ignorance of the Nagin regime. Nobody could overcome his errors. As Psyche noted, the same hurricane hit Missippi and Alabama with the same vengence and a different result."

Yes, there was a very different result. Most of the claims that insurance companies paid out were in Mississippi and Alabama. The levies breaking and flooding New Orleans is what insurance companies used to get out of paying claims there; they didn't have this excuse in Mississippi and Alabama, so they had to pay up. Mississippi and Alabama have rebuilt and moved on, unlike New Orleans. I remember hearing and reading about this months after Katrina, has everyone forgotten so much so quickly?

Always helps when you don't shoot the people trying to escape the flooding

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/02/former_police_officer_pleads_g.html

Yeah, heck of a Job................

JQP

Because of corruption and/or ignorance of the Nagin regime. Nobody could overcome his errors. As Psyche noted, the same hurricane hit Missippi and Alabama with the same vengence and a different result.

And to defend Nagin a bit. The deaths did not occur when the storm hit. They occurred two to three days later when the levies broke. The people thought they had survived the hurricane only to later discover that their levies had not. They were trapped.

But the MSM focuses on matters that embarrass Bush and ignore what he has done right.

And to Anonymous ONE, you are right, there could be changes. Or we could make changes like preexisting and not destroy the rest of the system. You should read the bill. The first 250 pages are the key sections (not a hard read). There is no way any existing insurance plan will stay operating, no way any company would continue to offer benefits (except wasteful governments), and no plan will form to join the "exchanges" since they will have to compete with the public option plan.

And link to the Wall Street Journal article, it is in the free section. Read about the failure in Massachusetts and now no firm will sell new health insurance policies. We will have single payor, government controlled health care by June of 2014, by default.

Psyche,

Place the blame where you will, the fact remains that the human tragedy of Katrina was far greater than that of the Rhode Island floods.

-JQP

Admittedly I am no expert on the health care bill and it's provisions (given it's length I question whether the politians have read it themselves).

But, I have read here that even though everyone is required to carry health insurance, people can "game" the system by simply buying insurance when they need it, i.e. since they can't be denied they buy it apparently while at or in the hospital, use it for a short term and then let it lapse again? If true, how about a provision requiring a 3 day waiting period for insurance to take effect, and then only let it take effect starting on that day and not the day you show up at the hospital? Car insurance is this way now, if you don't have collision insurance and total your car you cannot go buy it after your accident and use it to pay for a new car.

Secondly I have seen and come to understand that companies will be penalized (fined)for not providing insurance, but the fine is less than the actual costs of providing the insurance in the first place. This can be eliminated by making the first offense as expensive as if they provided insurance on their own, and subsequent offenses at 2X the cost of providing it. This eliminates the "gaming" that companies can/may/will do?

Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!

JQP wrote "I rather think it's because so many more people died in Katrina than in Rhode Island."

A look at the past shows us a couple of things:

First, most of the people who died in Katrina were in New Orleans

Second, it was established that New Orleans, more appropo it's graft and corruption, resulted in little to no access to emergency foods, stores, etc (including rafts & H20) as those supplies had been stolen and sold by politicians

Third. as expected the majority of deaths occurred in the first few days of and after the storm

Fourth, the emergency responders for New Orleans abandoned the City and it's citizens before the storm even hit

Fifth, the Mayor was part of the graft and inneffectivenss

Sixth, the Gov of Looziana ignored the events leading up to the storm, the storm itself, and only got on board when Bush started getting flack

Seventh, those who are rabid on the Federal response need to read up a little on State and Fed constitutions.

Why mention any of the above? Because as much as I would like to believe yur post, JQP, I cannot.

It is clear, and was then, that the major reason for the country's coverage of Katrine, almost exclusively in New Orleans, was it was a great opps to embarass the Prez and had nothing to do with compassion.

Where was the coverage of Mississippi? Alabama? Oh, that's right ---their local politicians understood the constitution and how to actually prepare for emergencies on their own. They evacuated people, they had not sold their emergency stores, their cops & firemen stayed on the job, etc.

Before you go there, please do not read this as a compliment to Bush, FEMA, etc.

It is what it is ---- a point being made that New Orleans destruction in Katrina, though a tragedy, was partially avoidable (se other gulf states) and was made much aorse by crooked and ineffective local politicians and emergency workers.

I was annonymous. It seems if you change a comment inside the post, you lose your name.

WT, the old line is the devil is in the details. In your latest post, you advocate that people who did not pay insurance premiums be forced to pay a penalty by paying premiums they missed and maybe more when they enroll. What a great idea! A penalty for the deadbeats instead of this socialism BS.

I PROPOSED A PROCESS SIMILAR TO THAT EARLIER ON THIS BLOG!! You picked up a conservative idea. (I was more punitive in my penalty.)

And the questions we asked and you simply dismissed are not designed to trap you, rather, to ask specificially for your view on how to implement such liberal ideas (speaking for myself, I would let Bard weigh in).

As for my question, it has been said that poor and middle class are not getting their fair share, it has all gone to the rich. Specifically, now 47% of all Americans do not pay income taxes. What more do they need? How is it paid? Do we take 20% of your income and share it with them? How would the Obama socialism work?

As for Exxon Mobile, the simple matter is the company does not make a profit in the US, it is all overseas. Does that surprise you? Their main profits come from exploration. Since the US has prohibited exploration, they have gone overseas. Are you advocating that they pay taxes twice on their profits? Again, don't identify the problem, make a solution.

Always forget something:

"the reason Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses that Mr. Patrick and his political mentor President Obama like to cite."

I'm not sure this comment is correct. The industry has definitely abused the public in it's pursuit of profits, but I don't see how these abuses are the cause of the high cost of health care. It's the people in Mass who are abusing the system, by not paying in until they get sick, which ensures that they'll always get more out than they contribute. And the industry has no choice but to raise their rates to collect the shortfall from everyone else. Mass has not eliminated their freeloaders, that's why costs continue to rise to cover their care.

A possible solution: if people drop coverage when they are well, require them to make up the past premiums they skipped when they show up for care. They not only have to pay the current premium, but they have to make up for the period of time they weren't paying premiums in addition to the fine. Unlike income taxes, everyone needs medical care at some point in their lives, the freeloaders will eventually turn themselves in. Making the penalties more painful will make freeloaders think twice. If they drop coverage again before paying it back, then have this amount billed and collected like any other debt. Garnish paychecks, withhold income tax refunds. Treat health care premium evasion just like income tax evasion. That will change some tunes.

Anyway, my point was I don't remember Obama saying industry abuses were to blame for rising costs, unless he was specifically talking about rescission and the pre-existing condition exclusion, where the industry drops it's sick on the medical system and the taxpayers to avoid paying claims. This does raise costs. So maybe I've answered my own question in my own rambling way. What can I say, it's late.

Dan D:

Or Anonymous? Thanks for the excerpts, but those points I already knew, I read them elsewhere. To repeat, I don't subscribe to the WSJ, I can't link right in.

I heard about two years ago that the biggest group Mass was having trouble with was the middle and upper middle class, people who could afford to pay premiums but preferred not to, I suppose they preferred to use this money for other things until they got sick. This has been going on since the beginning. So here are the choices: toughen up the fines and reduce the ability to move in and out of the system easily or go to a public option. Remember, it's still in the health care reform bill as an option. Remove the profit motive by taking Medicare E out of the private sector, make deductions from people's income just like they do other taxes, and move on. Then the government will be sure to get their contribution. It has worked for tons of other countries.

And your question:

And this "progressive" garbage about the lower 40% not benefiting. What should be done? Do they deserve a salary increase? Why did they not get one? Who will pay them more money and how?

Not benefiting from what? You need to be more specific, I don't know what "garbage" you're referring to.

Regarding the other questions, these kind of question games are annoying because they are asked specifically to "trap" the responder. It's obvious by how they're asked--"here are the choices, be specific". You guys fancy yourselves policy experts, not me, so I don't feel compelled to play your games your way. However, I will give you my opinion.

Regarding federal income tax, I do believe that if someone is very poor, definitely at or below whatever the poverty level currently is estimated to be, then they should be exempt from most if not all of their federal income tax liability. I'm not saying ALL taxes, they are still paying other forms of taxes, sales tax, state income tax where applicable, gasoline taxes, vehicle licensing taxes and on and on. So to say the poor are not contributing is not true, they pay other forms of taxes just like everyone else, in addition to still making contributions to FICA, et al. It's just the federal taxes they get a break on. Given that our tax code is progressive, I'm ok with this. I'm sure you're not.

Keep in mind that questions 2 and 3 can also apply to corporations. Before you get your shorts in a wad over lower income people not paying their "share", do you know that Exxon did not pay a single cent in federal income taxes to the U.S. last year? They paid 15 billion to foreign countries where they've offshored their subsidiaries and accounts, but none to the U.S. Exxon pays no U.S. taxes but still benefits via the U.S. tax code. What should be the cut-off for that? You tell me.

You'll have to explain question 4, I don't know what you mean by taxing through welfare rather than a tax code.

Here are some key exerpts. You should link directly to the article, I was able to do so.

"This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you.

"The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Mr. Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90% of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve.

"One irony is that Mr. Patrick's own Attorney General and his insurance regulators have concluded—to their apparent surprise—that the reason Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses that Mr. Patrick and his political mentor President Obama like to cite.

"On top of that, like ObamaCare, integral to the Massachusetts overhaul are mandates that require insurers to cover anyone who applies regardless of health status or pre-existing conditions and to charge everyone about the same rates. This allows people to wait until they're about to incur major medical expenses before buying insurance and transfer the costs to everyone else. This week Blue Cross Blue Shield reported a big uptick in short-term customers who ran up costs more than four times the average, only to drop the coverage within three months.

"Last July, Charlie Baker detailed similar gaming at Harvard Pilgrim, the health plan he used to run. Between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred costs about 600% higher than the company would have otherwise expected."

By the way, WT, both Bard and myself asked you several questions. Where are your answers?

MY QUESTION

And this "progressive" garbage about the lower 40% not benefiting. What should be done? Do they deserve a salary increase? Why did they not get one? Who will pay them more money and how?

BARD'S QUESTIONS

1)What are the RIGHT federal individual income tax rates to use? Be specific. Is it 50%? 100%? 10%?

2)Should anyone be allowed to make wages and not pay taxes? If so, exactly what is the cut-off you would use for that zero rate?

3)Should someone who pays no taxes deserve tax credits via the tax code? If so, again, what is the cut-off for that?

4)If you believe 2), above, is a good thing, can you explain why it is better to do it through a tax code (a device that was originated to collect from wages the funds needed to fund the federal government init's constitutional chores) than through the more appropo way of welfare?

Dan D wrote:

The economic damage to the northeast from the floods this spring were greater than that of New Orleanes. That is the story that the MSM is not printing. It's because it has hit middle class families rather than "defenseless" poor people.

I rather think it's because so many more people died in Katrina than in Rhode Island.

-JQP

Dan D:

Like I said before, none of your proposals solve the problem, you're just attempting to relocate it and make it someone else's problem. How about thinking along the lines of solutions.

Where is the WSJ article?

Another tidbit.

The State of Georgia refused to offer the high risk medical plan that is suppose to start on July 1 for Obamacare since there is not adequate funding (per the HHS actuary). This forces Obama to do it directly, on his dime. Next they will not offer the insurance exchanges.

I hope Illinois does not offer such a plan, let the Feds do it. We should drop Medicaid and provide one way bus tickets and three months rent to New York to rid our state of the medicaid burden.

Interesting, Medicaid is a voluntary plan, so drop it. Let people who want Medicaid move to another state.

Dan D:

"Let the government insure these people, let the rest of us alone."

I don't understand your attitude on this. I thought you were opposed to a "nanny state". So why are you so eager to push off the poor who can't pay onto the government, while wanting to leave those who can pay in the private sector? Even if the government pays for all the poor's care, you'll still be taxed more to pay for it. That's where the government gets its money, from taxes, right? So it seems to me you're taking a contradictory position. Pushing care for those who can't pay for it onto the government doesn't make it free, see Medicaid. Doing this only relocates the problem, it doesn't solve it.

Dan D:

"A blog is for all to participate. No one or two persons should dominate."

Two bloggers having a convo isn't dominating. Anyone is free to participate and can join in whenever they want. You are soliciting support through the use of snide "asides". I'm sure people can come to their own conclusions, they don't need you directing the conversation. I consider this to be rude, which is why I don't do it.

What happened to civility and reason INDEED?! This is my whole point--what members of Congress have demonstrated new lows in decorum? Who's been doing the shout-outs on the floor and during the state of the union, a history-making new low? Who's been propagating inflammatory rhetoric and using many clueless tea partiers to act out on their behalf? Before you make such a big stink over one woman walking with a gavel, you need to take a good, long look at the behavior of many of your party members over the past year. Government policies should not be based on OR opposed to by these tactics. When conservatives start showing civility and reason, THEN they can lecture others on it.

Now you're talking about the flooding all over the northeast. Previously you just said Rhode Island, which is where all those teachers were fired before the recent flooding. But there's a big difference here. You said "And these people have insurance and will move on with life. Just like the people in New Orleans had to do."

No, NOT just like the people in New Orleans did. Many people in New Orleans had hurricane insurance, not flood insurance. Any homes that had water marks on the walls, a sign that the home had experienced flooding at some point during the storm, were not covered. Doesn't matter if the flooding was caused by a hurricane storm surge, those policies were not honored. Many homeowners brought lawsuits that are still working their way through the courts. Which is why New Orleans has been so slow to rebuild. So few policies were honored that there is no money for individuals to rebuild, which is why many of those neighborhoods have not been reclaimed. Homeowners in N.O. who thought they had insurance instead lost everything and had to abandon their properties. The people in the northeast have flood insurance, a lot of it is probably federal flood insurance too, because many of those areas flood almost every year. So the R.I. people will rebuild and move on, something New Orleans has not been able to do. So no, the two situations are not comparable. If we find out the majority of people in the northeast have no insurance and are now destitute, then we'll talk about comparable.

"If you do not read the Wall Street Journal article, how do you know what the issues were?"

Because the WSJ is not the only news source on earth that has carried the story. I've read about it elsewhere and know the basics, but it sounds like the WSJ article goes into more depth. Which is why I asked you to post it here, or at least most of it, I don't think we can post articles in their entirety on this blog. So post it, if you would be so kind, I'll read it, then we'll talk.

And just because Mass hasn't had a public option so far doesn't mean it won't. The state was providing insurance through the state's private insurers, like health care reform will do nationwide. But if the insurer's say they can't provide insurance at a reasonable cost, then a public option is the next logical step, isn't it?

You might want to take your own advice, what the?.

You're the one who stated she doesn't need to read as she already know what's going on!

It is very sad, your closed, mean-spirited little liberal mind.

A blog is for all to participate. No one or two persons should dominate.

I think we are close on the grandstanding. But my final point is that government policies should not be based on such tactics. The last governments to do so were Hitler and the Japanese. Do we want to revert to that level? What happened to civility and reason?

The economic damage to the northeast from the floods this spring were greater than that of New Orleanes. That is the story that the MSM is not printing. It's because it has hit middle class families rather than "defenseless" poor people. And these people have insurance and will move on with life. Just like the people in New Orleanes had to do.

If you do not read the Wall Street Journal article, how do you know what the issues were? The premium increases had to cover the costs of the newly insured. The average policy holder stayed on medical insurance for FIVE months. They opted for the penalty for the balance. Just like OBAMACARE. The cost for the newly insured were 600% of the existing covered people. Again pointing to buying insurance just before they had a catastrophic matter. That is why the insurance companies raised the premiums for tne new people. Let the government insure these people, let the rest of us alone. The result will be more government deficits.

Oops. Massachusetts has no public option. These people are uninsured again since no company will sell them insurance. A failed plan.

People are already looking for their "free" health insurance. Where is it? I would be surprised if more than 10% of the 30 million that OBAMACARE pretends to cover sign up. Only the people where the government pays 80% or more of the premium.

The train is on the tracks ready to crash by 2014!!!!!!

Izwydopn:

Hey, dittohead! This recent interview between the Russian President and George Stephanopoulos reminded me of you:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've now met with President Obama many times. What do you make of Barack Obama the man?

MEDVEDEV: He's very comfortable partner, it's very interesting to be with him. The most important thing that distinguishes him from many other people - I won't name anyone by name - he's a thinker, he thinks when he speaks. Which is already pretty good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You had somebody in your mind, I think. (LAUGHS)

MEDVEDEV: Obviously I do have someone on my mind. I don't want to offend anyone. He's eager to listen to his partner, which is a pretty good quality for a politician. Because any politician is to a certain degree a mentor. And the ability to listen to their partner is very important for the politician. And he is pretty deeply emerged in the subject, so he has a good knowledge of what he's talking about.

Now matter where you are in the world, thinking when you speak is considered a GOOD THING. You may want to try it.

There you have it!

whatthe? doesn't have to read about anything ------ to quote her, "....I don't subscribe. I basically know what's going on."

As Ken wrote much earlier, she doesn't need to be confused with data and facts, she has her pre-conceived opinions and leftist talking points!

Bully taw!

Dan D:

"There are more people here than you and me, this is a community, but I was referring to your comments."

I see. So you're GRANDSTANDING for the other readers here? These third person "asides" are the types of things you normally would say behind someone's back? You feel the need to play to the community, to garner the support of others here, you can't just let readers draw their own conclusions? Nice. I don't feel the need to do this. When I post to you, I'm only addressing you. Interesting difference between us.

"Don't be stubborn on my comment about grandstanding. There were no real debates like Jefferson and Adams."

I'm not being stubborn about what you call the Pelosi grandstanding. I said I see the point you're making, but I sincerely feel you're blowing it way out of proportion in your zeal to find fault with anything they do. There was lots of grandstanding going on at the same time by Republican lawmakers, both Bachmann and Boehner were speaking and playing the crowd, that didn't bother you. Just what Pelosi did does. So let's agree to disagree and move on.

And we have not had any "real" debates like Jefferson and Adams for over 200 years! Is THIS the standard you're now holding democratic administrations to? We didn't even have this before invading Iraq, just the misinformation and fear mongering that has now become a staple of the Republican party. Jefferson and Adams cared about making policy for the country. Politicians don't like doing policy anymore because policy can be unpopular. What's important is winning elections and being in power by any means necessary. It's sad what our political system has become. But I better watch these digressions, or you'll accuse me of "deflecting" again. I really don't care, knock yourself out.

"My point on Rhode Island is that the resulting physical devastation is more costly than New Orleans. I do not think Rhode Island is as reckless with public pensions."

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical devastation". I think of homes being swept away in flood waters, lives lost or irreversibly devastated, etc. This happened in New Orleans, not R.I. Neither of us knows about Rhode Island's teacher's benefits, but they're still a union, so that means it's good. You can't complain that unionized workers, teachers included, are exempt from the free market pain that everyone else is experiencing and that they have it much easier than everyone else with costly and cushy benefits and retiring "rich" and all, and now claim that they're experiencing extreme "physical devastation" over job loss? You're trying to have it both ways, and it's not working. Those teachers got fired because their school wasn't meeting state achievement standards. They may not be happy about it, but that's the way it works. I thought you'd like this, because that's how it is in the private sector. You don't perform well, you get fired. But now you're complaining about this and boo-hooing for the teachers because it's an opportunity to criticize Obama. I haven't heard that R.I is comparable to New Orleans. Your comment is the first, so I don't know where you're getting this. It's a stretch, and a lame one.

Take heart. We're entering hurricane season. Maybe the Reps will get lucky and the gulf coast will get hit with another devastating storm that they can then exploit to trash Obama. I'm sure Obama learned from Katrina and he won't display the same indifference and neglect that Bush did, but I'm sure the Reps will use it for all it's worth just the same. Then you won't have to make lame associations to things like R.I., you'll have some real dead people to use!

By the way, I could not read the WSJ article because I don't subscribe. I basically know what's going on. MA has had a system like our new one for the past several years. The top six insurers in that state didn't get a double digit rate increase that they wanted, what, 32%? The state said no. So they haven't quit doing business, they dropped their individual and small group policy holders. These are the policies that they can no longer use rescission on, which is how insurers held down costs and increased profits, so they dropped them. Fine. This is precisely why the private sector shouldn't be involved in health care. Can you say PUBLIC OPTION?

But post it here, if you can. I'd like to see what it says about the hospitals and other providers.

Lots to do now that the weather's nice. Later.

WT--There are more people here than you and me, this is a community, but I was referring to your comments.

My quick reactions before the BIG NEWS.

Don't be stubborn on my comment about grandstanding. There were no real debates like Jefferson and Adams, Webster and Grant. Just shows. And my impression is that there are more shows from Obama and gang than any other president. Bachman is a one person show, Peolosi's march was the prime democratic show.

And who propagating the misinformation? The Dems. But wait for the BIG NEWS.

Not that Bush is without blame, but Nagin and his political cronies were the primary cause of the devastation in New Orleans. They had five days to get people out and they did not. So Bush and his guy could not make up for his mistake. Go to any area by a Hurricane. If you do not follow the instructions, you do so at YOUR risk. And New Orleans should be destroyed. Why rebuild 100 feet below sea level.

My point on Rhode Island is that the resulting physical devastation is more costly than New Orleans. I do not think Rhode Island is as reckless with public pensions.

I have to stress again, TARP did not help the banks, it only bailed out those I listed. Just like Lehman going bust, so could Citi. It would not have been an issue. The TARP is the worst public policy ANYONE could concieve. Shows you how incompetant Washington is.

Before the BIG NEWS, don't forget to answer my question and The Bard's. You are the spokesman for the liberals. Tell us what we should do for people making $40,000, paying no income taxes and soon to get a subsidy for health insurance. What else do they deserve? Should I give them my house? Maybe yours? Should I pay their rent or mortgage? How does this "share the wealth" work?

AND THE BIG NEWS.

The insurance companies in Massachusetts have stopped selling insurance. Obama cronie Deval Patrick imposed price controls and the insurance companies said no new policies. Just like how Obama care will fail. The links is the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575171782805022028.html

Read the article. The problem is not the insurers, it is the hospitals and the other providers.

Dan D:

Why have you started referring to me in the third person when replying directly to me?

"The What the? score card" "What the? deflects comments" It's weird. It's like me starting out a post to you with "Dan D's delusions" or "Dan D goes on a tirade". Hello, I'm in the room! Oh well, suit yourself.

"You missed my point. Legislators should govern, not run PR shows. The Democrats spend more time than the Republicans today in protesting and grandstanding."

So the legislators in the majority should just quietly govern and leave the grandstanding to the legislators in the minority? Are not Boehner and Bachmann legislators? In fact, Bachmann right now has a PR road show with Palin (what I refer to as the Dumb and Dumber Tour). Rep lawmakers have spent a lot of time running PR shows against EVERYTHING the Obama administration does! Aren't Joe Wilson and the "baby killer" yeller legislators? I see the point you're making, but it also seems you're applying a double standard that says it's ok for Republican legislators to protest and grandstand and be as obnoxious as they want in opposition, but not ok for those actually passing the legislation. Since silence implies agreement, I believe Obama should speak out against misinformation being propagated by others. If it turns into a PR show, so be it. If there wasn't so much misinformation being intentionally put out in the first place, this kind of thing wouldn't be necessary. You reap what you sow. I would like to see less of this from BOTH sides and more intelligent, rational discussion, like what was attempted at the Blair House summit, but the Republicans are drifting further and further to the extreme right and the extreme behavior and verbiage that goes with it. I suspect this is our new normal.

"And now you are blaming Bush for 9/11? Really? And Katrina? Where has Obama been in Rhode Island? Oh, there are not as many poor and minorities, so too bad for those people. I heard the devastation and inaction are comparable."

I said 9/11 WARNING, I said Katrina AFTERMATH. Calm down and pay attention. I can tell you haven't been following my responses to other posters on this thread. Re: 9/11, see my post To Anonymous on March 30, 2010 5:29 PM. And after Katrina, Bush was MIA for 5 days while pictures of bodies floating in U.S. streets were broadcast around the world

You think the aftermath of Rhode Island is comparable? You're talking about all the teacher's being fired at a school? SERIOUSLY? I'm sure the opposition is working VERY hard to make those fired in Rhode Island comparable to the Katrina dead, you gotta work with what you've got. But saying the devastation and inaction are comparable? On those cushy teacher unemployment benefits that you complain about constantly? Did these teachers lose their homes only to find out later that their insurance wouldn't cover them? Were teachers stranded for days in the superdome without adequate food or water? Are there bodies of teachers floating in the streets of Rhode Island too?

"Be honest on TARP. It was suppose to buy toxic assets of banks. It did not buy one asset. There is a major debate about too big to fail, but besides Lehman, all of the companies I listed should have failed. TARP protected failing businesses and allowed them to be nationalized. Then we would not have this debate."

I was. And I agreed with you for the most part. TARP did not buy one toxic asset. But it did keep the banking system from crashing nonetheless. And the taxpayers likely will get back most, if not all, of the bail out funds as the banks buy back their freedom from the government. So how is this a problem? It worked, isn't that what counts?

I only feel the car companies should have been allowed to fail. The U.S. economy could have survived this. But the banks, I'm not so sure. So I will never say for certain that TARP was the wrong thing to do. Bush disagreed with you, so did Obama. And yes, TARP was done largely because no one knew what else to do. But I can't claim that the road not taken was the correct one, we'll never know. I do know the one that was chosen is working out all right.

More when I have the time.

Ah, to be blissfully ignorant! It allows one such as what the? to dogfully follow the commands of an unseen master.

A little tax info: Directly from the IRS Statistics of Income, the top 1% of earners paid 40% of all taxes. This is the highest rate of taxes paid by that group in over 40 years! Do you get it? It is NOT just more total taxes because they make more, but the percentage of what they pay has risen at a horrendous rate.

There is more: The top 1% earned about 22% of all reported income, but paid 40% of all taxes. The top 1% pay taxes at a rate double that of their income and achieved this pinnacle under the Bush tax cuts. So you see, the Bush cuts actually hurt the "rich" on any comparable level.

Oh, there is yet more: The Bush tax cuts increased government tax receipts by $785 billion (just as the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts increased tax revenues) and gave us eight million new jobs over a 52-month period. These cuts expire at the end of 2010 if Congress does nothing (which they won't), raising tax rates on the top earners will to 39.6% from 35%, and on the next-highest bracket to 36% from 33%. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 55% of these tax increases will come from small-business income. That oughta do wonders for the jobless rates.

What the? lips off a lot about progressive taxes and how much more can be paid.

I guess the question is to tax or not to tax, and if so what rates should come when we have shuffled off our capitalist coil?

So these questions are specifically for what the?:

1)What are the RIGHT federal individual income tax rates to use? Be specific. Is it 50%? 100%? 10%?

2)Should anyone be allowed to make wages and not pay taxes? If so, exactly what is the cut-off you would use for that zero rate?

3)Should someone who pays no taxes deserve tax credits via the tax code? If so, again, what is the cut-off for that?

4)If you believe 2), above, is a good thing, can you explain why it is better to do it through a tax code (a device that was originated to collect from wages the funds needed to fund the federal government init's constitutional chores) than through the more appropo way of welfare?

WT deflects comments

GRANDSTANDING

You missed my point. Legislators should govern, not run PR shows. The Democrats spend more time than the Republicans today in protesting and grandstanding. That's all Obama has done since elected. Staging events to sway people. The legislation is not enough, so they try PR.

That is different then select politicians joining the protesters.

SUB PRIME LENDING

You make a major contradiction. If banks were making money, it was only short term. Bad loans always fail. Read Greenspans comments. There was intense pressure from all quarters to make bad loans. That is the cause of the finanacial meltdown. That plus bush not standing up to the wasteful spending Democrats are the causes of the deficits. The government still mandates bad loans. When are they going to drop these programs? Then there would be money for small businesses.

And now you are blaming Bush for 9/11? Really? And Katrina? Where has Obama been in Rhode Island? Oh, there are not as many poor and minorities, so too bad for those people. I heard the devastation and inaction are comparable.

You still did not answer what we should be doing for the people who's salary are too low. I am very curious. And besides Rush's page, there are many others. 47% do not pay taxes. I think Laura Ingrams mother calls them the takers and the rest are the givers. How do you address this?

Be honest on TARP. It was suppose to buy toxic assets of banks. It did not buy one asset. There is a major debate about too big to fail, but besides Lehman, all of the companies I listed should have failed. TARP protected failing businesses and allowed them to be nationalized. Then we would not have this debate.

As a staunch liberal, how do you stand on the $100 billion in union pension plan deficit? If PBCC takes over the plans, the retirees pensions are cut to $10,000 (this number seems low, I thought the cap was $30,000, maybe it is based on the related income) from $40,000. The unions want the Federal goverment to fund them.

Just watch. There will not be enough money to go around.

Dan D:

PELOSI GRANDSTANDING: Ok, now we're at the heart of the matter. So in conservative world, it's ok to grandstand when you're protesting something--like yelling "you lie" or "baby killer" or "hell no you can't" and ginning up the mob with ridiculous rhetoric and huge banners and all other sorts of grandstanding. But Pelosi doesn't blink and faces all this crap down publicly and does her job anyway and THIS is unacceptable grandstanding to you. Now I get it.

Seriously, if you guys think this behavior is fine to dish out, you really need to learn to take it better. I've said this many times on this blog, you should know it by now. You know that Obama held MANY pep rallies trying to swap public opinion? Just like the Tea Party folks did, holding their pep rallies trying to swap public opinion. Goes both ways. The rules are the same for everyone who plays, as much as you dislike that.

REAGAN TAX CUTS: This is but one piece of a bigger pie. I'm talking about the huge deficits run up under Republican administrations as opposed to the Dem ones, as illustrated by my link. You're going off into the sub prime loan programs that were enacted years after Reagan. Different things, stay on topic.

"And Bush, he tolerated this mess instead of simply shutting it down. . . . . they should investigate why his people let this problem continue."

Everyone knows why Bush let the sub prime problem continue. Because it was making TONS OF MONEY for the banking industry and everyone connected to it. It was so lucrative that even the SEC looked the other way. As long as everyone kept getting fat, no one cared. Blowing the whistle would have removed the facade of false prosperity, why would the Bush administration want to do that while they had the White House?

The sub prime mess is just another example of the gross neglect of the Bush administration, the same kind of gross neglect that dismissed the 9/11 warning and ignored the Katrina disaster. When you think about it, a lot of Americans were irreversibly damaged during the Bush years--from the deaths on 9/11 to the casualties of the Iraq War to the Katrina aftermath to people who were wiped out financially by the banking collapse. And still, you're on here advocating for smaller government and less regulation. We had that during the Bush years. Didn't work out too well, did it?

"Go to Limbaugh's EIB web site." Oh, Lord. This is clearly one of your problems. You get your 'facts' from an entertainer's website?

I agree with you for the most part on your assessment of TARP, except for the part that it's been a failure. That hasn't been decided yet, banks are still paying back funds. Let's wait until the story is finished before we judge it a failure.

"This is not the America I was brought up in."

And it's not the America you have now. That's still the reality. Your doomsday predictions for 2014 are just that, doomsday predictions, not fact. I seriously doubt we will have your version of America in the future.

Not Shakespeare:

What happened to waxing poetic in attempted Shakespearean-type English? You're out of character!

"The top 1%, under GWB, paid the single largest amount of the tax bill in history, period. They did not fare better from a tax perspective under GWB. That is just another progressive talking point that you were dumb enough to repeat."

Yes, the top 1% paid the most taxes because they hold the majority of the wealth. That's how a progressive tax system works, or is suppose to. This can also be viewed as a testament to the disparity of wealth in our country.

Anon 5678:

Taxes targeting specific products or activities, like tobacco, alcohol, gambling, strip clubs, and now sugary drinks and tanning salons--aka sin taxes--have been around for DECADES. All 50 states use them and often raise these taxes or institute new ones whenever revenue is needed. How is Obama responsible for this? If sin taxes are just like VATs, as you claim, then we're already using this form of taxation, have been for years. Either way, how is this Obama's doing?

According to your article, tho, VATs are not the same as sin taxes. Sin taxes are taken at the register. When people choose to purchase these things, they KNOW they're being taxed up the wazoo. A VAT item is taxed at every production step along the way, not at the register, which makes it a hidden tax.

The CBS article is not fear mongering. The way you are using it to say this will certainly happen and that Obama will do it, when the article itself claims nothing of the kind, IS fear mongering. Now you're saying ok, maybe Obama won't enact a VAT, but he'll leave us so deeply in debt that the next president will have no choice but to. You got a crystal ball? A lot can change in several years, the economic crisis is fading, the economy and jobs will eventually bounce back, the deficit will eventually go down.

I could use your article to claim that VATs will most likely be enacted by the next Republican administration, given the Reps pattern of borrowing and spending and running up deficits like they've been doing over the past three decades. The article says that the last time a VAT was discussed, it was favored by GOP economists during the Reagan administration. And no wonder, it's a hidden tax. That way the Reps can tax and spend without admitting to it. See how fear mongering works both ways?

The What The? Scorecard

PELOSCI GRANDSTANDING

"So it was the celebratory mood the Dems showed on voting day that you consider inappropriate? Especially in front of protesters? Ok, opinion duly noted."

Thanks for the opinion. I did not see people protesting in favor of the bill. We know that Obama held MANY pep rallies trying to swap public opinion.

Curious point. He says he does not govern by polls, but he sure blows a lot of hot air. I wish he would have spent more time trying to address issues rather than a socialistic agenda to "spread the wealth".

REAGAN TAX CUTS

Whoa!!! Not to take credit away from Clinton and Gingrich, but I think the full impact of the Reagan tax cuts did not occur until the late 90's. And I think that recessions are just part of life and we survived the 2000-2001 recession and terrorist attack very well.

Did anyone hear Greenspan this week? He quantifies the financial meltdown of 2008. The sub prime mortgage mess. He points to BILLIONS of bad loans funded by Freddie and Fannie. Think of the tremendous loss that these two entities have taken. They created the market for bad loans. (Will Franklin Raines be given the responsibility to implement Obamacare?)

Greenspan points to programs pushed by Clinton and tolerated by Bush that virtually destroyed our economy. That is whey our wealth has evaporated. Down the drain supporting people who should not own homes. Let's give credit where credit is due. Barnie Frank, Harry Reid, all the crooks who supported Freddie and Fannie.

And Bush, he tolerated this mess instead of simply shutting it down. Imagine if he said NO in 2003 instead of letting this mess happen. Instead of investigating him for war crimes in Iraq, they should investigate why his people let this problem continue.

More amazing. The sub prime programs continue. The government continues to force banks to make bad loans. The answer, MAKE NO LOANS. Not a very positive choice.

The problem was not the Reagan tax cuts, but the sub prime.

And this "progressive" garbage about the lower 40% not benefiting. What should be done? Do they deserve a salary increase? Why did they not get one? If they don't like what they are doing, quit. Move to Venezualia or Cuba. See if they do better there.

No, the liberals want to "spread the wealth." People who did not bother to complete high school want a higher salary. TOO BAD!!

Go to Limbaugh's EIB web site. The 47% who do not pay taxes are mad that they are not getting FREE health care RIGHT NOW.

I do not know ANYONE who has not been able to succeed and enjoy America IF they contribute and work hard.

OTHER ITEMS

I am annoyed with this attitude that they did it, so it is alright for us to do it.

The biggest issue is the deficits. Obama on one hand criticizes Bush for his deficits (and I do to) and then he is outdoing him. This is not hypocrasy?

TARP was a total fraud. It did not save our country, the FED saved our country by flooding the economy with money.

TARP saved the following companies that should have been allowed to fail

AIG
Goldman Sachs (by saving AIG)
GM
Chrysler
Citigroup
Merrill Lynch

All of these companies should have been shut and their assets divided. Both BUsh and Obama failed with TARP, both of them. Neither knew what to do, nor did their advisors.

PROMOTION

I am all in favor of setting forth ideas. But be honest. To this day, nobody is talking about the PUBLIC OPTION. Starting in 2014, there will be only one insurance company, the Federal company. Nobody else will be ALLOWED to compete. Existing plans have to convert to the PUBLIC PLAN (more than just pre existing conditions). Why stay with a private program. My plan, pay the fine. I will buy insurance when I get sick. Simple. Major savings.

This is not the America I was brought up in.

"Seriously. She listed cyberattacks as a nuking offense, in the same sentence as biological and chemical attacks."

Just out of idle curiosity, do you realize what crashing the nation's computers would do to the US? Everything is run by computers these days, and if a rogue nation tried to harm us by using a cyberattack, I would think all our options should be open.
While it is doubtful that a nuclear attack would be the answer, telling your enemies that it definitely will not happen only weakens our country. This is something that President Obama and his advisers do not seem to realize. The phrase "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is still as true today as when President Roosevelt uttered it over 100 years ago.

Your tax data is either incorrect or you do not know how to analyse the data.

The top 1%, under GWB, paid the single largest amount of the tax bill in history, period. They did not fare better from a tax perspective under GWB. That is just another progressive talking point that you were dumb enough to repeat.

Congrats!

The only excessive protesting on this board comes from what the?!

She is constantly telling us how she isn't left, how she is fair, how only she can see through the fog and see the light. She tells us, no, she insists, that she has heard it all, knows things of others (including networks) that the rest of us don't know. She sees herself as oracle to the bloggers!

Of course, we all know she in only trying to convince herself.

So sad. Clearly we have all hit a very sensitive nerve with her.

Not Shakespeare:

For your enjoyment, the latest Michele Bachmann "looneyism":

"Matthews, Buchanan, and Ron Reagan Jr. were discussing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's attack on the White House Wednesday for its new Nuclear Posture Review, which outlines how the U.S. would use its nuclear weapons.

Bachmann told her supporters that the new rules would hurt the United States' efforts to defend itself. She argued that in the event of a cyberattack, the U.S. would not be able to use nuclear weapons to retaliate."

Seriously. She listed cyberattacks as a nuking offense, in the same sentence as biological and chemical attacks.

Even worse, Pat Buchanan didn't know what a cyberattack was either and started parroting support of Bachmann's comment until Chris Matthews explained to him what a cyberattack was, then Pat chuckled and said no, he would not launch a nuclear attack if someone hacked into his computer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/pat-buchanan-confused-by_n_529439.html

I think MB made these comments at a gathering of the first Palin/Bachmann Dumb and Dumber Tour. Stay tuned for more!

Excise tax primarily targeting ciragettes. Who primarily smoke cigarettes? The poor. This health care bill is loaded with taxes that start now and ultimately end up being paid by the consumer.....just like a VAT. If you choose to belive the lie, so be it. But in reality the person making 2mil or the person making 30k are paying for BHO's pet projects all while there is no hope for reigning in the deficit.

How is that article in CBS fear mongering? There is one analyst who suggested that because of Obamas disasters he is putting in place that some poor other sucker is going to have to install a VAT in 2020. That was one person. It was BHO's staff - Paul Volker who talked about it suggesting it may be the only way to pay for all these projects. How is you take the word from an analyst when it is convenient for you but take the word of the president or his staff also when it is convenient for you?

There is example after example on how increased taxes, increased socialism does not work, yet ............well, unfortunately we are getting exactly what 53% of the people voted for. Shameful. And scary.

Soon2bademocrap:

Adorable post. But one thing needs clarification: bad chardonnay is tolerable depending on the circumstances, but there is no excuse whatsoever for rindy brie. Horrors! This is definitely going too far!

Anon 5678:

"Remember when Obama liekd and said he wasn't going to raise taxes on people making less than 250K?"

Really? When did this become a "lie"?

My personal favorite has always been Bush 41's "Read my lips: no new taxes". Ahhhh, the good old days.

Anon 5678:

I read the article you posted. Most notable was this paragraph:

"To be sure, no one expects a VAT to join the tax code this year or next. But what about by 2020? The odds narrow sharply. "There's very little chance in the next few years," says Brian Harris, a senior research associate at Brookings, a left-of-center think tank, "but a substantial chance in the next decade or so." And Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at the right-of-center Americans for Tax Reform, who loathes the idea, says of the VAT, "I think it's coming, in the next five to 10 years certainly."

Catch that? There's very little chance in the next few years, but a substantial chance in the next decade or so. So no, Obama will not be passing a VAT tax. Some other president might in the future, but not Obama. This is standard fear mongering, insisting Obama plans to do something he hasn't considered or talked about, in fact which is right now only an idea that's being batted around across the whole political spectrum, left and right. Your own article says so.

Now that you have provided the fear mongering, here's the current reality:

Nearly Half of U.S. Households Escape Fed Income Tax

"About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent."

So the top 1% of Americans fared better under Bush, 47% of low- and middle-income families will fare better under Obama. That's a lot more happy Americans.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100407/US.No.Taxes/

Remember when Obama liekd and said he wasn't going to raise taxes on people making less than 250K? And he wasn't even smart enough to throw the word "income" in front of the word "taxes". He just said taxes. Well obviously there has been many an example of him lying about that in this administration, this health care bill included. Wait til the libs go nuts with this one. Volker is right. BHO and his cronie crooks are going to have to do something to pay for the impending disasters.

Here is yet another tax proposal passed on to everyone, no matter how much you make.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20001918-503983.html

Dan D:

"I do not think that the Republicans revel in passing their legislation, I simply do not recall that. If you think back to Reagan, he made a monumental change by reducing the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. He recognized that a productive economy raises all boats. It has served us well for over 25 years."

So it was the celebratory mood the Dems showed on voting day that you consider inappropriate? Especially in front of protesters? Ok, opinion duly noted. But I also recall the Republican lawmakers, Bachmann, Boehner, et al., making a big show of their opposition on voting day with speeches and banners hung from buildings. Is it okay to be obnoxious in opposition but not support?

Yes, Reagan certainly did make a monumental change by reducing the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. But whether it has served this country all that well for 25 years is debatable. What we know is these tax cuts also created a massive budget deficit because spending was not cut also. Both Reagan and Bush 43 passed tax cuts and left the country with huge deficits upon leaving office. Was the "boat raising" seen during their administrations real or false prosperity, a result of having to run up deficits to keep the goodies coming while enacting these tax cuts? Reagan joked "I'm not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself". Cheney said bluntly "deficits don't matter".

Don't you see a pattern here? Why is it that Republicans only care about deficit spending when they're not in the White House? Reps call the Dems "tax and spend". But the Reps are "borrow and spend", and Americans like this because it creates the appearance of prosperity, but the prosperity is false. The illusion is revealed when we ultimately have to pay the bills, something that recently has been left to the Democratic administrations that follow. Here's the pattern. It's wikipedia and over simplified, but you get the general idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Can running up record deficits really be called "success" and "working well for 25 years"? Definitely debatable.

"On one hand, Obama blasts Bush for record defitits. Then he proceeds to triple them. That is not hypocrasy?"

Only if you don't take the different circumstances under which these deficits occurred into account, which I'm sure most Reps don't because it wouldn't support their anti-Obama narrative.

The Bush administration went on a massive spending spree with the national credit card and had a GREAT time! Invaded Iraq, cut taxes, gave Medicare a boost--all on the credit card. Nothing was paid for! Obama was left with not only their credit card bill but with a crashing economy that threatened a second Great Depression. If Bush had stayed around, he probably would have reacted to it like Hoover did, with the exception of throwing money at the banks and the car industry. Obama reacted like Roosevelt.

"The problem with the health care bill is what are the "risks" of the bill? The CBO estimates are the estimates."

Yes, estimates are only estimates. But I considered the problem with our health care system bad enough to be worth the risks. The majority of Dems ultimately did, too. No Republicans did.

"Record numbers of Americans have disavowed their citizenship last year. Do you think these were people on welfare? NO WAY. 80% of them were BILLIONAIRES. Taking their money and running. THEY CAN!"

Wow. Disavowing U.S. citizenship to keep a bigger percentage of billions? What a proud group of patriots! Isn't capitalism great? Profit above all else. And I bet the majority of them are still living here in the U.S., the country that made their billions possible, not in their new host countries. True?

"If you need to promote the agenda, then there is something wrong."

Republican talking point. Of course this is absurd. All presidents promote their agendas. This one needed more promoting than usual because of all the misinformation PROMOTED by opponents. Again, it's ok to promote opposition but not support?

"When Greta VS asked Harry Reid that people could game the system (as I have been posting here), he dismisses this."

I disagree with Harry. To dismiss this is a big mistake. People will definitely game the system. People GAME EVERYTHING--taxes, Medicare, Medicaid, all welfare programs, even FAFSA applications. Seriously, I found this out last year when going through the process myself. Some of the stuff folks think up is amazing. People are their most creative when trying to get something for nothing. Health care reform will be no exception. But that's not a good enough reason to not have any system at all. We'll just have to deal with it.

WT

You go off in tangients. And as a result are hypocritical as a result.

I do not think that the Republicans revel in passing their legislation, I simply do not recall that. If you think back to Reagan, he made a monumental change by reducing the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. He recognized that a productive economy raises all boats. It has served us well for over 25 years.

Now we have a president and a congress that want to reverse 25 years of success. So when they pass a bill, they treat it like May Day.

On one hand, Obama blasts Bush for record defitits. Then he proceeds to triple them. That is not hypocrasy? The problem with the health care bill is what are the "risks" of the bill? The CBO estimates are the estimates. I read in the Wall Street Journal that the probability to achieving those estimates were also disclosed, in the low 20% range. Alan Greenspan in the MSM said that this bill has just as much chance of costing $4 trillion as it does $1 trillion. Who pays the extra $3 trillion? NOBODY. Just more debt. As Greenspan said, "Reckless".

Will poor people pick up the tab? No way. To pick up another fact in yesterdays Wall Street. Record numbers of Americans have disavowed their citizenship last year. Do you think these were people on welfare? NO WAY. 80% of them were BILLIONAIRES. Taking their money and running. THEY CAN!

Insteade of passing this agenda on its merits, there is all of these pep rallies and showmanship. If you need to promote the agenda, then there is something wrong. If you need to FORCE participation (by the way, Obama opposed such forced participation during his campaign, yet another campaign pledge broken), it must not be good.

When Greta VS asked Harry Reid that people could game the system (as I have been posting here), he dismisses this. I think all conservatives (including the people who own most of the US corporations) should cancel their insurance plans and pay the penalty. Watch the government defict grow by TRILLIONS!!!!

Dan D:

In follow up to my last post, I was watching a news program last night, I think it was on CNN, and the guy who had been up against Steele for the RNC chairmanship was on discussing Steele, and here's the kicker: he was African American also! I had no idea that the two people considered for the position WERE BOTH BLACK! Yep, the RNC was definitely determined to put an AA in that position to counter Obama's win.

Not Shakespeare:

The bard doth protest too much, methinks.

Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.

At last! We get to see you, and read you, as the hypocrite you truly are!

You finally quit pretending to be either open minded, able to grasp opposing arguments, or not mean spirited.

The skies opened, angels sang, sunlight healed ----What the? has seen the light! And we have seen the truth!

And then they all rested.

Bard:

"But..... when a conservative speaks their piece (ie Bachman, post above), she is a Looney tunes?"

Without a doubt.

Shakespeare you're not.

Dan D:

"Were she to have been shot, SHE put herself in harms way"?

If violence would have occurred, now you blame the victim for leaving her office? Geez, Dan, your rationalizations are getting pretty extreme.

The group addressed the media two blocks from her office prior to the vote. Pelosi is Speaker of the House; she spoke, and then returned with the other lawmakers. You may not have agreed with the way she was doing her job, but she did it nonetheless. You would not have expected any less from a Republican lawmaker in that situation; that's the real hypocrisy. I can acknowledge that, you refuse to.

I really am not revealing in the demise of conservative PRINCIPLES, the principles are fine for the most part. I even support some of them. I apologize if it appears this way, and I can see that it does at times. What I'm revealing in is the demise of hypocritical people who get tripped up by their own BS, and politicians do it more often than most. I've seen the same with liberals, but the conservatives have been hogging the spotlight a lot lately. Like Steele using his race as an excuse after making such a BIG DEAL of criticizing the Dems when they raised it. He even had the gall to try to drag Obama into it with him, to use the president's color as a shield after previously denying this was an issue for Obama. Is Steele memory-impaired or does he just lose track of what BS he uses when? It's unbelievable!

I just felt pretty certain that the main reason Steele got the chairmanship of the RNC when he did was because of his color. The nation had just made history by electing the first African American president. The RNC wanted to make history by installing the first African American chairman, kind of a tit for tat. Most conservatives posting here at the time denied this. I'm not saying Steele wasn't qualified, but his race definitely gave him the advantage. Now the RNC is stuck with him, not happy with the job he is doing but not wanting to be seen as the party that gives the boot to their first African American chairman. I think Steele knows it too.

This is how the RNC got into this fix: they chose Steele mostly for the color of his skin, the content of his character was secondary. We did the opposite in electing Obama: we chose him primarily for the content of his character, not the color of his skin. That seems to have made all the difference.

I have decided to embrace all of this new nationalized healthcare stuff.

Why argue with it?

I see the double standard that people like Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid and the President get away with, and I think "Why shouldn't I be able to do the same? Why can't I promise one thing, do the opposite, and have people only remember the original promise?"

I find myself also asking "I know a lot of 50 year-old ideas that were never really very good. Why not now use them as my own and get people to think I'm really, really deep & smart?"

So, I have scheduled a free federal lobotomy for next week so that I can see everything from the same dull, flat, unimaginative perspective as the lemmings formerly known as liberals do.

Cheerio, mates! I am told the post-operative recovery includes lots of bad chardonnay & rindy brie (both French, of course) along with videos of Central Park, Che, and protests from the earlier 2000s with Bush is a Nazi signs and burnings in effigy. You know, real open-minded stuff that the progressives are known for!

My next blogs will include such insightful and objective comments as "The U.S. is a war criminal", and "Fox News Lies", and "Conservatives are inciting me to do something bad". You know, the usual unsubstantiated stuff!

See ya then! Peace, love, understanding, and stone the conservatives (oops! Too soon --- gotta wait for the lobotomy)

Let me see......

If Pelosi incites people in any way, say by calling the President an idiot, or fellow Americans Nazis and un-American, it is "Okay". She is just speaking her piece.

But..... when a conservative speaks their piece (ie Bachman, post above), she is a Looney tunes?

What a biased little wench we see when she first practices to pretend to be (open minded, that is), Missy What the?!

WT

People like you and Thom Higgins revel in the demise of conservative principals so much that a conservative can never have a fair point.

Pelosi had to leave her office, go two blocks down the mall and walk back to her office. She did this to walk defiantly past the protesters with her Democratic collegues holding arms like they were walking through a ghetto neighborhood.

Were she to have been shot, SHE put herself in harms way.

So very simply, I am calling it as I see it. Just like all the Democratic rhetoric about reconciliation and filibustering. When they do it, it is OK. When the Republicans do it, it is wrong.

If the Republicans chose to continue to block legislative matters (and I feel they should), then let the Democrats win enough seats in November so they can overcome this matter. They falsely accused the Alaskan Republican Senator to win that seat. They have brought the country to its low levels.

So don't complain. Don't be a hypocrate. Turnabout is fair play.

Dan D:

Taunting the protesters. Please! This sounds like "you kids quit teasing the dog!"

Who cares where Pelosi's office is? She was outside talking to the media from a podium before the events in question. Perhaps the podium should have been put IN HER OFFICE? Since you would be criticizing Pelosi no matter what she had done that day--your silence on this implies agreement--this assertion has no merit beyond the far right groups. And M. "Looney Tunes" Bachmann did accuse Pelosi of trying to "incite something" to Hannity on 4/1. But this is to be expected from her.

There's so much other fun stuff going on right now. Bondagegate and other revelations of inappropriate spending, big donors taking their $$ elsewhere and the RNC setting up a shadow group to try to recapture some of it, Steele dropping the race card now that he's in trouble and his back is up against a wall after denying race was an issue and accusing the Dems of dropping the race card every time they got in trouble and their backs were up against a wall. Totally nuts. I guess if I were in conservative shoes, I'd be focusing on anything else I could find too.

Bard:

What?

TO WT

I was relaying my story about Pelosi taunting the Tea Party protesters. The person reminded me that her office IS IN THE CAPITAL (same as Hastert's that we all visited in the good old days).

So she had to go OUT OF HER WAY TO TAUNT THE PROTESTERS.

And don't accuse me of getting this from Fox and Limbaugh, they did not carry this. Need to tell them.

Alas! Poor What the?. Sadly for her we know her all-to-well.

We must bid adieu to rational thought and being if we are to partake in discourse with little Missy What the?.

To paraphrase our SecDef sprite, we must temporarily suspend disbelief if we are to attempt to follow her logic (or lack thereof).

We must additionally accept personal attacks and the known fact that she will refuse to budge from her Democrat talking points, which include a constant flurry of attacks on anything conservative and anything not liberal, as she stumbles her way down the river of irrationality.

As the beer forebearer intimated on youth, the more What the?'s ability (lack thereof) to analyze is wasted the sooner it wears.

Thanks for the clarification WT? - my mistake. You're right, I have no idea who you were talking about. I misunderstood your comment; "It seems that every single comment made by conservatives on this blog can be traced directly back to Faux News."

As a conservative, the "every single comment made by conservatives" phrasing drew my attention- it was you who I thought was spoiling for another fight, but like you, I'm not interested either.

Anonymous ONE:

I was not referring to you in my last post, nor was I even suggesting you were one of the "you guys". You have no idea who I was talking about.

Sounds to me like you're spoiling for another fight. Not interested.

U.S. Decline, Sloth Look a Lot Like End of Rome: Mark Fisher
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2065100&sid=apWu9PvexGoE

Commentary by Mark Fisher

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- Historians cite the late second century as the turning point of the Roman Empire , when the once- proud, feared society began its descent into infamy.

As the ruling class was undermined by civil wars and attacks by outsiders, the Romans’ respect for law and social institutions began to erode. In the end, a combination of political and economic mistakes led to the empire’s downfall.

The U.S. today is a mirror image of the Roman Empire as it tipped into chaos. Whether we blame our bloated government, a greedy elite or a lethargic population, the similarities between the two foreshadow a gruesome future. ....................................

It seems that every single comment made by conservatives on this blog can be traced directly back to Faux News.

__________

Spoken like a true liberal - where did you get this from, the Huffington Post? It's obvious most of your talking points are directly from comedians like Bill Maher, or Janine Garofolo (sp?) who spell it out in their routines. It's then linked to Huffington which you then post as your proof.

Why you continue with this is beyond me. This is now about the 100th time you've pointed out your disdain for Fox - we get it, you don't like them, you think they lie, all of us are like lambs going to slaughter!!! Talk about tracing stories back? Careful what you wish for WT because all of your points can be traced back to Maher, MSNBC, and the old Air America - so as everyone has been saying to you it is once again the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm fairly certain that I've never cited from Fox. I used the NYT and you criticized me. Face it, if you don't agree with something you make the claim that it is direct from Faux news. Can't you just disagree with something and accept that people have different opinions? And please don't try to explain that you respond this way because you are under attack - your comments about conservatives have and continue to be every bit as bad as the few anonymouses that call you out as well.

"And you say they were not confrontational? And do they EVER walk to the Capital? I still say the answer is no, just this one day. And they confronted/taunted the demonstrators."

And you certainly know this because you're there on a daily basis. Riiiight. Besides, I did read in the news today that Michelle Bachman made your exact same comment to Hannity a few days ago. So this is where you're getting it, Fox again. Should've known. It's truly amazing how none of you EVER have an original thought. It seems that every single comment made by conservatives on this blog can be traced directly back to Faux News.

And you keep ignoring the statement I have mentioned twice because you know it to be true: if the Dems had avoided the crowds and the cameras by using the underground, you would be attacking them for being cowards and not having the spine to face their constituents. This is why your comments--or should I say Bachman's comments--are not being taken seriously anywhere else. Everyone recognizes this for what it is: the loser's lament.

"Tell that to his people. THEY ARE COMPLAINING. They are concerned that the cost of absorbing these extra people in Medicare D that all companies should drop will significantly increase spending. They are using the bully pulpit trying to force companies not to drop these people."

I haven't heard this. Where are you getting it? If it's Faux, don't bother saying so.

"You show some real Democratic arrogance or ignorance by posting this comment. It was discussed. The credits are only for employees making less than $32,000. So none are avaiable to me, the plan is a joke for even companies with employees making less than $25,000. A $3,000 tax credit does not offset $9,000 in cost."

Yes, I forgot you said you wouldn't benefit. So excuuuuuuse me! I was just trying to be helpful.

Your entire last post is just another litany of predicted gloom, doom, and despair. Now you know exactly how liberals felt through 8 years of Bush.

You're too depressed and irritable to talk to. Maybe another day.

From wt:

"Re your statement: "Cleaver couldn't press charges because there was no arrest". I'm almost embarrassed to say this to you, but WRONG AGAIN! The spitter was arrested by Capital Hill police. Cleaver told the police to handle it at their own discretion, he declined to press charges. Cleaver is a Reverend, and they tend to be better at turning the other cheek. I would not have been so forgiving.
You can continue to obsess about spit to your heart's content. But to me, this is just like Obama's election and the health care reform bill: it's a done deal. I'm moving on.

Of course you are embarrassed to say I'm wrong, because you know it is a lie. I posted this link on 3/24 1:54 pm:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/20/1826449/lawmaker-wont-press-charges-in.html

From the article:

A congressman who was spat on by a protestor on Capitol Hill says he is declining to press charges, but turns out the Capitol Police say they made no arrests.

I'm not obsessing about the spitting; I'm just rebutting your false claims every time you post them. If you drop it, I won't have to mention it again either.

Anonymous on April 2, 2010 10:58 AM:

Social security? No one here is talking about social security. Dan and I have been discussing the health care reform bill, social security is a separate issue. If you want to discuss SS, find someone who's interested and go right ahead. No one's stopping you.

And you need to turn off the hypnotic glow of Faux News and check some REAL facts yourself. Bush also bailed out GM before leaving office. That's historical fact, not even your beloved FN can change that, try as they might.

Crying and moaning now? You wish! I'm having a great time, you're the one who sounds seriously bent out of shape. Try getting your own act together before going on a senseless rant and throwing your "crapola" at others.

I note that wathe refused to address the issue of social security and the fact that teh Dems ruined any chance for trying to fix it because they were still whining about 2000.

Of course, for her to address it, she would first have to understand it, which is doubtful.

Say, wthe, why is it you can attack and call names, but as soon as someone gives it back you cry and moan? Can't take it, baby?

Your preoccupation with FN is sad, and possibly dangerous. I merely point out your irrational behavior, and you all of a sudden think I watch it or use it's talking points? What a kettle, man! You are every bit the hypocrite as your beloved left (and the right, for that matter).

You might want to check your records, dudess. Bush gave money to the financial sector, it was explicitly approved by Obama, and almost all the bucks have been paid back with interest. Obama gave the bucks to GM, and I doubt we will see it for awhile yet.

Oops! Sorry, I forgot you don't like data & facts when you can just attack and wing crapola against the wall.

More WT's

"I would have done exactly what the Dems did to show that I believed in what I was doing and would not be intimidated."

And you say they were not confrontational? And do they EVER walk to the Capital? I still say the answer is no, just this one day. And they confronted/taunted the demonstrators.

Do I sense a double standard? And I have never seen this type of grandstanding. The Democrats are trying to promote an unpopular agenda.

"I heard that small business owners can find out how the tax credits will apply to them."

You show some real Democratic arrogance or ignorance by posting this comment. It was discussed. The credits are only for employees making less than $32,000. So none are avaiable to me, the plan is a joke for even companies with employees making less than $25,000. A $3,000 tax credit does not offset $9,000 in cost.

You are resembling CIJ by repeating comments that have been vetted.

"Obama ISN'T complaining."

Tell that to his people. THEY ARE COMPLAINING. They are concerned that the cost of absorbing these extra people in Medicare D that all companies should drop will significantly increase spending. They are using the bully pulpit trying to force companies not to drop these people.

An interesting issue. What if companies drop ALL retirees? They have no contractual reason to provide insurance. Keep posted on this item.

"With so many people still out of work, my guess is the last thing Americans will care about is the profit margin of the corporations that laid them off."

And they will stay unemployed for years to come. American business will continue to hold back expansion. Taxes are too high, they sense a VAT to fund the socialism of the Democrats. They will continue to move operations out of the country.

That is what happens when a government passes policies that are anti-business. They cannot legislate companies to keep their businesses open. This is a by-product of the Obama nanny state.

Europe had hundreds of year of war and economic depressions when this fledging country called the United States started. Companies moved to this country and left behind decaying economies that constantly went to war. All the way to 1945 (1600 to 1945, a golden era for Europe). This is a forecast for the next 350 years in the United States, at least the blue states.

Dan D:

Yes, I have been to the capitol, which is how I knew there was an underground system that lawmakers used. You know for a fact that they use the underground every single day except that day? You're there daily and see this, they never walk above ground ever?

Like I said before, if the Dems had chosen to avoid the crowds and the news cameras that day by taking the underground, YOU KNOW you would have called them cowards and berated them for "sneaking away and not having the courage to face their constituents". You are making a disengenuous argument, I'm positive you and other Reps would have jumped on them either way. You know this too, even if you won't admit it here. Given the choice, I would have done exactly what the Dems did to show that I believed in what I was doing and would not be intimidated. The protesters were the ones who were "in their face", not the other way around.

"But if people like these other systems, move to these socialistic countries."

Dan, if you truly understood what socialism was, you wouldn't use this argument here. By definition, socialism doesn't apply to the U.S., not even now. This is propaganda, used to fan the flames of ignorance among people who know little of the world beyond their own driveways. Most reasonably educated people know this, I suspect you do too, you're just exploiting the term for emotional impact. Just like the right wing opinionists you listen to do.

We'll have to disagree about how employers will handle the new health care requirements. It will be interesting to see what happens, won't it? In the meantime, I heard that small business owners can find out how the tax credits will apply to them by going to www.whitehouse.gov. In addition, you'll be getting this info by mail in a few weeks.

Regarding the end of the tax write-offs for the corporations: Obama ISN'T complaining. He's the one who ended it. The corporations and their sidekicks, the Congressional Republicans, ARE! Tough. Prescription drug coverage IS NOT A JOBS BILL! This argument was used against reforming the government student loan program, it didn't work there either. The student loan program is not a jobs bill, either. I heard the Republicans have given up arguing against health reform on imaginary talking points like death panels and pulling the plug on grandma and are now arguing against it because corporations are losing this handout. Call me silly, but I think the Republicans are pursuing a lost cause with this argument. With so many people still out of work, my guess is the last thing Americans will care about is the profit margin of the corporations that laid them off. Just a hunch.

An aside to Ken:

Re your statement: "Cleaver couldn't press charges because there was no arrest". I'm almost embarrassed to say this to you, but WRONG AGAIN! The spitter was arrested by Capital Hill police. Cleaver told the police to handle it at their own discretion, he declined to press charges. Cleaver is a Reverend, and they tend to be better at turning the other cheek. I would not have been so forgiving.

You can continue to obsess about spit to your heart's content. But to me, this is just like Obama's election and the health care reform bill: it's a done deal. I'm moving on.

Ken,

What really stuck me was the uniformed police officer walking 2 feet behind Cleaver who was looking at the guy with cupped hands, if he had spit he would have been arrested on the spot.

The officer had zero reaction on the tape.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
By Ken on April 1, 2010 7:04 PM

"And try chilling out. You're taking all this right wing nutso stuff, and yourself, far too seriously.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Cleaver couldn't press charges because there was no arrest, as there was no spitting. Pretty simple.

"And try chilling out. You're taking all this right wing nutso stuff, and yourself, far too seriously.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Cleaver couldn't press charges because there was no arrest, as there was no spitting. Pretty simple.

Izwydopn:

I'm gonna start calling you butter, 'cause you're on a roll! Four attack posts at once! I must have hit a BIG nerve.

Racist?! Looks like Izwydopn is up to his same old tricks ---- He can't make a coherent argument without his Fox talking points so he goes right to the name calling. Hey, this blog isn't Fox News! Just saying it doesn't make it true.

"GWB never asked to have the government take over healthcare".

Duh! It appears that once again satire has gone completely over your head. Let me explain--I have absolutely no doubt that the Republicans would not have hesitated taking over 1/6 of any part of the economy if this had suited their purpose. I really think a lot of Reps keep using the "1/6 of the economy" talking point because they are really hung up on the fact that the Dems did something this bold FIRST. After all, Bush used the government to rain money on the car and financial industries before he left office. How much of the economy do those industries represent? So who cares if health care has never had this kind of sweeping reform before? There's a first time for everything, like invading Iraq and stuff, but this time the DEMS did it. Score!

And try chilling out. You're taking all this right wing nutso stuff, and yourself, far too seriously.

Some classic What The's

"the Congress people were WALKING to work".

Have you ever been to the capital? The congressional office buildings are connected to the Capital by underground railroads. Whenever there is a vote, the Congressment go to the lower level, jump on the trains, get whisked to the Capital and take their private elevators up to the floor.

All the time EXCEPT for the Healthcare vote. That was a sign of "in your face."

"But we recognize that government being used for social good and capitalism can coexist, they do all over the globe."

No, I simply disagree. But if people like these other systems, move to these socialistic countries. Don't ruin America.

s"o you're talking exclusively about the low-value, unskilled employee. These are the ones employers won't provide insurance for because paying the fines will be cheaper? Then those employers will have to get used a high level of attrition among this group, won't they?...People may take those jobs temporarily, but they won't stay for long if they can get better somewhere else,"

No, I am saying ALL EMPLOYEES except the top ten to thirty. Your husband included. There is no reason to maintain an insurance plan. Just like all companies have dropped their define benefit pension plans.

"The program entitled corporations to a government subsidy covering 28 percent of the prescription drug benefit for their retirees. The companies were not required to count the taxpayer money as income. (Unemployment benefits, meanwhile, are taxed as income.) Companies were also allowed to claim the entire cost of the benefit as a write-off, even the part paid for by the government. It's an unusually generous entitlement."

Fine. The companies no longer get the writeoff and they drop the people back on Medicare Part D. Why is Obama complaining? He wants them to provide the benefit without the inducements? The companies don't have to and they will not.

You lay out some passionate defenses to the liberal agenda. I just don't agree. They are running ads against Kirk already.

We'll see if the Republicans can save the country. I am not counting on that as well.

wathe,

R U losing it? GWB never asked to have the government take over healthcare. In fact, he tried to do the right thing and privatize part of S.S. and the left attacked him and fought it tooth and nail.

They did not want to lose that portion of imbedded votes. I think Reagan was also referring to this attitude of the left when he spoke of the bias of low expectations.

wathe,

Don't be such a narrow-minded racist. Open your mind a bit, quit attacking others, and possibly, just possibly, try listening to someone besides the far left and their talking points.

For all of your rhetoric about FN, you absolutly parrot MSNBC and CNN. I challenge you to watch FN for a week, tabulate all of the alleged harm-causing lies you lways refer to, then we can all discuss them.

Seriously ---- is it all crap about you being a housewife of a doctor here in Naperville and do you really work for CNN or MSNBC as one of their paid blogger provacateurs?

Your fascination with TEA parties is off the hook. Have you ever attended one? If not, why not try it? Of course, as a leftist I know you are so sure of your dogma that you don't need real-world data, but go ahead and give it a try. You might be surprised what the world is like outside of your comfortable little cubicle (or, if you're telling the truth, your comfy home that hubby bought you).

To: By Anonymous on March 30, 2010 10:58 AM

Under Obama, you forgot to add "More dead in Afgan war than averaged in entire Iraq war"

Didja notice the angry left crowds in action again this week?

Attacking Rove at a book signing, attacking Colter at a symposium.

As we all knew --- the left is narrow-minded and full of hate. They incite violence then finger=point at others.

Hypocrites and liars alike.

Howard Dean: "Heath care reform is all about income redistribution".

T.B.:

Hey, if you see this, I left a great update for you regarding our previous discussion on the last open topic thread about falsifications by Fox News. You wanted examples, here's a new one. This time Fox was outed by two celebrities they involved:

"After the network announced that Sarah Palin would host a special Thursday called "Real American Stories" -- featuring interviews with LL Cool J, Toby Keith and other celebrities -- the rapper and country singer both hit back claiming they were lying."

Great stuff, check it out!!

Dan D:

Talking about entitlements, here's a corporate one that businesses are screaming about losing under the new health care legislation. What do you think:

"The Republican Party and major corporations have joined forces in the first major rearguard attack on health care reform, charging that the cost of complying with "Obamacare" is resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in added business expenses.

The crime that reform is guilty of: Slashing corporate welfare.

Under the previous system, major corporations were subsidized by the government to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. At the same time, corporations could claim on their tax returns that it was they -- not the taxpayers -- who paid for the drug coverage, and could write the expense off as a tax deduction.

Health care reform cuts out that fat. The corporations still get taxpayer money to help pay for their drug coverage, but they can no longer continue the fiction that they're using their own money to do it.

The welfare in question originated with the 2003 prescription drug bill signed into law by President Bush after it passed a GOP-controlled Congress.

The program entitled corporations to a government subsidy covering 28 percent of the prescription drug benefit for their retirees. The companies were not required to count the taxpayer money as income. (Unemployment benefits, meanwhile, are taxed as income.) Companies were also allowed to claim the entire cost of the benefit as a write-off, even the part paid for by the government.

It's an unusually generous entitlement. When corporations get subsidies for research or for hiring new workers, for instance, they can't write-off the subsidy as if they were spending their own money.

But the underlying issue seems fairly simple: Corporate welfare is being cut to help fund an expansion of health care coverage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/corporate-america-squeals_n_519976.html

So is this what the Republicans stand for--entitlements for individual citizens = bad, entitlements for corporations = good? Nanny state = bad, nanny corporations = great?

And don't use the excuse that corporate entitlements create jobs. The federal government (us taxpayers) were paying those workers salaries to begin with through these kind of generous entitlements. The fed gov should get the benefit, not corporations.

Whaaa, whaaa, whaaa!

The Democrats grabbed control of 1/6 of the economy FIRST! No fair! If W. couldn't do it, then you can't either! So there!

Feel better?

The spitting would have been assault if Cleaver had pressed charges. He didn't. It remains an incredibly classless display of bad manners.

"If the government is giving credits and helping to pay for the insurance, it is an entitlement." And these people will also be paying a share of this out of their own pockets as well. Before, they were paying nothing, getting all their care in emergency rooms and walking on the bill. No longer.

Health Care reform as it relates to abortion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35961584/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
"A last-minute deal with a critical group of anti-abortion lawmakers Sunday afternoon sealed Democrats' victory. The leader of the anti-abortion bloc, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., didn't get to add stricter anti-abortion language to the underlying bill, but was satisfied by an executive order signed by Obama affirming current law and provisions in the legislation that ban federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother."

This is probably the stance that the majority of Americans agree with. Even many Christians feel that abortion is forgiveable in these cases. It is only the extreme conservative Christian who feels all abortion is wrong.
This is a compromise between the extreme left and extreme right on this.

Chris,

Just noticed some missing posts?

Isn't abortion part of our new health benefits?

Sam:

Have you looked into what you will GAIN from this legislation, rather than just focusing on what you think you will lose? There's a lot of good in there. Try finding it.

Dan D:

Regarding employers providing insurance.

Ok, so you're talking exclusively about the low-value, unskilled employee. These are the ones employers won't provide insurance for because paying the fines will be cheaper? Then those employers will have to get used a high level of attrition among this group, won't they? People may take those jobs temporarily, but they won't stay for long if they can get better somewhere else, and knowing better is available will keep them moving around. You probably know what a pain in the butt constantly replacing employees can be. Plus these employers will probably get reported for compliance violations on a regular basis. Sound like a lot of fun?

So I believe many employers will look at the entire picture when making this decision, just not the penalty/policy cost ratio. And the good ones will provide the coverage to attract the best possible work force for their money. The bad ones that disregard the law will get stuck with the employees they deserve. I think employees will have much more choice than you think. We'll see what happens.

"HOWEVER, companies will continue to give senior management perks that the rest of the employees DO NOT GET. They do not deduct these costs, so there is no income to the employee. Comprehensive health care will go on this list like the extra pensions, country clubs, etc. In a company of 5,000 employees, only 25 to 50 will get this benefit."

That's perfectly fine. The comprehensive health care my husband's company provided was one of the determining factors in his decision to join them 25 years ago, along with the pension, vacation time, travel perks, etc. So this will remain the same. How is this a problem?

"As to healthcare, you choice ENDS in 2014. It's a government approved plan or nothing."

Right wing talking point alert! Insurance companies will have to comply with a new set of guidelines, that's all. Some of the practices they engage in now will become illegal, and if they try to skirt the law and continue these practices, they won't be allowed to operate. That's as it should be. What is the point in having laws if you don't enforce them? Health insurance companies will have to play by the rules or not play at all. There can be no corporate freeloaders either. Betcha after 2014, the majority of the same companies will still be up and running.

"This system, because it is so offensive, will be gamed by many. Just wait."

People will game it anyway. Not because it's offensive, but because it's there and trying to get something for nothing is what people do. There's a degree of fraud in EVERYTHING. But you keep forgetting the legislation is not written in stone as is. It can be adjusted whenever necessary to account for problems. We'll see how it goes.

Wt once again shows her lack of political knowledge. Because President Bush did not have a filibuster proof majority, as President Obama does, everything passed during his administration had the tacit approval of the Democrats. The wars had their outright approval. While President Bush did use reconciliation as a go around at times, they did not use it to grab control of 1/6 of the economy.

She also shows lack of knowledge about simple assault laws. From wt:
"Spitting, yelling in people's faces, using insulting and politically incorrect language shows very bad manners, but bad manners are not criminal offenses."
Um, spitting is considered criminal assault. At some point, even certain forms of speech can result in criminal charges. My point is that Cleaver's people lied about someone being arrested; what else are they lying about?

Another gem from wt:
"They do not want to take much responsibility, so they increase entitlements." This shows how confused you are. Health care reform forces people to take responsibility for themselves so we can DECREASE their health care entitlements. Thought you were all for personal responsibility.
If the government is giving credits and helping to pay for the insurance, it is an entitlement. All your claim does is show your usual lack of knowledge and confusion on the process, wt.

Dan D:

Ok, let's put your comments into a RATIONAL context:

"1. If this happened with an malicious intent, people would have been corralled and arrested."

No, Dan, people would not have been "corralled and arrested", and they weren't. This would have been an extreme reaction to the situation. Rational people don't behave in the extreme.

Many of those protesters acted in a classless manner, to be sure. But classlessness is not a crime. Spitting, yelling in people's faces, using insulting and politically incorrect language shows very bad manners, but bad manners are not criminal offenses.

"2. Look at what the Democrats did. They DEFIANTLY walked past the Tea Party members."

Dan, the Congress people were WALKING to work, like they routinely do day in and day out. The Dems had a reason to be there, they were at work. What were the protesters reasons for being there? The Dems were exactly where they were suppose to be, the protesters were the ones encroaching. You call it defiant, I call it having a backbone and not being bullied out of doing your job. The next time the Dems can use underground tunnels if they exist, or they can rope off an area where protesters aren't allowed and get dropped off at the door by security. And then you'll be on this blog calling the Dems "cowards" and berating them for "not wanting to face their constituents". Sound about right? When you're looking to find fault, Dan, you can make a negative out of ANYTHING. It's a no win situation either way.

"These Congressmen were telling those people and America, screw you, we are passing this bill, we have the power. Just like Obama said early in his presidency, he won."

These Congressmen were showing America that they were our legally elected representatives, and as such would not be kept from doing their job by a mob of malcontents. If the framers of our constitution had wanted mob rule, then we'd be a pure democracy and the mob that day may have gotten their way. But to prohibit mob rule, the framers made us a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, and those Congressmen were our legal representatives, elected by a majority to represent the majority, not just the minority that were present that day.

Yes, the Congressmen did say "screw you" to the mob, as they should have. In doing so, they upheld our system of government, our Constitution and the rights of all Americans to representation in our process, just not the loud mouths and the bullies. The Dems DO have the power. We had an election, the American people gave them that power, and they exercised it. And yes, Obama said he won. BECAUSE HE DID. Isn't this what you guys really just can't get over?

"Didn't this raise ire? Was this necessary particularly since people are at least "split"? While at times I have been a bit annoyed at your demeanor on this blog, I must admit conservatives and Republicans do not act this way. Did Republicans put on all of this flair when the passed the Reagan tax cuts? The Bush tax cuts? I do not recall. I recall very somber sincere polite behavior. They were concerned about doing what was right, not to win."

Well, Dan, apparently conservatives and Republicans DO act this way, because we've been seeing a lot of it over the past year. It was Reps who yelled "you lie" during a State of the Union and "baby killer" at a fellow lawmaker, not Dems. There was not this kind of drama during the Reagan and Bush tax cuts because the OPPOSITION DID NOT BEHAVE LIKE THESE PEOPLE DID. Somber sincere polite behavior works both ways. Why don't you try to find some footage that we can compare?

And really, Reps are just concerned with doing what's right, not to win? Seriously? EVERYTHING the Reps have done in the past year has been done solely to regain power in the next election; they couldn't care less what is right for our government or our nation. Sorry, Dan, that's such a bizarre statement I can't even go there.

"Another question? What did the Democrats win?"

We won the most sweeping health insurance reform and student loan reform ever in this nation, that's what. Worth every second.

"3. The actions of a few do not reflect the majority." Definitely true. Keep this in mind when the Tea Party protesters and other groups claim to represent all Americans. They don't. They're a minority and are rightfully regarded as such.

"All of these last posts reflect your support for the game that the Democrats are playing by themselves."

If the Dems have to play it by themselves, then so be it. W. Bush went it alone many times and none of you complained about it then. Pursuing bipartisanship has proved a waste of time, especially since John McCain has announced there will be "no more cooperation" for the rest of the year. There wasn't that much cooperation to begin with, so no loss.

I truly believe the goal is not to defeat the current system, that's certainly not my goal. The goal is to improve upon the current system and make government work for the people. Too much of our government works for big, monied, corporate interests at the expense of the individual. I'm all for giving power back to the American people, and that's what I see happening.

Do the Dems want a socialist form of government? Of course not. But we recognize that government being used for social good and capitalism can coexist, they do all over the globe. Only Americans think capitalism and democracy are the same thing, they are not. To say Dems do not like successful people is absurd, many Dems are wildly successful themselves. And here you go with the extreme fear speak again, 1984 and all. Why can't you make a strong argument without it? I manage to.

"They do not want to take much responsibility, so they increase entitlements." This shows how confused you are. Health care reform forces people to take responsibility for themselves so we can DECREASE their health care entitlements. Thought you were all for personal responsibility.

I almost hate to post on this thread, but here goes:

For over 20 years, I managed the health insurance program at my company -- 300 to 400 employees for most of that time. Never, did we have a single incident of rescission. Not one time. The carrier was a major national carrier, coverage was in 4 different states. Can't speak to the national study, just wanted to share my own experience.

Same with the no new taxes pledge. I am well below the $200,000 income level, but in 2014, the exclusion for medical cost deductions is being increased by one third, from 7.5% to 10%. That represents a very real tax increase for my family -- about 6% based on this year's tax return. Oh, an I cannot keep my health insurance plan, no one can as the law mandates changes that must be made to meet the federal mandate. My plan is now non-compliant and it must change -- and those changes will result in higher premiums, not lower premiums.

I can't remember how many times I was told that the things in the second paragraph just would not occur.....

Regarding employers providing insurance.

You really missed my point. Most employees do not have leverage. Take the job or we will take the next person on the list. Nobody is irreplacable.

So my point. Companies have a choice. Give ALL employees comprehensive health insurance for $10,000 to $30,000 per year (depending on the coverage) or pay a $2,000 penalty. ALL companies will chose the penalty. It is foolish not to. Employees will not have a choice.

HOWEVER, companies will continue to give senior management perks that the rest of the employees DO NOT GET. They do not deduct these costs, so there is no income to the employee. Comprehensive health care will go on this list like the extra pensions, country clubs, etc. In a company of 5,000 employees, only 25 to 50 will get this benefit.

And health care is a big chunk of that $50 disadvantage for auto companies, don't kid yourself.

As to healthcare, you choice ENDS in 2014. It's a government approved plan or nothing.

This system, because it is so offensive, will be gamed by many. Just wait.

Dan D:

I think we're talking about different things here. You said that all employers would choose not to provide health insurance for their employees because paying fines would be cheaper. This is different from "If you can treat your better employees (senior management) with non tax deductable benefits (private health insurance) and the rest with a plan the rest of America gets, why change?"

So what if senior management get better health plans than other workers? What's important is that all employees have coverage, it doesn't all have to be the same coverage. Like I said, top senior management employees will go to those employers that make the best offers of salary and benefits packages, so employers compete for these people. Not offering any insurance at all in favor of getting off cheaper with fines is not going to attract the best hires, as an employer you should recognize that. ALL employers across America--how many hundreds of thousands?--would have to agree to not provide any coverage whatsoever to make the playing field level and have the market behave as you previously claimed, and this is simply not going to happen. Businesses compete with each other for customers and the best hires. Isn't this how laissez-faire works?

"Why does Detroit feel they are at a disadvantage to the Japanese? Health insurance costs, the Japanese government has socialized medicine, the companies do not pay." Detroit is at a disadvantage with Japan for a lot of reasons, health care costs is but one part of it. Detroit's unions have negotiated pay and benefits for their workers that far exceed the value of the services those workers provide--that's why Detroit is at a disadvantage. It's the unions, not health care alone. Pensions, unemployment, health care, pay, all combine to make UAW members earn about $70/hour as compared to less than $20/hour in Japan. Those were the estimates the last time I looked into it.

And regarding the taxes on individual vs. group plans, we'll look at our options once the brainiac is employed and on her own. If she can get an individual policy through her own employer or on the open market cheaper than by keeping her on our policy, we can pay that for her instead if we want to. Now we have CHOICES we didn't have before. Isn't that good for a competitive free market?

WT

Let's put your comments into context.

1. If this happened with an malicious intent, people would have been corralled and arrested.

2. Look at what the Democrats did. Now this point as best as I can follow has never been stated. They DEFIANTLY walked past the Tea Party members, effectively "spitting" in their face. Nancy Pelosi with the huge gavel in her hand. These Congressmen were telling those people and America, screw you, we are passing this bill, we have the power. Just like Obama said early in his presidency, he won.

Didn't this raise ire? Was this necessary particularly since people are at least "split"? While at times I have been a bit annoyed at your demeanor on this blog, I must admit conservatives and Republicans do not act this way. Did Republicans put on all of this flair when the passed the Reagan tax cuts? The Bush tax cuts? I do not recall. I recall very somber sincere polite behavior. They were concerned about doing what was right, not to win.

Another question? What did the Democrats win? (This is a very loaded question).

3. The actions of a few do not reflect the majority. Unless, of course, you and the Democrats want to enslave the people who pay the bills. Are we the targets of your venom? So much for bi partisanship.

All of these last posts reflect your support for the game that the Democrats are playing by themselves. Defeat the current system. Do they want socialism? Don't know. They do not like successful people, so they want to tax them. They do not want to take much responsibility, so they increase entitlements. They put companies out of business. They want to regulate our lives. In short, 1984, only sixteen years later.

Great article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. An index on how you can change the composition of your wealth and income. The article based on MIT and Harvard research shows they can reduce the income they report in taxes by shifting to other forms of investment. Take capital gains now at 15% and purchase tax exempt bonds. Convert S Corporations and LLC's to C corporations that have lower tax rates (35% versus 42% plus). The result, no new revenue.

Wow. I really don't know which stands as a testament to such a sad life--having to lie constantly to protect your image, and if that fails, then having to reshape reality to fit a delusional belief in planned conspiracies. The first post was the lie, the second post contains the conspiracies: "conveniently in front of what is probably one of his staffers taking video", "This tape makes it look like more of a set-up claim", "How convenient that Cleaver confronts the one person that would spit on him." Well, at least now Ken admits that Cleaver WAS spit on.

Yep, Cleaver had a staffer film this video because they knew that guy would spit on him, they knew that the conservative talking heads would call Cleaver a liar, and they knew the Tea Party would offer a reward for proof. So those genius Dems set up and filmed the whole thing and then withheld the video, waiting to release it at just the right time . . . What an awesome plan! Totally believable! What's wrong with the rest of you, why didn't any of you other bloggers figure this out? It's SO obvious. And so very sad.

Sigh. While I am flattered that you are trying to emulate me, wt, you have fallen short as usual. There was never a first lie by me, nor was my statement about the video a lie.
Watch a baseball game sometime to see what obvious spitting is. Then watch your posted video that shows no such action. It shows a man yelling at Cleaver as Cleaver walks over to get up close and personal. Then Cleaver walks away a few steps and kind of pats at his face, conveniently in front of what is probably one of his staffers taking video. There was no visible flinching, and no wiping of spit. This tape makes it look like more of a set-up claim than before. How convenient that Cleaver confronts the one person that would spit on him.
You see what you want to believe, wt, just like when you look at the health care bill and see good legislation that isn't really there.

To Anonymous on March 30, 2010 10:58 AM

I was having such a good time, I forgot this:

"Bush was a failure outside of stopping terrorist attacks on the USA for which he gets an A+."

Uh, Dude, what about 9/11? I'm not saying Bush gets blamed for the attack, the wheels for that were set in motion long before he took office. But Bush WAS WARNED by his own staff shortly before 9/11 that some attack was eminent, and he flippantly dismissed this warning. We'll never know if 9/11 could have been prevented or lives could have been saved if Bush had taken his responsibilities as commander-in-chief more seriously, but I definitely don't think he deserves an A+ for this. At the most this gets him a B, and I'm being generous.

Anonymous on March 30, 2010 2:47 PM:

Medicare, social security and unemployment benefits are already broke? But the Tea Party folks are still getting their socialist checks every month! All the better, I can make another sign: "STOP SPENDING OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE: END MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY AND UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS NOW!!"

Hey, do you think all those Tea Partiers who are SO concerned about the deficit and enslaving future generations to pay the debt will give up their socialist benefits? After all, THEY are spending our children's future! Once they know this, I'm sure these patriotic Americans will be eager to relinquish their benefits and save our country from Marxism/totalitarianism/Stalinism/fill-in-the-blank-ism!

Don't people who are younger but can't work for health reasons get disability payments along with social security from the government? This socialist handout must end too. Another sign: "STOP SOCIALIST WELFARE: END DISABILITY HANDOUTS!" I'm sure there are more I'm overlooking, but since I've never received any of these socialist benefits, I'm not an expert on this. I'll have to ask someone who is--I can ask the Tea Party people! Tons of them get these socialist handouts, I'm sure THEY know all about this stuff!

I'll be sure to bring extra signs and markers with me. Where is the Tea Party going to be held? This is going to be FUN!

What,

All the programs you mentioned are already broke, the party is over when China says it is.

The left wing buzz is to make all of the Government programs means tested. Like Europe, time to start converting you money to Canadian Dollars, Swiss Franks. Euros and start stuffing the mattress so the FEDs can't see that you didn't party all your money away?

Like Europe, our home grown socialists will teach everyone that tax cheats are the smart people and those who don't hide their money are chumps. Get ready to start paying cash for most services.

A-Mouse:

"Well, I tried, you can't say I didn't. Is there no room for reasonable discussion here? No carefully considered ideas and opinions?
Is it all going to be 'he said, she said' and the like?"

Yeah, pretty much, sorry to say. This is the level most of the far right and far left have always been on, but people on the right who used to be more sane have lost their minds and joined the fringe since Obama's election. They're very threatened by him.

Always-right says there's going to be a Tea Party outing on 4/15! Too fun! Where? Let me know and I'll come! I'm going to bring signs that say "STOP SOCIALISM: END MEDICARE NOW!" "STOP MARXISM: KILL SOCIAL SECURITY!" "STOP GOVERNMENT TYRANNY: END UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS!"

I bet you most of the Tea Party folks won't have a clue what I'm talking about, which will be hysterical because a good number of the them have time to attend these rallies because they're currently unemployed or are retired and receiving Medicare and Social Security benefits! I can hardly wait!

Izwydopn:

Oh, boo hoo! What the? called me "Einstein"! How will my self-esteem EVER recover?!

"One of those crazy-eyed, maniacal, violence-prone, nutcase far left progressives was arrested for shooting into the office of the GOP rep in Virginia. The perp admitted to wanting to kill him and his family."

Where'd you get this, the Limbaugh News Network? A guy was arrested for posting a youtube video threatening to kill Eric Cantor and his family, not for shooting into his office. And where's your proof that this nut (which is the only part you got right) is a far-left progressive? Seriously, you need to get better sources.

And you've mentioned the finger biting episode twice, you're really into this, aren't you? Of course liberals act badly as well. But here's the thing: when these incidents happened, the left didn't deny them like the right has been doing lately with their misbehaviors.

Better hurry and make another Tea Party donation, they've got rewards to pay!

Comrades, now is the time to rise up and take back your country. Citizens cannot let the Marxist takeover of American continue. Start by attending the Tea Party outing on April 15, 2010 and then join a revolution to gain control of your independence.

Another outright lie by Ken:

"It is both funny and sad that wt's video proves no one intentionally spat on a congressman as claimed, yet she still tries to act like that happened."

I clearly stated my opinion that it looks like the spitting COULD have been accidental, not that it was. And the video disproves the claims of the right that the incident didn't happen. The fact is it did; Cleaver was spat upon. Whether it was intentional or not can only be a matter of opinion, not fact.

So pony up, Tea Party!! Maybe you guys can ask Hannity for a loan!

Mouse,

Bush:

Results matter, which is why Bush was a failure outside of stopping terrorist attacks on the USA for which he gets an A+.

Iraq was totally botched, Bush ignored the generals and went in with 500,000 to few troops, then used PC warfare until the last push when he ran out of PC options and had to take the gloves off.

Afghanistan as botched, the first $2B that Colin Powell spent on reconstruction all was spent inside the DC beltway while Afghanistan slowly slipped back into anarchy.

Free Trade has exported our factories and now our engineering base to the lowest cost producers.

Wide-Open borders now threatens to undermine our democratic institutions and nullify the vote of native born and legally immigrated US citizens with 20-30 million new government dependent voters up for sale.

Obama:

51% of the economy under government ownership and control.

Reversed policy and back to treating terrorists as common criminals.

Like Bush, trying to create an illegal alien Mexican block vote they can buy.

Free Trade, still exporting entire industries to the low cost labor countries.

Drugs, money and humans still flowing across the borders, I do give him credit for checking southbound vehicles for cash and drugs. Most of the money flows back to the drug dealers via Wall Street and the banks.

Health care cost will continue to increase at double digit rates since the Nationalization did nothing to decrease costs.

Abortion now Federally funded, extermination in the minds of at least half of the voters.

Citizens will now be forced to buy products or services or the IRS gestapo operation will fine you and or confiscate your money and property. Whats next, we have to buy a UAW made car?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The minutia of the Health Care Nationalization bill is almost irrelevant and is like arguing on the flavor of lollipop the government will give us after they abridge all of our rights.

The question at this point is: Is the Federal Government worth saving outside of the military and where is our Yeltsen?

Well,
I tried, you can't say I didn't. Is there no room for reasonable discussion here? No carefully considered ideas and opinions?
Is it all going to be 'he said, she said' and the like?

Should Obama apologize for inciting this violence with all of his income redistribution legislation?

Should Speaker Pelosi apologize and commit suppuku?

Should Harry Reid be checked for a pulse?

* Virginia Shooter

* Kamikaze attack on IRS building

* Whack job female Professor murdering people with gun

* Crazed Obama supporters pelting tea party bus with eggs

* Far left violence at G8 meetings

* Racist SEIU thugs assaulting man selling flags outside town hall meeting calling him Ni**er! Not prosecuted.

* Black Panther thugs intimidating voters in Philadelphia. Not prosecuted by AG Holder.

* ACORN giving advice on how to smuggle underage girls into the USA then forcing them into prostitution to pay for transportation

* 50,000,000 dead babies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By Izwydopn on March 29, 2010 2:03 PM

Did anyone else notice that there has been an arrest this weekend for crazy violence committed against an American elected official?

Yep! One of those crazy-eyed, maniacal, violence-prone, nutcase far left progressives was arrested for shooting into the office of the GOP rep in Virginia. The perp admitted to wanting to kill him and his family.

Anonymous on March 28, 2010 1:59 PM:

and

By Anonymous on March 29, 2010 7:45 AM

were me.

"Regarding the Palin event, of course you see the pretext. You must have missed this, it's a separate video after the Palin one in the same window, shows the guy yelling from the top of the bleachers, being confronted by others, two guys grabbing him--which I think was entirely a "tough guy" show by these men, the heckler was clearly leaving on his own anyway. And he does make a statement to reporters at the end, he didn't stay silent. Check it out again, it's all there."

You mean the heckler with the blue shirt and not the heckler shown in the other video with a red plaid shirt. These seem to be different people. You were all excited over the red-shirted protester. I don't think I missed it. I think you added something which was not there in your own mind.

What do you think the videos show? Anyone on this blog claiming to know the reality is likely mistaken.

Your initial video was this: http://www.comcast.net/video/heckler-removed-at-mccain-palin-rally/1453175004/Comcast/1451951525/

Your subsequent videos were here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/palin-heckled-at-mccain-r_n_515863.html which includes the first video.

There is a longer video of the red-shirted heckler which adds more. I cannot find it right now.

I have no sympathy for anyone who spits on another human being. I have no like for FOX news parrots.

over and out

It is both funny and sad that wt's video proves no one intentionally spat on a congressman as claimed, yet she still tries to act like that happened. As for the McCain/Palin event, how do you know that the men escorting out the heckler are not security? By the way, where was all this indignation when Al Franken attacked a heckler at a Kerry rally? It is becoming increasingly clear that the left does not like their own tactics used against them...

Like I've said before, there are a lot of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Video, audio and first person accounts from the astronauts weren't enough for them.

_____________________

WT?, You mean to say the moon landing was real? I hope you have proof of this!!! Next thing you will claim is that there are no Black Helicopters either? Of course I'll have to admit I can't remember if black helicopters are the figment of the far right or far left?

(and who said that conservatives can't be funny?)

Anonymous on March 29, 2010 9:59 AM, and
Anonymous on March 29, 2010 7:45 AM:

Are you the same person? Sounds like it.

You are free to interpret this however you want, I personally don't care. Hannity demanded video proof, you guys parroted him, the Tea Party put their money on it. Here is that proof, like it or not, and it's clear you don't. Too bad. That's all that was demanded, and here it is. Cleaver wasn't lying. Someone else's saliva was projected into his face. Call it spray or spit, whatever you like, but it still happened.

We'll see if the Tea Party tries to weasel out of paying the reward now. It should be fun to see what happens. I'm not the recipient, so I don't care one way or the other. But you Tea Party supporters should be aware that this is how your donations are being used. This is what comes from letting a TV personality lead you buy the nose. Notice that Hannity didn't put any of his own money up, he just fanned the flames and the Tea Party suckers jumped right in. This won't be costing him a dime.

Regarding the Palin event, of course you see the pretext. You must have missed this, it's a separate video after the Palin one in the same window, shows the guy yelling from the top of the bleachers, being confronted by others, two guys grabbing him--which I think was entirely a "tough guy" show by these men, the heckler was clearly leaving on his own anyway. And he does make a statement to reporters at the end, he didn't stay silent. Check it out again, it's all there.

However, it's apparent the videos of this incident are bothering you. Because now they're not enough, you're demanding further proof in the form of "first person" accounts. Which of course is impossible, because you weren't there. And even if someone who was there was interviewed and confirmed this for you, you would just parrot Hannity that they were lying too. And around and around you endlessly go. Like I've said before, there are a lot of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Video, audio and first person accounts from the astronauts weren't enough for them. So seriously, believe whatever you want. The only one who's getting dizzy here is you.

But it is interesting how picky and critical you are with the "proof" of the heckling incident, which was caught on three separate videos. But when Sean Hannity calls Cleaver and Dems in general liars, you're here on this blog parroting the exact same statement without a second thought. In fact, clearly without even a FIRST thought. 'Nuff said.

wathe is up to her same old tricks ---- [see By What the? on March 28, 2010 11:08 PM ] --- Fetch, Roll over, & Repeat after Nancy!

She can't make a coherent argument without her lefty talking points so she goes right to the name calling.

Brainiac she is not!

Did anyone else notice that there has been an arrest this weekend for crazy violence committed against an American elected official?

Yep! One of those crazy-eyed, maniacal, violence-prone, nutcase far left progressives was arrested for shooting into the office of the GOP rep in Virginia. The perp admitted to wanting to kill him and his family.

What is it with the far left that they so often have to resort to violence and low-level barbaric actions?

At the same time, they spend so much energy talking to things like spitting and name calling, all the while they themselves, the progressive left, actually takes part in, encourages and incites violence against others.

Remember the finger-biting-off incident last summer? The attakc on teh African-American conservative last summer? The Panthers and their batons at the voting booths in 2008?

Why does the far left need such violence to get their message across (a message we now know is one of violence against all who do not toe their line!)

What,

What the video shows is the congressman reacting to a heckler who probably sprayed him like some teachers I have had in the past.

Sprayed during screaming, not spit upon is what the film shows.

The guy yelling would have been arrested on the spot if he had spit on the congressman, for the PR value if nothing else.

It's interesting that the health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance. It wasn't that long ago that Obama criticized this provision in a political mailing he sent out when he was running against Hillary. I guess that when you are "running" for President you say one thing, but when you "become" President you do another? It looks like Obama finally came around to Hillary's thinking?

________________________________________________

Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?

Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it... and you pay a penalty if you don't.

The way Hillary Clinton's health care plan covers everyone is to have the government force uninsured people to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it."

...forcing those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it through mandates...punishing those who don't fall in line with fines."
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/obama_health_mailer.pdf

Hillary responded to Obama's flyer during a campaign stop:
At one campaign stop, Clinton waived the mailers and declared, "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" "Meet me in Ohio," she added. "Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign."

Obama defended the flyer here:
But Obama defended the mailer, saying that it "accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/27/barack-obama/force-yes-but-she-wants-it-affordable/

WT says

"In order for employers to do this, all employers everywhere would have to be in collusion. Like that's going to happen!"

Did you ever hear of Adam Smith's invisible hand?

What is one of the largest concerns of American business? Health insurance costs.

Why does Detroit feel they are at a disadvantage to the Japanese? Health insurance costs, the Japanese government has socialized medicine, the companies do not pay.

What is a lower cost? $15,000 to $20,000 per employee in health insurance or $2,000 penalty to the Federal government?

If you can treat your better employees (senior management) with non tax deductable benefits (private health insurance) and the rest with a plan the rest of America gets, why change?

This is how American business works.

And to repeat regarding the taxes, the company values a single person plan at $10,000 per year, your taxes at 35% would be $3,500. Your brainac could but insurance as an invincible for $200 per month, $2,400 per year. So you would pay more. What a deal.

Of course, premiums for the invincbles will have to increse substantially. But then as a smart consumer, you would tell them just to pay the penalty until they needed insurance, like I outlined above.

http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2010/03/health_care_bill_passes.html#comment-112392

So, What the?

"Because I do know all the details." You had a mic and captured all the discussion this heckler was having around him before he went loud. You know what his conversations were and non-yelling statements were before he was unceremoniously escorted out. That's pretty good.

When he was asked by the reporter what was going on before he was ousted, he went silent and had a facial tell. Look at the longer video.

I am not saying he should or shouldn't have been removed. I do not think we have enough information to make a conclusion.

Other reports mention different hecklers -- one who was told by Palin to stay and one who was removed. Those reports may be wrong and it may be the same guy.

I can tell you there have been numerous occasions where I took personal time to do something -- Ravinia, Grant Park, going to see a movie -- and someone was removed for disturbing those who were trying to HEAR what was being sung, played, or projected. Usually not as forcibly as this, but we do not see the pretext.

Dan D.:

In order for employers to do this, all employers everywhere would have to be in collusion. Like that's going to happen! Come on, Dan, anything is possible in theory. In reality extremes like this rarely materialize.

"Whoopy, they can stay on mom's and dad's insurance. That is already the case in the US. Did you know that you get a W-2 for the value of the insurance coverage if you do not claim your son or daughter as a dependent? This is a taxable item."

No, it was only the case on some policies until the child was out of college, then they could not continue on their parent's policy anymore. This IS a big whoopee to us, we're glad to provide this for our children until they're established. If you would rather have your tax break, then by all means dump your kids and let them be responsible for getting their own policies. This is an option for parents who want to do this. You're not required to cover your adult children on your policy if you don't want to.

"We can look forward to another government failure."

If you're so sure of this, then you should have nothing to worry about. Be happy!

Moderator: Sorry for the repeat. I accidently hit the submit button before I was done.

Yo, peeps!

I should have checked the news earlier:

"Last weekend, as the House of Representatives gathered to debate health care reform while Tea Partiers protested outside the Capitol, word emerged that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spit on by one of the demonstrators.

Cleaver released a statement confirming the incident, but some questioned his claims. Fox News personality Sean Hannity asked if there was any evidence proving that it had actually happened, and Tea Party groups offered a cash reward for proof.

Now video has emerged. Take a look and judge for yourself:"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/congressman-spit-on-by-te_n_516300.html

The incidence takes place at 1.26 on the tape. Watch the gray haired guy in the black tee shirt and white cap on the left. Cleaver flinches away, has some words with the guy, then walks away wiping his face.

So Hannity called for the evidence, huh? That explains why so many of you parroted the same statement here on this blog. Geez, will you people EVER learn to think for yourselves?

I watched the tape a couple of times. In an attempt to be objective and draw my own conclusions, which I understand is a foreign concept to a lot of you, it does indeed look like Cleaver was spit upon. But it also looks like it could have been accidental. The guy was yelling, Cleaver passed by very close. Spit happens when you're yelling. But the spitter choose to be a jerk and not apologize. Watch Mr. Spit at 1.56 on the tape. I looks like he's explaining to the guy in the blue shirt and cap what had happened.

I want to know who's getting the reward from the Tea Party. How much are these groups having to shell out?

Anonymous on March 28, 2010 1:59 PM:

Here is the video of what happened before that you were asking for. If you don't like the Huff Post, I'm sure you can find the exact same thing anywhere online. It is what it is. Do I get a reward too?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/palin-heckled-at-mccain-r_n_515863.html

EMPLOYERS ACTIONS

"The most desirable employees will go to those companies who DO provide insurance benefits. I wouldn't want to work for an employer who chooses to screw the government AND ME by gaming the system, I'll go elsewhere."

To where? Employers pay the market. I have not follow the employers provisions after 2014, but I think they can still discriminate against pre existing conditions. However, they have to pay on behalf of the employee to purchase insurance from the health insurance exchanges to get coverage. Why would they want to let people into their plans with this loophole?

But again, companies will drop health care just like they have dropped defined contribuation pension plans. It is their biggest headache. A $2,000 penalty per employee is a real break.

And this will get your goat. They will pay for better, private medical care for the top employees. Just like they do now for special pension benefits for the top officers. They don't get to deduct the expense, but the employee doesn't have to pay taxes.

There will be a black market for wealthy people to go to doctors that do not participate in any of the government programs. How can the Feds stop this? Jail the private doctors?

It happens today. You go into a doctor with Medicaid and in some cases stand alone Medicare, and you get turned away. You walk into a doctor in the future with Obama care and they will not take you as a patient. They will take Rush and those instead.

"I don't think this penalizes the young either."

Whoopy, they can stay on mom's and dad's insurance. That is already the case in the US. Did you know that you get a W-2 for the value of the insurance coverage if you do not claim your son or daughter as a dependent? This is a taxable item.

My point was that insurance costs for the invincibles that currently runs $300 to $500 per month will increase to $1,200 or more like in New York and Massachusettes where they have provisions the limit the range of the highest premium a company charges to the lowest to a factor of either one or two. If the highest monthly premium needs to be $2,400 per month, then the lowest instead of $300 would be $1,200.

But don't worry. There will be no insurance companies around after 2014. They will be competing to run the risk free not for profit plans, just like how Blue Cross was originally founded.

We can look forward to another government failure.

Izwydopn:

I am talking to a business owner, Einstein. Dan D. is one.

Anonymouse -
It's nice to finally hear from someone who actually makes sense!

Anonymous on March 28, 2010 1:59 PM:

Because I do know all the details. I watched the Palin/McCain rally Saturday. This much was caught by the biased MSM: This guy started heckling Palin during her speech. You know what heckling is, yelling stuff like "you lie" and "baby killer" when someone is talking. And some Palin followers there dragged him out. As he was being forcefully removed, Palin remarked into the mic, "Hey, don't leave. You might learn something!" Too funny. What I posted here is the rest of the story.

You know,
I read this blog a lot, and occasionally post, though it's usually a question or a request for clarification, but I've come to the conclusion that the real downfall of this blog and many others is the anonymity. It means that the maddest, craziest things can be said or argued, with no accountability. I still like reading some of what is here, and shake my head at the rest.
Who was it that said that the truth is usually midway between the two extremes? Seems to me that's what is likely here, though I'm sure that the extremists don't even think that they ARE the extreme point of view. Will this law cost more than is laid out right now? Probably. Will it turn the country into a series of quasi-Republican Guards? No. Will it take a while to settle out? Yes. Will it likely become as important and useful part of society as Medicare? Yeah, probably.
Will the same arguments on completely different bills/laws betaking place in 15 years? Yes, absolutely. Will this socialist takeover of 1/6 the economy of the country bankrupt us and turn us into pinko commie, totalitarian non-americans? Please, that's just plain foolish. A problem here is that the ideas are so complicated and intertwined that we really have to move forward to see what parts work and what parts don't, then adjust those parts. It doesn't truly change ALL that much, and those of you who read it carefully know that, if you know the current system. I'll admit, I haven't finished reading it yet, because after an hour or so, it hurts my head and I have to take a break.
A little reasonableness, a little individual thought, a little common sense and courtesy, please. Yes, this is the internet. Yes, you're pretty much anonymous. Yes, the partys are trying to whip up favor for their own version of things making it harder to be reasonable and polite, and ot keep an open mind. But Napervllians... TRY.
Truth be told, I support this law because I have close family members, and a couple work friends that NEED some of these protections. Would I have written things this way? I'd not have, but even Jefferson didn't write his Declaration without other's hands and thoughts intruding.
Relax, and instead of taking it all so very personally and thinking that everyone is attacking you and your team, think it through, and decide what it is that frightens you so -

Yo, wathe,

Have you even read the bill? Are you aware that there are 7 panels laid out in it that will decide the allocation of healthcare, that one of those panels is the same group that stepped on it a few months back when it came to mammograms?

Are you aware that Medicare has the highest rate of procedure approval int he U.S versus any insurance carrier?

Are yu aware that the #1 advisor to Obama in this filed is a Doctor with a well-documented past of publishing on allocation of mediacl resources that includes NOT allowing scarce resources to groups under 15 years of age and over 58 years of age? His last name is Emmauel (that's a hint, girl!)

Get some info from somewhere besides the lefttalking points ---- talk to an economist or a business owner.

Sorry wt, but you are just plain wrong (or brainwashed).

The issue of the cost of the bill has nothing to do with a difference of opinion.

Plain & simple: the far left has lied to us (again!) on the cost. They have lied about the Doc fix AND about teh $500 bil cut from Medicare and then double spent.

You need to understand the analysis performed by the CBO -- the CBO does not need to lie! The process just says that the CBO must caost out any plan the Congress puts before them AS THE CONGRESS LAYS IT OUT.

So, if the Congress says pigs will fly and the tax rate will be 111%, they cost it exactly that way.

Liars & thieves. For some reason, you are incapable of seeing it as you are too busy watching the GOP bogeymen (who have absoloutely no power, yet there you are watching them and seeing exactly what the Left tells yu to see).

Sheep. baby.

What the?

Do you know what preceded the video? If there is more then let's see it. Otherwise, we are seeing the end of something. We do not know the beginning or middle.

Why would you be excited (one way or the other) about this snippet without knowing all the details?

THE INVINCIBLES.

My position.

They do not buy insurance now (the lowest cost for any person, by the way). Under the new plan, they will pay the penalty, buy insurance "just in time" (before any catastrophic emergency claim and automatically be coverered since they cannot be denied due to pre existing conditions) and drop the insurance thereafter, reverting to paying the penalty. The premise, the annual cost of the penalty--$795. The annual cost of single insurance due to the 2 to 1 (or 3 to 1--I can't clearly follow the bill as to which applies) will be $6,000 per year.

Here are WT"s Response's

"I don't know if these people will be able to buy insurance just when they need it and drop it afterwards that easily.

Are you kidding? The hospitals will have direct insurance agents in their admissions departments. When a person comes in, if they don't have insurance, they will be enrolled on the spot. This way, the hospital knows they get at least 60% of the cost (the new co-pay by the way) rather than chasing the patient for 100%. If the patient refuses to buy the insurance, they are in aa free ambulance ride to Cook County Hospital.

In short, hospitals will take NO RISK.

"I think that most people won't want to hassle with it this way"

Right now they take larger risks. Are you kidding me? This is a no brainer. People game systems more than this EVERY DAY. Where is the hassle? There will be newspaper columns on how to get the most value at the least cost.

I will address employers later.

CBS Sunday News Show

Bachman "with the passage of Obamacare, 51% of the US economy is now owned or under the control of the Federal Government"

Awesome incident caught on video!

I watched the McCain/Palin rally today. Palin talked about how Dems and the MSM were trying to persecute conservatives through claims of intimidation and mistreatment. She said "Don't give in to these distractions! Don't you believe it!" Well, here's one distraction that didn't get any media attention by the biased MSM, but it was caught as it happened. We've got video and audio this time, but hey, don't you believe it!

http://www.comcast.net/video/heckler-removed-at-mccain-palin-rally/1453175004/Comcast/1451951525/

Amazingly, Ken brought forward an actual legitimate criticism of the health care bill. There have been good minds on both sides looking at this, and I don't think either side is "lying", there are just simply differences in opinion. It's all a matter of how you crunch the numbers and how effective one thinks cost saving measures will or will not turn out to be. Now that it's law, we'll soon know, won't we? But cost is not an imaginary issue, like the death panels and forced end of life measures and this being a socialist government takeover and all other such nonsense. Unfortunately, the imaginary stuff is what conservative leaders and talkers spent most of their time on during the "debate". They still are: now socialism has been jacked up to "totalitarianism" and Hannity and Limbaugh et al are shrieking that the IRS will be coming to our doors and monitoring us. Seriously, don't you guys ever get sick of these talkers playing conservatives for simpletons who will believe ANYTHING, no matter how totally impractical, unrealistic and ridiculous it is?

I've been following "death panel Palin" in the last few days and she has discontinued the use of imaginary talking points since the bill passed, which is a nice change. I've only heard her speak of whether the U.S. can afford this bill and if the "majority" of americans want this reform. I disagree with her, but at least these are legitimate issues.

I'm just asking the question, straight-forward and honestly. I would welcome any straight-forward, honest reply.

From wt:

"But don't you ever get sick of listening to all the crap? Don't you ever feel embarrassed for your party's talkers and leaders when they're seriously proclaiming all these idiotic things? Aren't you embarrassed for the people who are so easily manipulated by it? I would be, that's why I'm asking."

You say you would be embarrassed, but you are falling hook, line , and sinker for the lies the Democrats are putting out about this law. Just their cost estimates and cost 'savings' alone should raise a red flag, yet you still don't question this or any of the many other lies told by the Democrats. By the way, if you want to hear insipid and utterly stupid talk radio hosts, tune in to 99.9, the local liberal station.

ALERT!

The post, By What the? on March 26, 2010 4:22 PM is the single most liberal piece of elitist, head-you-know-where swill yet posted on this blog by any side of the political spectrum!

Let me see...... she is sooooo, soooo smart, all conservatives are soooo, soooo stupid. Hmmmm? Do we need to know anything else?

If she wants to hear a lot of dumbed-down rhetoric, just take a long listen to the deliberate lies of teh left during any attempt at rational debate. Start with the cost of healthcare, move on to the attempts to create violence in the streets against conservatives, and then lets add the obscene class warfare divisions and the attacks upon American industry.

Whuk!

What, I agree with you.

Anyone that doesn't agree with the Progressive's talk track is clearly mentally ill and needs to be institutionalized until they are re-educated in how to think and talk like Progressives.

We can call these "re-education camps" where everyone wears the same light blue uniforms and flip flops and gets to sing the praises of socialism and the great leader every day before they are allowed to eat wheat mush.

The slow learners will receive half their wheat mush ration, have their blankets taken away and be kept awake all night to sharpen their learning abilities.

Only when we are all singing harmoniously can the US make real social progress towards collectivism and true equality!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Why can't these people who claim to be giving conservatives a voice give conservatives an INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL voice that others will respect and take seriously, rather than sounding like hysterical nut jobs? Don't you feel insulted that your party leaders feel they have to dummy down the discourse to this level to reach their constituents? Do they consider their base so stupid that an actual conversation on real issues, like we have here, wouldn't reach them? Or are these talker's just being lazy and taking the easiest path? Seriously, what do you think?

Dan:

Just to be clear, my comment about the IRS was a "tweek" in recognition of the latest fear mongering subject on Hannity and Limbaugh now--the IRS will be coming to your door!!! Just like government workers would be sent to your home to force you to make end of life decisions and try to pull the plug on grandma early, now it's the IRS!!! Actually, I don't really remember how this will be handled, but it involves the Dept of Health and Human Services in some way, but not the IRS. Oy vey.

Which brings me to another issue. You have raised more pertinent questions about the health care legislation on this blog than any of the right-wing talking heads ever have. All Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin and others have shrieked about are things in the health care bill that don't exist--death panels, end of life government workers, now IRS government workers. They are simply selling fear in whatever form they can shape it into. I doubt any of them have actually read the bill like you have. If they had, then they could talk about substantive issues and actual problems with the bill, not imaginary ones. But they run with the imaginary ones. I don't think they're interested in actually educating themselves about it. Fear mongering doesn't require knowledge or facts, just a susceptible and ignorant base of people willing to believe anything they hear.

I'm not being disingenuous in this, so don't get PO'd. But don't you ever get sick of listening to all the crap? Don't you ever feel embarrassed for your party's talkers and leaders when they're seriously proclaiming all these idiotic things? Aren't you embarrassed for the people who are so easily manipulated by it? I would be, that's why I'm asking. It's like watching a fool's circus day in and day out. Why can't these people who claim to be giving conservatives a voice give conservatives an INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL voice that others will respect and take seriously, rather than sounding like hysterical nut jobs? Don't you feel insulted that your party leaders feel they have to dummy down the discourse to this level to reach their constituents? Do they consider their base so stupid that an actual conversation on real issues, like we have here, wouldn't reach them? Or are these talker's just being lazy and taking the easiest path? Seriously, what do you think?

The bold hypocrisy of the progressive left never ceases to amaze me with it's ability to continually overachieve it's own depths of lowliness!

Al of this talk about the ruffians that called them names, spit, etc, the outrage, the tears ---- by the way, does anyone else find it odd that in thsi era of big-brother-watching, there isn't a SINGLE tape or recording of it?

Did anyone else notice that the lamestream media first IGNORED the bullet through the window at Cantor's office, then tried to spin it as a gun shot into the air near his office, then back to silence when the police report came out ("the bullet was found through the window on the floor of the office")

Did I miss it? Did someone else notice Pelosi apologizing last summer after she called the TEA party attendees nazis and un-American and, by her own words, Pelosi tried to inspire violence in the streets against consrvatives?

Oh, I know ----- I am SURE Pelosi, Reid, Clyburn, and the rest, along with the lamestream, SURELY reported it when the SEIU members beat up that African-American last summer at a TEA party, or when that progressive bit off the finger tip of another attendee at a TEA party. Perhaps when the panthers used bations at a voting point to intimadate voters?

Right? I just missed it, but it DID happen, right? Pelosi, Reid and the far left nuts DID speak out against it, right? And of course, they apologized, right?

Anybody?

Nope! As I thought ---- the same bunch of weak-minded hypocrites they always were!

Dan:

"You get confused in your comments. I was focussing my comment on the 12 million new people that will be covered under this new plan, the invincible young who choose NOT to buy insurance, not people who were rescinded."

Ok, now I follow you. I thought you were referring to those who had policies rescinded.

"To clarify, these people do not want insurance. As you say, when they get sick, they generally become a burden of us since they do not pay their bill."

That's why having insurance is now mandatory. Rush Limbaugh is an exception--the guy is worth $400 million! He can afford to pay ANYTHING out of pocket. How do you know he got fair pricing? Perhaps this was done as a "courtesy" by the hospital because he's a celebrity? (Kinda like Obama getting his courtesy interest rate from Northwestern Trust because they considered him a celebrity?) Maybe so? But people with this kind of money are the extreme exceptions, certainly not the norm. Certainly not the "average" American, whom this bill addresses.

So let's call everyone who does not want to buy insurance on the open market as invincibles, for clarity. Sure they don't want to pay for insurance, because they know that if they need emergency medical services they'll get it anyway. And if they can't pay the bill, the hospital will just have to eat it and either write it off as a loss or charge you and me more the next time we come in to pay for it. The invincibles are not taking a risk at their own expense, they have been taking a risk at society's expense. They are kind of like the personification of Wall Street--as long as they stay well, they save money by not having to pay premiums. The minute they need medical care, the taxpayers have to bail them out. So tough that they're now being made to buy insurance. The new health care legislation recognizes that everyone uses the medical system at some point in their lifetime, so everyone should have to contribute to that system. No more freeloaders. Are we in agreement so far?

I don't know if these people will be able to buy insurance just when they need it and drop it afterwards that easily. I don't think this will be as simple as you make it sound. Dropping their insurance will set off warning bells. If they're required by law to maintain a policy, there will be immediate consequences if they break that law. Would you want to get on the IRS's s**t list this way? Not me.

I think that most people won't want to hassle with it this way, they'll just do it and move on with life. People like Libertarians will probably be a consistent problem. I'm sure there will be people who will make it their life mission to try to game the system, but we'll just have to wait and see how much of a problem this becomes. We can always go back in and tweak the bill later to make avoidance penalties more severe if need be. To me, this is something we need to keep an eye on, but it's certainly not a deal breaker by any means.

You were speaking earlier about employers, about how you think a lot of them would do something like this because it will be cheaper for them to pay the penalty than provide insurance for their employees. Would you? I'm not an employer, but I see an immediate disadvantage in doing this--you won't be able to keep top employees. The most desirable employees will go to those companies who DO provide insurance benefits. I wouldn't want to work for an employer who chooses to screw the government AND ME by gaming the system, I'll go elsewhere. Employers who choose penalties over insurance coverage will soon be scraping the bottom of the barrel for employees. You get what you pay for.

Also, I don't think this penalizes the young either. They can now stay on a parent's policy until 26. Before, my brainiac would have been through college and off our policy at 22. This gives her 4 MORE YEARS to establish herself before having to buy her own policy, which is more expensive than staying on a parent's policy. 26 is definitely an adult, most people are (or should be) independent by then. Not so at 22, when just getting out of college and looking for that first job. So I'm happy about this part of the legislation.

One more thing:

"Your comments about the failure of the insurance companies is half correct. The other part is the ineffective AND overregulation by state insurance agencies. They force many policies on the insurance companies--overregulation. The prevent insurance companies on jamming hospitals and doctors for cost increases. I was reading in the Wall Street Journal that hospitals are seeking 30 to 90% increases in reimbursement costs this year. The insurance companies are being forced to accept these increases."

I need to learn more about the regulatory side of the industry. Any reading suggestions?

Dan,

I don't know who is talking about invasions of any state, its both impractical and expensive. The beauty of the Revolutionary Guards model is its simplicity.

The ruling socialist-Marxists (or Iranians, or NAZIs) have their party members sign up volunteers in every city, town and village from their party.

The government sends them off for accelerated basic military training and indoctrination (how the people that don't support the revolution and ideology need to be treated like animals, plus payback for real or fabricated injustices)which takes about 30 days and only requires a few instructors, a lot of uneducated recruits that think they are victims, some tents and a few guns so they can learn how to shoot unarmed civilians without shooting themselves in the foot.

After accelerated basic, lets say 30 days in the rapid deployment model, the Guards get a US Marshals Badge from AG Holder making them legal, a red beret for their first uniform (just like Cuba or Venezuela did) and an inexpensive pistol to intimidate civilians with.

The cost to train and field a Guard member first wave: $120 food, $5 red Beret, $2 for US Marshals badge made in China, $50 for Chinese made pistol and holster suitable for shooting unarmed civilians. Total cost per Guard $177 deployed to your street corner. They can all share one $12 Wahl electric clipper purchased at WalMart if they didn't arrive with their head shaved. I bet they could find 100 people to take the job in Naperville for $2000 a month plus status.

When basic is completed, the Guards return to their communities where their local party bosses give them a list of opposition party members, influential citizens that need to be muzzled or arrested for hate speech and gun owners. After all, Obama is a minority and to speak against any of Obama's policies is an act of racist hate speech. Just ask Rep. Claiborn or Rep Jackson. Good thing Obama is not openly gay, or Rep Judy Biggert would have you arrested for hate speech.

The first thing the guards did in Venezuela, backed up by the military, was to disarm the local police to ensure no organized resistance.

Any Democrat party apparatchiks that speak out against the Revolutionary policies find their names added to the enemies list of counter revolutionaries and traitors to the party. This is like when Saddam had Bath Party members execute other Bath Party members as a show of loyalty to Saddam, in some cases they had to execute their own relatives. No doubt a sticky subject during the holidays and family get togethers.

One of the things that was most surprising after WW2 was how few Gestapo and feared Political Police the NAZIs needed to intimidate and control the population. When things got out of hand, the Gestapo would call in the special military extermination units to help clean up the problem and make an example. To staff the special military units the NAZIs only needed a few thousand volunteers that really enjoyed this sort of thing. They had no problem finding them.

If this sort of thing really concerns you, purchase a super high-velocity small-caliber rifle 2800-3200fps and a 3X scope, preferably for cash at a gun show (before they are shut down), and learn how to use it without shooting yourself in the foot. If nothing else, it will be fun for plinking empty soda cans at 400-800 yards. Once proficient, try a sealed paint can filled with water at 800 yards. I think this is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights 2nd amendment.

In an end of civilization scenario, they may or may not drop the shotgun requirement for hunting in Illinois (depending on what the Governor has to eat) and you could use it for deer and varmint hunting; although I never bought the argument that ground hog tastes just like roast beef, I was never successfully convinced to "try some".

I can say that alligator does not taste like Chicken, another myth. Goose and Duck are pretty good all the time, but you will need to grow or barter for some apples and onions to stuff them with for baking. If things are really bad, you will be cooking them on a wooden spit over an open fire, so the stuffing is out. Don't put any leaves or plastic in your cooking fire as may be a bit too aromatic when you bite the goose. This is what the Progressives (and most totalitarian regimes) think the right to bare arms is for, so you are covered either way.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I lament, because not all Americans agree. I think it will be easier for Texas and the rest of the South to just say "We're Done". The the "strong" states of Michigan, Illinois, New York and California will be on their own. Will the Revolutionary Guard that Anonymous on March 25, 2010 10:02 AM describes start a military offensive? I suspect that Southern California would want to secede as well.

WT

You get confused in your comments. I was focussing my comment on the 12 million new people that will be covered under this new plan, the invincible young who choose NOT to buy insurance, not people who were rescinded.

To clarify, these people do not want insurance. As you say, when they get sick, they generally become a burden of us since they do not pay their bill.

(NOTE ONE MAJOR EXCEPTION. Rush Limbaugh. He does not waste his money on insurance, choosing to pay the bills himself. By the way, I agree with his approach. I would be glad to have a $30,000 deductible with catastrophic coverage over that level. The insurance for this excess should cost a family $500 per month ($6,000 per year). Let me take the risk. Also, I want the insurance companies to price the services, I do not know how Rush got fair pricing. Every medical bill I get is reduced by 50 to 70% when processed by the insurance company. No insurance company would sell me this policy.)

But back to the young people. It is a fraud to claim that they are being covered. They don't want it. In fact, the new bill will protect them more. Pay the $795 penalty. If they get hospitalized, buy insurance for that month, get 100% coverage, and when they get out, they will drop the insurance and pay the penalty.

What a joke. Want to take a bet on the participation rate of this aspect of the plan? Even for the 8 million who will get subsidies, I bet 40% don't buy the insurance. The will not want to pay 6 to 9% of the their salaries. They want free.

Now you can evaluate my comments about the invincible. They do not deserve to be covered for pre existing conditions (current conditions). Instead, they should be penalized--big time.

Your comments about the failure of the insurance companies is half correct. The other part is the ineffective AND overregulation by state insurance agencies. They force many policies on the insurance companies--overregulation. The prevent insurance companies on jamming hospitals and doctors for cost increases. I was reading in the Wall Street Journal that hospitals are seeking 30 to 90% increases in reimbursement costs this year. The insurance companies are being forced to accept these increases. And they pass on the costs.

The ineptness of the regulation is the most annoying issue. The people who regulated AIG regulate the health insurers. They do a lousy job. These hidden agencies (you have to search high and low to find them in the state budget) are total disasters.This is replaced by the excessive verbage in the act, one train wreck replacing another.

I need to move on. But none of the root causes were ever debated. Here is the first chance for Congress to bend the cost curve, cut the doctors costs by 20%. Let's see how it goes. People on Medicare might have to wait for a new doctor, but let's cut costs.

Pelosi has no fortitude to do this. The Republicans should fillibuster this bill and let the cuts go into effect. Start the shut down of the government.

Forgot:

"Why not let people continue to use existing companies and force these companies to take people with pre existing conditions?"

That's exactly what will happen in 2014, existing companies will have to take people with pre-existing conditions. I think you're selecting and piecing parts of the bill together in a way that's changing it's meaning.

Re: this again:

"And I addressed the one loophole your mentioned, better than the bill. Make unpaid medical costs for the people you mentioned not eligible for foregiveness in the bankruptcy court. Force a 20% withholding of future income until it is repaid. These people will never be able to buy a house or car. They will have to live in Single Room Occupancies until they pay their debt to society. This is appropriate punishment for not being a responsible member of society. Or better yet, hang them in the town square?"

Or maybe I'm not understanding you. I didn't mention a loophole. Are you being sarcastic?

Anonymous on March 25, 2010 9:33 PM

Yes, I know. I was being sarcastic.

Dan D:

She. My brainiac is a she. Both of them are. My "he" was learning disabled but today is a successful and independent adult, husband and father. He was a bear to raise, but he turned out better than anyone, even teachers and specialists, thought he would. Just to keep things straight.

It's odd how I'm talking about the health of our society and it's people, you're talking about ideology. I focus on the unsolvable problems in our free market health care system that made reform necessary, you focus on picking apart the reform bill and criticizing every little thing you can find. We are from two different worlds.

Look, it's a done deal. Why don't we all just relax and see what happens. If Armegeddon occurs in 2012--like the movie, coincidence?--then Obama will be kicked out of office, the health care bill will get repealed, we will all survive and go on wiser. It will not spell the end of life as we know it. And you can rightfully say I told you so. I seriously doubt this will happen, but I don't have a crystal ball. Neither do you.

This statement is odd:

"And I addressed the one loophole your mentioned, better than the bill. Make unpaid medical costs for the people you mentioned not eligible for foregiveness in the bankruptcy court. Force a 20% withholding of future income until it is repaid. These people will never be able to buy a house or car. They will have to live in Single Room Occupancies until they pay their debt to society. This is appropriate punishment for not being a responsible member of society. Or better yet, hang them in the town square?"

Dan, I still don't think you understand rescission. Under this bill, rescission will no longer be allowed except in cases of intentional fraud. So whatever unpaid medical costs people have will not be a result of abusive and unfair rescission practices by their insurance provider. This is the cause of the majority of bankruptcies now, but it will not be the cause of bankruptcies going forward. If these people have unpaid costs, it's because that's their fair share under their policies. Why shouldn't they be responsible for their fair share like any other bill?

Again, one of the objectives of the bill is to not allow people to shirk their responsibilities by gaming the system through bankruptcy or any other means. Like I said, it won't work unless EVERYONE is on board. We can't allow the freeloaders to freeload anymore. Society can't afford it.

Besides, in previous posts you made it very clear you're a big proponent of people paying their debts to society. If people suffer, so what? You said, "that's what FAILURE means". You said you believed people who couldn't pay their medical expenses should be put on poor farms and be refused medical care.

NOW you care about people being made to pay their bills and not being allowed to freeload off of society? It's ok to let them be refused medical care and die on a poor farm, but now God forbid they have to live in a single room and not be able to buy a car because they have to pay their debts? It seems to me you turn the humanitarianism off and on to suit your purpose.

Anon ONE:

The comments you cited was when Obama was talking about MEDICARE and MEDICAID. Eliminating the waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. The very statement you brought forward says so--see the word Medicare there? These two programs are but two slices of the entire health care pie.

Eliminating all the waste and fraud in Medicare needs to be done, but it has nothing to do with the problems of policy rescissions and the exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions from participating in the free market insurance system. If you take a quick look at the article I linked for Dan, which I'm pretty sure he didn't bother to look at, you'll see that executives for three major health insurance groups met with lawmakers and these lawmakers asked them point blank to change their practices on policy rescissions. Look at this:

The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle."

Rescission is warranted if a policyholder commits fraud to obtain coverage, that's how it is intended to be used. But here the executives admit to using recsission in a clearly unfair and abusive way to boost profits, and frankly admitted they had no intention of changing this. Rescissions account for a huge portion of their profits, it' a real cash cow for the industry.

So the government tried to negotiate with them. The insurance industry, driven only by the strick profit motive of a free market, refused to modify this practice in any way, no matter how much it's overuse was damaging our health care system. So something else had to be done. The government was the only one with the clout to do it. That's why we now have health reform.

This is one of the reasons the health insurance industry fought the public option so hard. They knew it would put them out of business, because the government wouldn't be rescinding policies because the public option would have been a not for profit system. If you were buying insurance, would you go with a provider who you were certain would pay your claims or a provider who MIGHT pay your claims?

Right now the current reform bill is working with the insurance industry. It's set new restrictions on insurer's behavior, but they businesses are still intact. They get a chance to clean up their act. But the public option is still in there as a fail safe. If health insurers continue to act like an organized crime syndicate by price fixing, jacking up rates to astronomical amounts and weaseling out of paying valid claims through the overuse of rescission, the public option will be back on the table sooner than you think.

So no, your landscaping analogy is wrong. Obama kept the original topsoil and the entire yard intact as is, he even kept the old plants. He just moved the old ones to new locations and added a bunch more new ones, creating a new landscape, much to the progessive left's dismay. The progressives wanted to level the entire yard and house--that's what a public option would have done.

In fact, this is precisely what Obama says in his own words in the link you provided:

"There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's -- (applause) -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.
I've said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-to-a-joint-session-of-congress-on-health-care/

So no, we have not bulldozed the entire yard--yet.

WT,

Please read the bill out loud to your "brainiac" so he can explain it to you.

Section 221 of the bill provides for the "Public Health Insurance Option". A "not for profit" established by the Federal government with OUR TAX money that automatically qualifies for the health insurance exchanges.

Section 201 gives the head of HHS the unilateral right to determine if a health insurance company "qualifies" to provide insurance. If you put these two sections together, you will ultimately have only one "option", the "Public Health Insurance Option". How can any company initially compete with the government who also regulates them?

And Section 102, that famous part about keeping our existing coverage if we like it. If our current insurance changes, does not get approved by HHS, or you change your job, you must get insurance on the "exchange".

Why not let people continue to use existing companies and force these companies to take people with pre existing conditions? And don't waste money on a government option?

Will this save me money, the $2,500 Obama promised during his campaign? Should he be held financially responsible for that false claim (take it out of his book royalties)?

And I addressed the one loophole your mentioned, better than the bill. Make unpaid medical costs for the people you mentioned not eligible for foregiveness in the bankruptcy court. Force a 20% withholding of future income until it is repaid. These people will never be able to buy a house or car. They will have to live in Single Room Occupancies until they pay their debt to society. This is appropriate punishment for not being a responsible member of society. Or better yet, hang them in the town square?

And these people don't buy insurance now and they won't under Obama care. So the extra 12 million people is another fraud relative to this program.

And this bill raises the premiums for such people by regulating premiums. These young people will unfairly have to subsidize costs for people in their 50's. Who came up with this concept?

WT, where can you buy one of the "share the wealth" handbooks?

I'm sorry, you live in a different country than I believe in. Simple.

And Annon, regarding the Democratic "power". It is close. You get 40% of the vote off the top, you do not need more to close the deal. But you also made me think a bit more. As population continues its shift to the south, this 40% population will be concentrated in a handful of states (blue of course). These states, as Robert Reich stated, are the poor states. So they will look for more share the wealth. This makes 2012 more interesting as there will be a shift in votes (as high as 20) to the south.

To:

By Dan D on March 25, 2010 1:04 PM

Dan,

Having lived in socialist Europe, I can tell you exactly what will happen and happen fairly quickly.

Greeks and Italians and I suspect the French are the best tax cheats in the world. It won't take too long for everyone in this country to start asking for cash for every transaction. Even the large companies will get in on the act.

Once the underground economy gets going, its almost impossible to stop. So in the end, only chumps will pay income tax and the socialist governments will have to return to sales taxes to fund the dream except that everyone will have long abandoned keeping tapes in their registers.

Once the population decides to stop paying, its really hard to get it started again.

Once the FEDs start wildly printing money, don't be surprised if like other third world countries, the underground economy moves to a more stable currency like the Canadian Dollar or the Swiss Frank.

One day, stores may have signs "Dollars not accepted here".

Australian Banks now allow US dollar accounts which is apparently taking off as the money flees socialism.

Anon 10.02 am

What,

If Cantor's house or office or whatever it was, was surrounded by reporters and video cameras and no one heard, saw or recorded the gunshot and the bullet didn't leave a hole, this would be exactly like Sheila Jackson's magic racial slur.

*******************************************************
Cantor was in fact for Obamacare before he was against it, he even went on the talk shows saying "the time is now for nationalized health care".

Another empty suit republican that believes in nothing.

What, you should be sending Cantor money, he is the kind of Republican that caused conservatives to abandon the Republican Party in the last election.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
By What the? on March 25, 2010 6:00 PM

Anon 5678:

Someone shot at Cantor? I'm sure this is a lie. Where is the proof? There's no video of this and you know how phone cameras and the like are EVERYWHERE these days! Really, someone fires a gun and no one gets it on film? Doesn't this seem suspicious to you? And a bullet hole in a window doesn't prove anything. Cantor probably got someone to do this for him so he could exploit it for his 15 minutes of fame playing the victim, since this is working so well for the Dems. Just a lot of lies.

Anon 5678:

Someone shot at Cantor? I'm sure this is a lie. Where is the proof? There's no video of this and you know how phone cameras and the like are EVERYWHERE these days! Really, someone fires a gun and no one gets it on film? Doesn't this seem suspicious to you? And a bullet hole in a window doesn't prove anything. Cantor probably got someone to do this for him so he could exploit it for his 15 minutes of fame playing the victim, since this is working so well for the Dems. Just a lot of lies.

Dan D:

You totally misunderstood my comment about the Dems. I didn't say tea party people were doing the harassing. I said find the "people" who are doing this. Threatening government officials is a crime, our legally elected leaders should not put up with it. They can certainly call in the FBI to investigate--they are doing just that in the gas line cutting episode--they can try to trace calls, do whatever they do in these cases. Point is the Dems shouldn't talk about hiding out or moving their families. Push back. Get tough and prosecute these people when you know who they are. That will change their tune.

My view is that fine, let the government form its health insurance program. But DON'T force everyone to join it."

That's what the PUBLIC OPTION would have been, the government forming it's own health insurance program that people could join if they wanted to. The insurance industry said this would put them out of business because the free market wouldn't be able to compete with a government option since everyone would prefer that. You guys called a public option "socialism" and lost your collective minds. Would you favor an optional public plan now?

The reason why everyone HAS to join is because it will never work unless everyone participates. There are many libertarians, losers and freeloaders in our society who will never act responsibly unless forced to. These are the people who say they're self-sufficient and "you can't make me buy health insurance" but are the first ones to use expensive health care services and resources when they're in need and then skip out on the bill because it's so high, leaving their fellow taxpayers to subsidize their care. These free-loaders, the people you complain about, are dragging our whole health care system down. We can not longer pay their way because they refuse to. That's why it's mandatory, there can't be anymore freeloaders.

Dan D,
I still think that toning it down a bit is a good idea, and you actually did that, for which I applaud you.
Oddly, I tend to think that if anyone was going to secede, and I'll reiterate that such a likelihood is all but impossible, it would be the other way round. The bluer states would be more likely to decide that they could go it alone, since they could actually pay their own way. Of course, they'd have most of the red states surrounded, but who cares?

History always has cycles, and particularly American history. There was a time not that long ago when everyone was sure that the party of the right would be so strong after Bush that there would surely be another Republican President. If you think that the Democrats are so powerful and all knowing that they can jury rig the system so that there will never be another possible Republican administration, please tell me now so I can start ignoring you.

Those nasty tea baggers shot at Cantor today.

Do I believe that or don't I?

Heck. I'm a conservative and I don't even know if I believe that. Good way to get some press and call some people out.

By Anonymous on March 25, 2010 11:12 AM

"So, Dan, tone it down a bit, would you?"

*********

I am sorry that my repeating a comment I saw and rhetorically asking questions on topics we have all heard offend you. I suspect that By Anonymous on March 25, 2010 10:02 AM would agree with you unless he was being totally satirical.

But I think these issues are more deep rooted than you say. Right now, Democratic policies result in 40% of the people (and I assume voters) not paying taxes. You add in 10% for the extreme left and the demogods like Obama and you will not have cycles. These actions are very deliberate to take away our liberty and quite clear "spread the wealth".

I lament, because not all Americans agree. I think it will be easier for Texas and the rest of the South to just say "We're Done". The the "strong" states of Michigan, Illinois, New York and California will be on their own. Will the Revolutionary Guard that Anonymous on March 25, 2010 10:02 AM describes start a military offensive? I suspect that Southern California would want to secede as well.

And this has been in the press including the Wall Street Journal. Drop out and leave the debt to the 40% who don't pay taxes.

How many people support a last place team? Do me a favor. Out o the 2,000 plus pages, the first 225 to 250 relate to the insurance matters. Read them. There are many scary items that we have not heard about. Not even Limbaugh or Fox News.

And then think about the tone. By the way, I am not throwing bricks through Foster's windows. But he is a dweeb.

Ken...

To take your post one step further, why would any of us as individuals pay for insurance period? You are going to get fined, which is designed to make sure you pay your fair share.

So, your kid gets sick, go buy insurance that day. You can't be denied. Drop it a few days later. You'll save yourself a heck of a lot of money.

This is obviously a major loophole that will need to be addressed. But how? A new law will have to be passed I would think. Something tells me that is going to be tough to do now.

What will happen in your example is they will increase the fines to more than what the insurance costs. So either way that business owner is passing that tax/fine/requirement (tax is what it really is) to this customers.....99.5% who are making less than 250k per year.

My view of the healthcare bill is simple:

If it's so darn good, then ALL politicians and public employees should immediately be moved over to the new system and be subject to all of it's laws & nuances.

OBAMACARE BY THE NUMBERS

CUTS TO MEDICARE

Obamacare cuts $500B from Medicare,

80% of medicare recipients are white, with over half well above the poverty line and elderly.

NEW ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM FUNDED WITH MEDICARE CUTS

Now for the uninsured:

Race

* 13% white
* 36% hispanic (huge portion illegal)
* 18% black
* 16% asian
* 29% mixed race

Age

* 28% 18-29
* 20% 30-44
* 14% 45-64
* ?% 65+

For the Dems, the math is simple. Let old white folks fend for themselves. Buy the young non-white vote. Once they legalize the illegals, the demographics make it game over.

Dan D -
Please, think about the rhetoric before using it? Hatch calls the health bill totalitarianism, which is absurd on the face of things, and you repeat it without thinking about what it means. That's bad enough. But to even raise the notion of secession because of a health care bill is beyond ludicrous. Take a step back, think some of this through before asking the ridiculous. Try to remember that politics, like almost everything else, runs in cycles. Today, it's the Dems, last time around it was the Reps, next time it will be - well, anyone's guess. A health care bill that comes even close to working may become as politically untouchable as Medicare has always been touted to be, that's true. But it doesn't mean that it can't be adjusted over the course of time by whichever party might be in power at that point, they just might have to be more careful with it.
The utter absurdity of any party/president invading states doesn't even warrant comment.
Let's remind ourselves that it is NOT the states that are talking about legal challenges to this process, it is the political apparatus in the state. If one state wishes to challenge, it doesn't mean every individual in the state objects, in point of fact, it may mean that only the Governor and the Atty General of the state object, or are wanting to make a political statement [though obviously some percentage of the state population will also object].
So, Dan, tone it down a bit, would you?

Just listened to a CBS report where they made a startling discovery. They were talking to a business owner who has 125 employees, and he figured out that he can pay $90,000 per year in fines for not insuring his employees as opposed to the $485,000 per year he pays now for what he calls good insurance. As Dan has pointed out many times, it will not take long for all employers to figure this out and end employee insurance programs. Sounds like a back door way of the government completely taking over health care. No surprise to those who have actually studied the new law. Apparently, CBS is not included in that group.

Response to:
By Dan D on March 25, 2010 12:54 AM

We have now crossed the bridge and transitioned to top down government.

The States need to stop subsidizing and enforcing all Federal Laws and rendering aid of any kind to the Federal Government programs, officials and employees other than that required for common criminal complaints or enforcement of State Laws. This is the model the state of Russia and the other states comprising the Soviet Union used to rid themselves of the USSR top down government.

The collapse of the USSR took less than a year once the States cut them off, after a few months without pay checks all of the employees of the USSR including the KGB simply went home and started looking for new jobs. In the final act, the Soviet military refused to run over their own countrymen with tanks, I doubt our military would either.

When it comes to enforcement, let the FEDs do their own Gestapo work so its plain who the aggressors are. The FEDs can send the Marshals, FBI and the military to back up their agents when needed. If a crime is actually committed that violates local laws, the local police can investigate. Local officials and police should do nothing to aid the Feds unless a crime has been committed. Leave the intimidation of the population to DC.

Obama and Rahm Emanuel have already told us their plans, the "domestic security force", "staffed with conscripts" to enforce "the domestic security needs", "as big and as powerful as the US Military," this means 2.5 to 3 million revolutionary guards. Arming draftees will give Obama and Emanuel pause, and they will ask for an "all volunteer force" first. Farrakhan, Rev Wright and others will encourage their congregation members with clean histories to join the new all volunteer force in order to safeguard social justice. This is how Chavez does it.

Given that the credit card for the FEDs is about to be turned off by the Chinese, it won't be too long before the FEDs find ways to tax your house, your business and any savings out from under you so they can redistribute to their cronies, the unions and their welfare mob. It should be IRS agents, Federal Courts and US Marshals that throw your furniture and family out on the street. The local police can watch from a distance to ensure that local laws are followed.

Given the hard economic times, Federal Officials should provide for their own security needs when they think its required. We can't subsidize the theater they are playing in DC where they are the victims. If Federal Officials feel they need to ride around in armored cars and tanks when they leave the Washington Beltway, let them do at Federal expense.

Most of the Federal Elected big shots live in DC permanently and spend their time off in Cape Cod, Hilton Head or Veil. Mailing addresses are maintained in the States and Counties they claim to represent in order to meet local election requirements, in many cases its a charade or a vacation home. The "Giants of the Senate" rarely leave DC after they retire or lose an election. If they are worried about their vacation homes, they can get an alarm system from ADT or Brinks just like all of the little people.

I doubt that Hatch or many of the Republicans have the inclination or spine to turn off any Federal Program for any reason as long was everyone in both parties gets to "wet their beak".

Stay tuned, this will get more interesting as the tax base continues to collapse under economic mismanagement (FEDs now spending $2 for every $1 of tax income) and the application of already failed socialist economic models.

As an individual, I will no longer buy any product that is manufactured by Union members, or vote for any candidate that takes their money. I will vote no on all referendums to pay for Union employees. The Unions are the money pipeline that pays for the election of top down government.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
By Dan D on March 25, 2010 12:54 AM

Listening to Orin Hatch on MSNBC (no, Fox News--Maddow is crowing about Scott Brown's mailing on the rumor that she was running against him in 2012)

Senator Hatch calls the health bill TOTALITARISM.

That should make the people feel better than being called Socialists.

What will these states do if their legal challenges are turned down? Will secession be next? Will Obama invade these states to take over the real successful economies in North America?

What do you think?

WT amazes me. Here are some of the recent classics.

1. "Again, the Dems need to grow spines. Don't play the victim and then whine about being victimized. Put the FBI on it, find out who these people are and press charges. That will put an end to the harassment. Problem solved."

WT, you don't get it. Are there some disturbances? Yes. Are they being orchestrated by the Tea Party? Come on, did we accuse Cindy Shenan of destroying the military. You should keep this in context. The broadly characterize a group based on the actions of a few that may not be related to the total is either ARROGANT or IGNORANT.

And they won't call the FBI, because they cannot prove their cases. They would rather make a PR issue out of this to attempt to swing public sentiment. There is more gain to that action than a felony conviction of an isolated extremist. Fifty of these congressmen and at least seven Senators including Reid want to be reelected and calling the FBI won't do it.

2. "There is no point to this as long as you hide your head in the sand. I thought you were interested in understanding our health industry's problems, but it seems you're more interested in defending a position. Even if it means denying reality to do so."

Give me a break. I did have an insurance problem, with a major corporation that tried to deny coverage. Not an insurance company. This "highly esteemed" company made me jump through hoops since I had missed some deadlines that are addressed in this bill. But I prevailed. But I also discovered that this mighty company took these actions against thousands. I suspect that the lower paid employees who were worried about employment did not take the aggressive actions to retain their coverage.

I also note that my current insurance company tried to do the same thing. And again, I was able to prevail since they were also at fault. With much less effort than my experience with the company plan. (And this was critical becuase alternative insurance would have subjected me to pre-exising conditions.) If companies had to compete for customers like they do in auto insurance, these types of problems are less prevelant.

One of the reasons for problems with current health insurance is the extensive government regulation, both State and Federal, over such programs. From state insurance regulations, HIPFA (?) and ERISA, insurance companies cannnot tailor insurance plans like they do for auto insurance. If I want a lower rate, I can increase deductables. A $200 deductable was reasonable in 1980, today I carry $1,000 and plan to increase that. I will assume 100% risk for those costs. I tried doing that in the insurance field and they resisted.

But respect the point of views. My view is that fine, let the government form its health insurance program. But DON'T force everyone to join it. That is what this law does. You have to buy a "Health Exchange" approved policy. The government provides one option and approves all of the other options. If you want an national health option, fine. JOIN. (I wonder if the "brainiac" supports your idea. I'll stop there).

These comments that these plans NEED universal participation including forcing young Americans to OVERPAY reflects a BAD solution to the "preexisting insurance issue". A high percentage of people are covered on pre existing conditions (jumping from one employer plan directly to another--even after 18 months of COBRA). The industry should have come up with a method to cover the rest.

And people who currently do not buy insurance and under the new plan will pay the meager penalty and only if they have a catastrophic health issue, do they buy insurance. The current system does not work, the new system "legitimizes" the process.

I would instead change the bankruptcy law and not allow a person who does not carry insurance to never have a medical debt discharged. I would grant the bankruptcy court powers to permanently lien such reckless individuals salary and assets until the debt is paid off including any life insurance they carry. Many of these "uninsured" are successful individuals who if they live (and most do) will be able to pay back their debt. And maybe a penalty to a reinsurance pool as well.

But in summary, while there are many faults in the current insurance system, I do not need to be told by the government what I have to buy and from whom. I really detest my loss of liberty just as I have lost my liberty in Social Security and Medicare. Ultimately, Federal health insurance will become a broken system like these two programs.

You can talk how great the plan is. But let me ask a fundamental question. IF IT IS SO GREAT, WHY DO THEY HAVE TO FORCE PEOPLE TO JOIN?

Here is the realistic preview into healthcare. This is the first corporate analysis I have seen.

And here is where BHO lied yet again. No new taxes to people making under 250k. My guess is many of these farmers who buy machines from Deere are not only already subsidized by Uncle Sam but are not making 250k per year. If this new healthcare bill is going to cost Deere 150mil extra per year, what do you think is going to happen? Are they going to pass it on to the consumer or are they going to cut back staff? Or are they doing to do both?

This one I am serious about. Real answers please.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36032946

Now back to WT and alleged name calling BS

I have a serious question for you. Why do you think plastic face, mind you with her 11% approval rating, and her cohorts marched up captial hill knowing there would be a crowd of protesters out there? I have to think that her own security along with everyone else's security would have told them....not a good idea. We can only protect you so much. There is another secure entrance in the back. Why do you think that is? Do you think Nancy and her cohorts might have known that there was going to be a lot of mudslinging and that they might be able to go on TV and cry.....TEA PARTY, REPUBLICAN. Do you think she might have been looking for media attention? And not just Nancy...all of them.

And furthermore, when these alleged slurs happened....did plastic face and her cohorts check everyone's voting cards, tea party cards just to make sure that what they, MSNBC and HP are crying is accurate? I mean.......there is no way there were any independents or way left Dem whack jobs who could have been saying those awful things, is there?

Screw it. No need to question any of these folks. Afterall, they are so good at telling the truth.

If this wasn't such a big problem, we wouldn't need a government bill to redress it, would we?

_________________________

And therein lies the problem I have with liberals. Everything seems to be a problem that requires some type of government intervention and action to fix.

The health care system needs fixing no doubt. Obama claimed there was hundreds of Billions of dollars in waste and fraud. Why not address this waste and fraud first and show us the savings? This would have garnered support (something that until he started bribing his own party wasn't coming from the democrats). Obama's reasoning for wanting bi-partisan support was obviously because he couldn't get his own people on board, and the Repubs became an easy target to brand as obstructionists.
Obama: "The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies" http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-to-a-joint-session-of-congress-on-health-care/

Hopefully the following analogy expresses my point. Pretend that the current health care issue is like that of a homeowner who needs new landscaping. He (and his neighbors) agree the current landscaping needs repair and upgrading, but they disagree on how to do it. The liberal response to this homeowner would be to bulldoze everything - house included. Strip off the first foot of topsoil and bring in all new. Build a new house and then plant your new landscaping, we'll worry about costs later. A conservative approach would be to develop a budget, bring in an expert, make some initial changes, set up a maintenance program, and "fix" the landscape problem through changes and increased efficiency. The point is that you don't have to decimate everything to get the desired result.

Again, using Obama's own words. Eliminate the waste and fraud first.

Wt likes to rant about the actions of some cretins on the right as if it is an exclusive problem of the right. She breathlessly reports stupid phone calls and damages to Democrats office as if it is a new thing. I guess she is not aware that some of her liberal ilk practice the same tactics. McCain/Palin offices were attacked more then 10 times, for instance. Democrat representatives had some awfully ribald things to say about President Bush Remember Hillary implying that he knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened? No one condemned her for that. This is not a first, and there is no defense for the cretins who do this, but to act like it is just a tea party thing or Republican thing shows either complete ignorance or complete duplicity.

Dan:

OF COURSE this is now being called totalitarianism (not totalitarism). No one cares about socialism anymore, the conservatives have beat this term to death. So we move the inflammatory rhetoric up a notch, to keep the fear factor fresh. Soon you guys are going to run out of "isms".

No one with half a brain cares about this rhetoric. Succession and revolution are the wet dreams of malcontents. But there's no harm in dreaming.

The civil rights struggle was worse. The anti-Vietnam War protests were far worse. The health care "debate", as it's called, doesn't hold a candle to these events. We survived those intact, we'll certainly survive this. Dream on.

Listening to Orin Hatch on MSNBC (no, Fox News--Maddow is crowing about Scott Brown's mailing on the rumor that she was running against him in 2012)

Senator Hatch calls the health bill TOTALITARISM.

That should make the people feel better than being called Socialists.

What will these states do if their legal challenges are turned down? Will secession be next? Will Obama invade these states to take over the real successful economies in North America?

What do you think?

Dan D:

"Maybe the other 37 did zero. I am not denying that there are problems with insurance companies, but I would rather have to take my case to an insurance companry and have redresss in the regulatory and legal system than the new systemt that takes away these fundamental rights."

Dan, you are in total denial about this. Find out what rescission is and how it is used in the health care industry to deny valid claims after the fact. You really have no idea what's going on. Read the article I posted, for starters. Then do a simple google search and find out how prevalent it is and the economic, legal and practical barriers to "redressing this in the regulatory and legal system" you think exists. Rescission is underhanded but legal, so there is little recourse. You can spend years fighting a rescission if you want, if you 1) have the money for a long court case and 2) if you live long enough to see it through. Most people die on a poor farm from lack of care, as you suggest, long before these cases ever get settled. You will never understand the problems in our health care system as long as you are determined to ignore the extent to which they exist.

There is no point to this as long as you hide your head in the sand. I thought you were interested in understanding our health industry's problems, but it seems you're more interested in defending a position. Even if it means denying reality to do so.

Anon 5678:

I think the exact phrase the caller used was "a steaming pile of crap". This cracked me up. A lot of that stuff was so awful it was funny. But I guess it wouldn't be funny if I were the recipient. I'm feeling sorry for Stupak now. It's not easy being confused.

The Wisconsin thing did not escape me. I realized this as I was saying it, or typing it, in this case. All Wisconsin shows is that this kind of language is not beyond some tea party people; it's definitely been done before. It doesn't prove the Washington incidents, but it does lend it more credibility.

I choose to believe the people who were there. I'm not at the point in life where I'm so cynical that everything has to be on video or audio in order to be "proved". This gives a false sense of reality anyway--tapes and sound bites can be falsified just as easily. And speakers can claim they were taken out of context, like the Rep who yelled "baby killer" at Stupak, then apologized by saying this is not what he meant, then apologized for the apology by saying he had nothing to apologize for. Enough already. Slap these shout-out nimrods with a fine, that will make them think twice before opening their mouths. And if someone spits on you, press charges. That too will make others think twice before doing the same.

Again, the Dems need to grow spines. Don't play the victim and then whine about being victimized. Put the FBI on it, find out who these people are and press charges. That will put an end to the harassment. Problem solved.

WT

Maybe the other 37 did zero. I am not denying that there are problems with insurance companies, but I would rather have to take my case to an insurance companry and have redresss in the regulatory and legal system than the new systemt that takes away these fundamental rights.

For everyone, the law on the new exchanges needs to be carefully reviewed. There will be a not for profit ESTABLISHED AND FUNDED by the Federal government and then any other plans they ALLOW. If this is not PUBLIC OPTION waiting to happen, I do not know what it is.

The following article sums up what everyone is saying (except WT and Southeast Side)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-bho-goal-is-to-redistribute-wealth

And for the record, I think Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are failures. Of course people are happy, they give away money they don't have. Instead of looking at Roosevelt and Johnson as heros, they are villians against humanity just as Obama will be.

One short example. When Roosevelt originally proposed Social Security, the average age of a worker was 35 and his life expectancy was 64 years. People did not accumulate pensions since they thought they would be long gone. If they lived longer, they roomed with family.

In short, Social Security was originally a cruel joke by this saintly Roosevelt. It had then been amended and expanded so it became a disaster.

Imagine if you had all of the money deducted from your salary for Social Security? And the liberals will tell you that you are not smart enough to manage your own money and they should do it for you. And allocate how much you should get.

Do you see why I resent Social Security?

I think Albania is still practicing socialism. Rather than forcing socialism on us, socialist should move to where it is practiced.

WT

Stupak - There you go. There is some tape.
That wasn't racial or homophobic though. That was just a constituent or American letting Bart know he is a big POS, like he is. He should have to hear that everyday until he does us a favor and gets out of our lives from a public servant standpoint. I might just give him a call after I get done here and remind him he is a POS as well.

Here is where you lose it though. Now you are talking about Wisconsin. We are talking about this past weekend. There is no tape. There are equally as many reports of people saying they heard no such slurs. AND THERE IS NO TAPE. I get that some of these tea party people, just like those whack jobs were out in full force protesting Bush. Remember? But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about this weekend. You can cite all you want on different events. You are not staying on point.....part of the liberal playbook and the Saul Alinsky playbook I referred you to earlier. Doesn't work with me.

Bush's spending habbit - I have no idea, but it really screwed up the conservative movement.

Anon,

Maybe the Courts can save the country from bankruptcy by throwing out all of the below mentioned programs and killing the absurd overreach of the commerce clause which was designed to keep states from tariffing or otherwise discriminating against products from another state.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By Anon 12:11 pm on March 24, 2010 2:53 PM
"Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, said on a conference call with reporters that a challenge of the constitutionality of the so-called "individual mandate" also applies to the constitutionality of longstanding programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."

Dan D:

Re: rescission. Let's put the number into CORRECT context. Read the article carefully: the 20,000 rescissions in the last five years was not the national total, those were the number of rescissions done by JUST THOSE THREE INSURANCE COMPANIES: WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc.

There are currently 40 leading medical insurance companies operating in the U.S., Dan. FORTY, not 3. You do the math.

More hard working, insurance premium-paying Americans get screwed out of benefits through rescission than you want to admit. If this wasn't such a big problem, we wouldn't need a government bill to redress it, would we? Insurance companies and their clients would be happily chugging along in a free market if this were working well, wouldn't they?

More later. I gotta get the globe trotting brainiac from Barcelona to Dublin.

Anon 5678:

On a different track, regarding this statement of yours:

"Bush was a spending liberal nut job who didn't say no to social spending and never railed his party in."

Why was this? If the Republican Party stands for fiscal responsibility like they claim, why did they go along with everything Bush wanted and spend up a storm themselves? I think the careless spending that was allowed under the Bush administration will always be thrown in the Reps faces to undermine their credibility as fiscal conservatives. And you have to admit they earned it. What was going on with them during this time?

Anon @ 10:60
And let's please not open a discussion about whether Lenin truly implemented Marx's principles. I know many, many books have been written on the subject, and I truly don't want to read a single one of them.

Your choice of quotes isn't very inspired, frankly. Try this one, instead.

"Is your wife also active in the German ladies' great emancipation campaign? I think that German women should begin by driving their husbands to self-emancipation."
Marx, Letter to Kugelmann (1868)

Now THAT is deep, you must admit.

"Obama = each according to his abilities, each according to his needs"

Better hit the history book again. You're still not right. Obama has never stated this as his doctrine, has never said anything even remotely similar.

I like this one: Obamacare

Obama Cares!

This is one that WILL go down in history!

Anonymous 5678:

Looks like it's getting better and better. I guess you've seen reports of the 10 Dems who have received various threats, including Bart Stupak. Poor guy can't win for losing. But I'm sure these are all lies too.

You are certainly entitled to believe anything you want. Like I said, there is a video tape of this incident, but no, you can't isolate any particular statement from all the noise. No one is demanding that this be done and these statements be proved because everyone already believes it. Why do you think that is? Because the Dems are so believable? Or maybe this isn't that out of character for some of these tea party folks? CNN did show a video of a tea party rally in Wisconsin showing some of your folks close up and personal clearly yelling f*g and f****t, so this kind of thing is definitely part of the tea party vernacular. Perhaps you can email Fox with your suggestion and see if they run with it, this sounds like something they'd be all over. Or Glen Beck, he LOVES conspiracies!

Besides, I really don't think a clear audio of this incident would satisfy you, you would just claim as you already have that "they can do miraculous things with audio and video editing nowadays", not only to decipher exactly what was or wasn't said but to put in what wasn't said as well. Right? You know how conspiracy mentality works, this is the next cog on the denial wheel. We have hundreds of pictures documenting the Holocaust but that doesn't stop millions of people from saying these pictures were "staged". We have video and audio of the moon landing but there are still a lot of people who believe this was a hoax also. So seriously, believe what you want. I'm fine with it.

"A vote for Obama was a vote for Socialism"

Al Sharpton

Anon,

You are right, my mistake. Marx was the theoretical father of what we now call Marxism. He didn't run anything, it was Lenin who put him to practice. Point in your favor.

Marx = each according to his abilities, each according to his needs

Obama = each according to his abilities, each according to his needs

Obama = Marx

better?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By Anon 12:11 pm on March 24, 2010 2:53 PM

Anonymous @ 10:06 a.m.

Thank you Ken. I hadn't even heard anyone else really talking about my theory. Apparenlty it is a few people's theory. Ken...do you find it puzzling? It's turning into a right left issue, but I look at it more like a Michael Richards or Tiger Woods or this is the biggest thing that has happned in quite some time issue and am astounded that not one camera actually caught any of the alleged incidents. And amzaingly dems were crying on TV, arms locked about all these alleged incidents. Amazing, isn't it?

Noise aside WT, they can do miraculous things with audio and video editing nowadays to decipher exactly what was or wasn't said. If you were talking amongst 200 people, there is technology to pick your voice out to hear what you were saying.

I said Obama seizing 1/6 of the economy, not having any plan to divest of GM and getting more and more involved in private industy is Chavez-like because it is Chavez-like. Call a spade a spade. The difference is Chavez openly admits his socialism. Obama doesn't. Well actually he does but people in this country either chose not to hear or really want it.

So, when you said this:

So you're looking for an actual videotape w/sound to prove that this actually happened? But such a video could be fake too. Go ahead and see if you can find one, if this is what you need as proof that the many Dems and Reps who claim to have witnessed it aren't making it up. I'm not surprised you're going there. When the absolutely indefensible happens, the only defense left is to deny it happened. Look how many people deny the Holocaust for the exact same reason. Ahmadinejad would be proud of you.

That's not equating me questioning if the alleged racial slurs with the denial of the Holocaust? Reads like it to me. and actually if you want to go there, this is exactly how Nancy Pelosi lives her life.....you were asking why so many people don't like her. She denies a pluthera of happenings eventhough she has been caught on videotape and there are documents backing them up. So you are actually talking more about the Nancy Pelosis of the world....not me.

I agree with you. Bush was a spending liberal nut job who didn't say no to social spending and never railed his party in. That's why I typed what I typed. Talk about a compasionate conservative.....he was the definition.

Saul Alinsky - Look him up. Obama is a Saul Alinsky deciple. Rules for Radicals. He is no different than the unions or the democratic party, especially since 2006.

Anonymous @ 10:06 a.m.
Silly argument, but one thing I'm having trouble with. Could you tell me again, since it seems to be your favorite phrase of all the options, just which government did Karl Marx nationalize? What country had their economy nationalized by Karl Marx? I can't quiet recall that, either.

In any case, I think it's simply silliness. If you like it, that's fine, but if you use it, know that some people won't take you seriously.

Also [fair warning for those who think a link to Huffington is inevitably skewed garbage - I bet you could google and find it other places, an interesting quote, idea, notion, article linked below for your perusal.

"Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, said on a conference call with reporters that a challenge of the constitutionality of the so-called "individual mandate" also applies to the constitutionality of longstanding programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/successful-legal-challeng_n_511713.html

From wt, in response to the fact that there is no video or audio showing racist behavior by tea party members:

"I see your point. Just because some talking head comes on the air and says there are reports of racial slurs being hurled doesn't mean this is true. This is how I first heard about it. Later in the evening, tho, CNN had some legislators on who said they were there and testified to the events. I remember some faces but not their names. CNN showed videos of the legislators walking through a gauntlet of tea party protesters on their way to the floor, so we know this situation did occur. You may hate Barney Frank, but he was on and said yes, someone yelled out f****t at him. Someone was also spit on (maybe him, can't remember) and could have pressed charges, chose not to."

A while back, wt, you used Bernie Goldberg as the expert on whether or not Fox news commentators should be viewed as journalists or not. Now I will hoist you on your own petard as Goldberg was just on Megan Kelly's show saying the same thing that was pointed out here. He said it is amazing that there is no video or audio of the supposed racist slurs or spitting episodes. They also played the video of the congressman that claimed to be spat on (Congressman Cleaver, who is black) and the video does not show this happening. Also, the capitol police said no arrests were made, as the congressman's staff asserted, so this seems to be a big lie ( http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/20/1826449/lawmaker-wont-press-charges-in.html ).

Goldberg did say that the msm was blowing the reports out of proportion, as it fits their narrative on the tea party people. It is pretty obvious that wt is doing the same here.

Anonymous on March 24, 2010 11:42 AM:

"Socialism fails when they run out of other peoples money to spend"

Margret Thatcher

And yet the UK still has a socialist health care system! Go figure that one out.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

________________

Southeast Side. I believe I found the location where you found this quote and then cut and pasted it? I could be wrong, but it's the only source that uses the tilde (~) sign before his name. I'm not sure that I'd use Galbraith as a final arbiter of clearing anything up - particularly when it comes to defining conservatives.

http://2knowmore.amplify.com/2010/02/26/54/

Interestingly enough there was a response on this site that I believe has a lot of truth as well.

Wow! This also doesn’t explain why Conservatives give more time and money to Churches and charities. Not to mention, generally carry a larger percentage of the tax burden. Do you know any conservatives. The conservative mindset is one of independent action out of foundation of responsibility.

"Socialism fails when they run out of other peoples money to spend"

Margret Thatcher

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By Southeast Side on March 24, 2010 11:22 AM

One classic quote will sum this up:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
~ John Kenneth Galbraith

If you look at it that way, all of the bluster from the right comes clearly into view.

One classic quote will sum this up:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
~ John Kenneth Galbraith

If you look at it that way, all of the bluster from the right comes clearly into view.

dannosden:

I'm the not so silent majority ;-)

Some reactions.

1. Glad you understand that I will not benefit from these tax credits. But let me go on. Very few people will. Simple economics. Employers hire people making $25,000 OR LESS ($12 per hour to minimum wage). Let's use $10 per hour ($20,800 per year or $1,733 per month). In addition, the small business offer NO benefits FREE (medical, pension, life insurance).

Now the business offers a medical plan to the employee for $6,000 per year (if possible). That employee has to have 29% of these salary withheld to pay the insurance cost. Since this person does not pay income taxes, this pereson would take home only 64% (medical and FICA) of the $10 per hour if the employee wanted medical coverage.

Does this employee purchase medical? NO WAY.

Now the tax credit. After much searching, the credit for this employee would be 35% of the employers cost as long as the employer pays 50% of the premium. First question, will the employee pay the other 50%? NO WAY. But assume she would. The employer would have to pay $3,000 to get a $1,050 tax credit. Or for the full insurance, the cost is $6,000 for a $2,100 tax credit.

What economic incentive does a tax credit give an employer to take on more cost? Why would the tax credit change their mind?

2. Recissions. Let's put the number into context. 20,000 recision in the last five years. Assume that ALL of these were wrong (just like all the Tea Partiers were yelling racial slurs), this comes out to 0.01% of the total cases. The $300 million comes out to less than 0.05% of the healht care costs.

The answer, fix this issue, don't blow up the 99.99% that is working.

And I know from my covered employees we have had some tragic medical issues over the last ten years. Our insurance companies reaction--funded the entire cost. Did our premiums go up? Yes, but not much more than average.

I am offended by setting policy based on obscure situations.

3. Don't be disingenuous. Republicans offered amendments including the option to allow choice. They were FIRMLY rejected. Yes, these rejections were automatic. But remember, the Democrats said, "Everyone had to be in the same insurance." No CHOICE was the centerpiece to the legislation. So Republican views were rejected. Now voters need to see if they concur. Foster, Bean, Halverson, Costello. Even Madigan's man, Dan Lipinski, could not stomach this bill. And knowing Congressman Lipinski, it was more than abortion. He was a Vanderbilt professor before becoming Congressman. One of the few with a brain in Congress (the others should go to OZ).

4. Looked closer at this wonderful bill. Section 221. "Public Insurance Option." Never realized that the government through a "not for profit" was getting into the insurance business. A $2 billion plus contribution. And guess who "approves and contracts" other insurance companies that want to participate in the "health exchanges"? The government.

And I am afraid that this will be the ONLY company that will offer insurance on the government sponsored "HEALTH EXCHANGE"

5. My philosophy. When I was a child, there was (and is today) a public health option in the township I lived in. Totally free health care. GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE.

My parents were not wealthy, but they refused to select that option. They paid to go to other doctors, insurance was only for catastrophic situations. (It was always rumored that the Government Doctors cure for health issues were to cut off a toe!! You would look for children missing a toe at the swimming pool and know they had the misforture of going to the government doctor. My father also was fearful of such doctors as that was how the Nazi's recruited young men in Germany to the military acording to his relatives.)

But the key was there was CHOICE. People were not forced to go to the government doctors. The school would hold checkups with the Government Doctors. But parents were informed and could ask their children be excluded. Many including mine did.

This bill does not allow choice. If I close my company down, I cannot go out and buy regular insurance any longer. I have to purchase insurance from the GOVERNMENT EXCHANGE. In fact, the more I read this bill, the more likely it is that current insurance companies will simply go out of business.

And I care about pre existing conditions, unfair treatment. Fix these specific issues. This bill is like a patient with a stiff knee. The answer, cut off the leg. This is draconian and awful.

We should set up dual citizenship in the Caymens and buy Caymen insurance to get around this law. Let WT and danoscan join the GOVERNMENT PLAN.

And let's see what happens in November. If I were a Republican, I would simply shut down the government until the November elections. That way, nothing else bad can happen. No cap and tax, no financial regulation. Nothing. Put everything on hold until the election.

Anon, March 23, 2010 12:11 PM

To your point:

The descriptive "shrub", a play on the word Bush, is a diminutive type of insult. Progressives, the champions of PC speak have no problem ridiculing the opposition with personal insults, in fact they prefer it to debating policies. Attack the individual.

Attacking Ms. California over her breasts is a good example of how Progressives operate and their win at any cost mentality. The personal attacks the Progressives generate include branding anyone opposed to their socialist agenda as "homophobic and racist" displays their contempt for free speech and serious policy debate; and, I believe gives ordinary Americans a glimpse of the fanatics now imposing their will on the majority.

As to using well known political figures or celebrities to characterize a politician's set of policies and political leaning; I can't think of a better way to encapsulate an agenda and supporting policies both quickly and effectively for the writer and the reader.

Lets explore:

1.
Albert Einstein Obama

Doesn't work at any level:

Not recognized as a mega-genius, no bushy white hair and a professor's outfit; and who knows what Einstein's politics were other than he fled totalitarian-statist-fascists to live freely in the USA where he helped developed nuclear weapons to be used on totalitarian-statist-fanatics like the NAZIs. Obama's policies more closely align with totalitarian statist socialist regimes than the previous 400 years of American History. No Einstein.

2.
Adolph Hitler Obama

This one doesn't work either:

The NAZIs believed in private enterprise directed to serve the interests of the state (statist). Now that GM, Chrysler, AIG, CITI, Chase and others have been nationalized in whole or majority, and the entire Health Care Industry has been set up to fail completely and fall into the hands of the FEDs who will implement their single payer system with AIG as the clearing house, the trend is clear. Government ownership of the means of production which is known as Marxism, Socialism or Communism with some microscopic differences to differentiate them. Not Fascist like the NAZIs.

Secondly, the NAZI version of Fascism, was for reasons still unknown, racist and aimed at ethnic and religious minorities and Catholic priests many of whom were murdered.

Fascist Parties in other European countries did in fact have Jewish members who were welcome to join, and in Italy the percentage of Jewish fascists was greater than their percentage of the general population. German racist fascism was the exception that became superimposed on the other fascist parties.

In the case of Mr. Obama's base, the two dominant ethnic voting blocks that put him in office are African Americans at 95%+ and Jewish Americans at something like 80-90%. Both ethnic minorities. Hitler was a case of tyranny by the ethnic majority, the argument could be made that Obama is the reverse.

Hitler believed in mass extermination using concentration camps and Obama prefers the abortion mills which are now Federally funded. So both of them are comfortable with exterminating tens of millions of defenseless humans. Both made it legal. Far right and far left both arrive at this destination.

The Hitler analogy doesn't work either. I suppose someone could try "inverse Hitler" or "anti-Hitler" (like anti-matter) but it seems too confusing to be effective.

3.
Hugo Chavez Obama, Karl Marx Obama, VI Lenin Obama, or even Fidel Castro Obama all work.

All were or are heavy handed socialists that nationalized the economies and placed them under central control using terrorist tactics like the IRS will employ to enforce the Heath Care Nationalization Bill, 16-18% of the economy.

Karl Marx Obama is a fair encapsulation.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By Anonymous on March 23, 2010 12:11 PM

..................But, and this is important, for all who refer to the current President as King Hussein, Karl Marx Obama, BHO and the like, I immediately discount every point you're trying to make, and typically stop reading at that point. I did the same in the not-so-distant past when people referred to 'the Shrub'.

Interesting editorial in the Washington Times about exactly who is covered with the new Health Care Bill that has been touted as the greatest plan protecting everyone - well almost everyone!!

The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of "staff" includes only the members' personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect "ordinary Americans," according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/obamacare-for-everyone-but-obama/

Anon 5678:

Ok, I'll bite. Saul who?

Now this is funny. You have no problem saying Obama is like Chavez and a crook and you've probably compared him to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and any other despot that comes to mind, but the minute I make a comparison between the Tea Partiers and the Holocaust you get offended? Dude, if you're gonna dish it out you better learn to take it.

Most of what I write gets picked on by others here because I'm the only consistent liberal voice on this mostly conservative blog. And I don't back down to bullies. I'm used to being picked on.

You want to use logic and common sense to walk through this? I would love that. You stop the Chavez comments and I'll cool it with the Holocaust comparisons.

I see your point. Just because some talking head comes on the air and says there are reports of racial slurs being hurled doesn't mean this is true. This is how I first heard about it. Later in the evening, tho, CNN had some legislators on who said they were there and testified to the events. I remember some faces but not their names. CNN showed videos of the legislators walking through a gauntlet of tea party protesters on their way to the floor, so we know this situation did occur. You may hate Barney Frank, but he was on and said yes, someone yelled out f****t at him. Someone was also spit on (maybe him, can't remember) and could have pressed charges, chose not to. I think this was a mistake. Turning the other cheek just encourages more of the same.

I don't think these particular insults were caught on tape. It was a mob situation, there was much shouting and noise in general. But if someone you walk right by yells this at you, I'm pretty sure you'd hear it. Given the hateful and often racist nature of the signs these people were carrying, this kind of language would fit. That's also a logical assessment.

So to answer your question, yes, the situation has been caught on video. Lots of yelling is apparent; these particular words, probably not. But I believe the people who said this happened. You can choose not to, that's your choice. But you can't claim it definitely didn't happen, either, can you?

And regarding the Bush deficits, where the Dems in charge when Bush passed the unpaid for Medicare expansion in 2003? Where they in charge when Bush passed his two tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 which left huge holes in the budget? All on top on paying for a war. The surplus was gone and the budget was showing a deficit before the Dems arrived in 2006. The damage had already been done.

Dan:

TMI again. It doesn't take much to get me started. Forgot something, as usual:

"And I have nobody making less than $25,000, so I get no tax credit.

A wasted program."

So just because you personally don't benefit from this, the entire program is a waste? There are millions of minimum wage workers and their employers who will benefit from this. It is certainly not a waste to them. People who were previously kept out of the insurance market because of it's cost will now be able to buy insurance and get preventative health care. They'll no longer be using emergency rooms as their primary physician and sticking the taxpayers with the bill. Healthier workers = a more productive work force = less lost in sick days and reduced productivity. Employers will benefit from that. The domino effect will be widespread. I also see many jobs being created--we're gonna need more doctors and related health personnel! And these jobs can't be outsourced!

Regarding your focus on Republican options: These are no longer an option. The Reps should have negotiated to get these in if they believed in them so much. That opportunity has now passed. It's a moot point to keep going over it, we're now on a different path. Your Republican representatives should have fought to have more of their ideas included rather than just saying "no" to negotiating. They're still just saying "no". Hopefully Obama has learned his lesson and won't waste as much time courting bipartisanship in the future. I would definitely invite the Reps into the process, but if they choose not to participate, as McCain has claimed they won't for the rest of this year, then fine, just move on. I really think we could have had a very different outcome if the Reps had come to the negotiating table in good faith to begin with. If you are that disappointed with the health care bill, you really need to take it up with your Republican leadership. They're the ones who failed you.

Well said "What the?"

Until something like this happens to you or someone you know -- this is why this health care bill is good.

We are all one malignancy away from bankruptcy.

Dan:

"I agree that people losing insurance or not being able to transfer and not have to violate pre existing conditions is a problem. And it will be until 2014. Both parties have a solution, the Democrats in a one size fit all socialized "health exchange". The Republicans, a free market, across state market insurance program."

Across state line programs would not have solved the pre-existing condition problem, these people still would have been uninsurable. The free market would have continued to exclude them. Simply opening state lines is not a cure all, Dan, much more had to be done. So it was. Children will get coverage for pre-existing conditions immediately. It's the adults that have to wait until 2014.

"My point is that as long as people buy insurance, nothing will happen."

Not true, Dan. So not true! People get their policies rescinded all the time when they make a big claim. This is what I was talking about previously. Do you know what rescission is? It happens with policies bought on the open (free) market a lot, not so much with employer-based policies. Here's a crash course from the first article that popped up when I googled it:

"The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

"No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact," said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. "There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

Rescission happens when a policy holder gets a diagnosis for an expensive illness, usually of a catastrophic nature. These are the most expensive. The insurance company then digs into the policy holders medical background, looking for any inconsistencies on which to deny coverage. Anything, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, can be used.

In one case I heard of on a TV program, a woman in her late 20's had her policy cancelled by her insurance company when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. The reason used: they delved into her medical past and found a doctor's visit for a simple urinary tract infection years previously that had not made it into her file. Though totally unrelated to breast cancer, this was all the excuse they needed to accuse her of fraud and rescind her policy, even though she had paid premiums for years and the insurance company did not bother to investigate her medical background until she presented with breast cancer. The insurance company got years of premiums and paid nothing out. Not only is this woman stuck with the expense of her breast cancer, but now she has a pre-existing condition and will be virtually uninsurable for the rest of her life. This is the profit motive of the free market in action. And it won't happen anymore.

And it goes further: if an insurance company investigates your background and cannot find one single thing upon which to rescind your policy and avoid paying your claims, they had another means to get rid of you: they could selectively raise your rates into the stratosphere. Once you got a diagnosis of cancer, they could legally raise your rates 25% or 40% or 60% EVERY RENEWAL PERIOD until your insurance coverage was simply priced out of your range and you could no longer afford it. Same result--they got rid of you and you're now uninsurable for life. This too won't happen anymore either.

This is what health care reform has been all about, Dan--us. The people. Not about socialism vs. free market or Dems vs. Reps or ideology or any of the other popular talking points. It's about stopping the kind of abuses by the insurance industry that deny people the coverage they pay for when they need it, very often resulting in their death and other taxpayers like you and me picking up the tab until death occurs. All so the insurance industry can use the free market to make a killing, literally.

The profit motive should not be a consideration in life or death situations, this has been outlawed in just about every industrialized country on earth except ours. The free market is excellent for selling shoes or slinkys, no one will die if they don't get one of those. But I fully believe it should not be involved in providing health care. The profit motive is in direct conflict with providing adequate medical services; the more medical services provided, the less the profit. Medical care needs to be taken out of the free market entirely. Maybe some day it will be. The new health care reform bill is the first step in the right direction.

I guess this is all the fault of the teachers in District 204 and 203 too. Oh, and fire and police, and paramedic servercies. I swear there must be only 3 people who put the rants and raves in these blogs. I find reading these blogs a great source of humor.

By the way, ask someone how emmigrated from Russia how they feel about living in the United States. All you people have no idea what living in a socialist/communist country really is about.

By the way, your tax dollars pay for all the parks you use, the roads you drive on, and funds the many brave women and men in the armed forces. I guess you must think they are slugs too because they retire on military pensions.

I'm in the silent majority, though you may find it hard to believe.

Good one What the? Comparing this the holocaust? Brilliant. This is why most of what you write gets picked on by everyone on there. You immediately link my "denial" of what did or didn't happen Sunday with the Holocaust. Again, Saul would be even prouder of you.

Let's just use logic and common sense to walk through this.

This is politically this biggest thing that has happened in this country for over 30 years aside from the first black/white president being elected. Cameras were everywhere. And in this age.....ya know those little things everyone has in their pockets called cell phones. Well most of them have cameras attached to them nowadays. Along with tremendous amount of cameras, I'm going to assume there may have been even more camera phones. Let's move foreward. So, if there are a bunch of those red-neck tea baggers out there sitting on the hill watching, spitting at, yelling racial and gay slurs, aren't you at all curious how none of this was caught on tape? I don't have a 180 IQ by any means. But my intelectual curiosity is peaked by simple logic. And this is about as close to simple logic as I can see.

Here is what it takes for CNN, MSNBC, FOX or any news organization to report something. "Anderson. This Nancy Pelosi's chief of staff here. Not sure if you are aware of this but there is a lot of racial and homophobic slurs coming from the tea baggers". Next thing you know Anderson is on the tube telling you that there are reports of racial and homophobic slurs.

BTW, which republicans acknowledged that they actually heard this? I heard several denounce and apologize but I have not heard one actually say they heard it. So tell me, which ones?

And I don't want to have to give you a history lesson on the deficit. Repubs were in charge. Newt and his boys - in bipartisan fasion I might add - left Clinton with a suplus....the way it should be. Bush went to war, let his own party get out of control with spending and then when the dems took over in 2006, it got even worse. Thus the downfall of the Republican party at that time. Spent way too much money on lib stuff. War is one thing, right or wrong. If you are in it, you have to spend the money on it to keep your people safe. That has been the case since wars started. And besides....that is what governments are there for. Keep us safe and infastructure. Other than that, there is no need for them.

Anonymous on March 23, 2010 6:19 PM:

Sorry, I watched CNN most the day and they had people on (not Rep. Jackson) who claimed to have heard this happen. Someone was even spit on--Barney Frank maybe?

You guys can deny this all you want. You can't defend something so indefensible, so you have one of two choices: 1) deny it ever happened and say everyone is lying, or 2) admit that some of your Tea Party brethren are real dicks. Denial is definitely the easiest and least problematic. Like I said, self-reflection really isn't a conservative virtue, is it?

WT

I agree that people losing insurance or not being able to transfer and not have to violate pre existing conditions is a problem. And it will be until 2014. Both parties have a solution, the Democrats in a one size fit all socialized "health exchange". The Republicans, a free market, across state market insurance program.

My point is that as long as people buy insurance, nothing will happen. Only if they DO NOT. Hopefully, the third time will be the charm.

And while you are correct that it is better having a person earn $25,000 and not be on welfare, as a small business owner, I can only afford $150 per month, not enough to buy insurance. So I can't hire him.

And I have nobody making less than $25,000, so I get no tax credit.

A wasted program.

Anonymous on March 23, 2010 12:11 PM:

I'm with you on the King Hussein, Karl Marx Obama, etc., stuff. This says nothing about the situation but everything about the speaker. I generally discount everything that comes after too.

The bill won't be repealed, of course. But the Reps have to do all the posturing just the same, for re-election purposes if nothing else. Even if the Reps took back the House and Senate before the end of Obama's term, Obama would still have to approve a repeal, and this will never happen. The Reps are shining you guys on again. Don't you ever learn?

It won't be found unconstitutional, either. This was looked into in the early days. Such a bill never would have been pursued if it were thought to be unconstitutional. But these 13 GOP states can certainly do what they want. We'll see how their voters react when all the other states are benefiting from the legislation while they are not. It will play out just like the stimulus did--some governors refused it and the people of those states rose up and over-rid this decision. I think health care will play out the same way.

Anon 5678:

I watched CNN most the day Sunday, that's where I heard about it.

So you're looking for an actual videotape w/sound to prove that this actually happened? But such a video could be fake too. Go ahead and see if you can find one, if this is what you need as proof that the many Dems and Reps who claim to have witnessed it aren't making it up. I'm not surprised you're going there. When the absolutely indefensible happens, the only defense left is to deny it happened. Look how many people deny the Holocaust for the exact same reason. Ahmadinejad would be proud of you.

"I'm seriously trying to understand the mindset of a tax and spend liberal with no concept of understanding budgets, projections, forecasts..."

You only have to understand the mindset of your own party for this answer. That's precisely what the Reps did for 8 years under Bush, spend, spend, spend. They didn't even have the sense to tax to pay for it, they just ran up deficits because, as Cheney said, deficits don't matter. So it's ok to spend what you don't have but not ok to tax to pay for it?

That's how the Reps turned a record federal budget surplus into a record federal budget deficit in just 8 years. Half a trillion budget deficit--no problem! But tax to pay for it--God no! Perhaps you can help me understand this mindset?

What,

All the cameras were rolling with plenty of sound tracks, apparently Rep Jackson was the only one the hear the racist comments so she could, like Rep Claiborn, blame the rain on racism.

This is becoming a tired old song, usually completely basis.

The last video I saw of a racist diatribe was at Barack Obama's Chicago Church run by his dear friend and mentor Rev Wright.

Then there were also the two uniformed SEIU thugs that physically assaulted the man selling flags at a town hall, AG Holder declined to prosecute since the racist were on his side of the argument. Same goes for the black panthers intimidating voters in Philly, Holder took a dive on that one too, his side.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
By What the? on March 23, 2010 1:19 PM

Anon 5678:

I'm sure the N and F word incident is all over the net, just look for it. No one's denying it happened, not even the Reps. Many officials heard it and there were tons of witnesses. You're free to believe whatever you want.

Dan:

A lot of the people in this position today did not "opt out" of having insurance. They lost jobs in the current recession and lost their employer-based health care before being diagnosed. Or they had a previous condition that was covered under their employer-based policy that became a pre-existing condition once they lost that coverage, so they've been locked out of the insurance market ever since. Or they had individual coverage that was rescinded by their insurance company once they got an expensive diagnosis. All these situations happen through no individual fault yet occur in a large segment of our population all the time.

Should these people simply die on a poor farm once they exhaust all their resources? Should they be denied further care because they have no more money? That's what has been happening in our country for far too long. It won't be happening anymore.

"The tax credit if for employees making $25,000 or less. How could you provide insurance to an employee making less than $25,000? What could an employee do if they were only worth $25,000?"

A minimum wage job, for one thing. Could you afford to pay a $600/mo individual health care premium on an annual income of $25,000? Low income workers are priced out of the individual insurance market. They don't "opt out", they simply don't have the money to opt in to begin with. And many of the working poor work their tails off. They would get coverage for free through Medicaid if they sat on their butts and collected government aid, but because they choose instead to work, they can't get Medicaid and they don't make enough money to afford insurance on the open market. Again, are these people worthless to you because they're low wage earners? Should we allow them to die from lack of care because they can't pay, even though they work like dogs and contribute to our society rather than freeloading off of it?

This is exactly what's been happening up to now, and this too won't be happening anymore.

By Anonymous on March 23, 2010 11:21 AM:

"My parents and grandparents would be shocked and angered to see not only what happened, but how it happened. Reality is the Democratic Party of today isn't their Democratic Party of yesterday."

Your parents and probably even your grandparents benefited from the "socialistic" programs of social security and Medicare, and may even have been dependent on them in their later years. I bet they didn't mind having those programs at all.

I think when the dust settles, many of you are going to be singing a much different tune.

Anonymous 5678,
That's fine. You don't have to agree with everything a president does, or indeed ANYthing a president does. There were many who felt the same way about the last 43 presidents. It's the nature of the beast, and the position is a truly terrible one. I don't understand why anyone would want the job.
That said, if an individual wants people to read their posts on a site like this, and to take them seriously, it's my suggestion that the sort of name calling we sometimes see here is counter-productive. Anyone can make the exact same point without resorting that sort of thing, and my suggestion is that not doing so makes a post more credible. No more, no less.
Or maybe it's just me.

To Anonymous on March 23, 2010 12:11 PM

Amen!

Response to WT

1. I thought I was told by Nancy Pelosi that when I read the bill I would like it. Reading, don't like it.

2. If you would read the bill, the tax credit if for employees making $25,000 or less. How could you provide insurance to an employee making less than $25,000? What could an employee do if they were only worth $25,000?

This is a worthless tax break. I'd be curious who will take advantage of it.

3. You should read the posts more carefully. I said that a person who DID NOT purchase insurance and THEN got sick would have to lose all they had.

And for Anonymous 5678

The takeover is by 2015, much earlier than you predicted. The only good news is that we can get him out of office before then. And the dupes like Foster, Bean, Halverson and Costello in Illinois. Dan Lipinski, being a Democrat, deserves a kudo.

But for most of us conservatives, we tend to our persoanl lives and let morons like Obama in. We need to mobilize or move. This country is on a course for disaster.

If this bill is not repealed, I would not be surprised if there is not another secession of the Southern States. If so, I will join them.

WT,

That is the problem. It is not all over the net. There is no tape whatsoever. The only people you are hearing this from are your favorite sources - HP and MSNBC and democratic politicians. Republican leaders have to apologize ture or not. They would look like the neandrethals your party paints them to be if they didn't. So, it must be true???? Saul would be proud of you. You are just the type he liked.

Politics is always won or lost on fears and lies....doesn't matter which side. Look at what your party just did. They feared and lied their way into a bi partisan disapproval of seizing 1/6th of the economy. And you are accusing the republicans of fearing and lying? Really? The democrats flat out lied, just like they did when they passed SS and medicare about having a way to pay for this. This is unsustainable. The only republicans anyone needed to listen to is Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Ryan couldn't have laid out the dem lies any better on budget.

It's not just republican who hate her. Her approval rating is 11%. She is hated by many. The only people who like her live in SF as they keep voting for her over and over. I'll tell you why people hate her. They don't trust her. She has never done anything to build trust. And unfortunately for our country, she is in charge for a few more months.

The American people will also find out how much the dems lied to them to get this passed when our currency is devalued in about 10 years thanks to the spending spree we are on.

I'm seriously trying to understand the mindset of a tax and spend liberal with no concept of understanding budgets, projections, forecasts.....not imaginery projections and forecasts.....but real world ones. Can you help me understand? Can you help us understand.

Anon 12:11 pm

Hard to respect the office when this guy sits in it. We knew all this going into the election. Now we are seeing it. I think health care is just the beginning of our demise. To compare him to some of the names mentioned isn't out of bounds. There are many strikingly similar characteristics. This man and Nancy Pelosi just seized 1/6th of the economy. Maybe not today, but in the next 10 to 20 years, we will have nothing but nationalized HC. Chavez has seized a tremendous amount of private industry. See any comparisons? I do.

Anon 5678:

I'm sure the N and F word incident is all over the net, just look for it. No one's denying it happened, not even the Reps. Many officials heard it and there were tons of witnesses. You're free to believe whatever you want.

I'm not giving Nancy any credit. I personally don't care about Pelosi. I know the conservatives seriously hate her, but I really don't know why.

I said the Frum article was an opinion piece, go back and read my post again. I think he has some valid points, but self-reflection isn't really a conservative thing. Most Reps are choosing to discredit him and keep to the same obstructionist format that's worked so well (not) over the past year. Like I said, fine with me. It's working better for the Dems than it is for the Reps.

I think the Reps have a bigger problem you're overlooking. They fought health care reform based on fear and lies. Now that it's law, the American people are going to find out how much the Reps really lied to them and, like Dan, couldn't really care less about "the people". It should be interesting to watch this unfold.

Dan D.:

Like I said, combing over the health care bill is a moot point now. It's a done deal.

Besides, if you're biased against this reform to begin with, you can spend forever scratching and picking through it and finding many individual things that you can use to spell out doom. Betcha a year from now people are seeing the benefits and loving it. Hey Dan, you own your own small business, don't you? Did you know you'll be getting tax breaks for the coverage you give your employees from now on?

This is the biggest difference between you and me, Dan. This comment of yours reveals your misanthropy:

"And based on previous posts with WT, if somebody opts out and fails, they should fail. Move to the poor farm like the old days, be denied health coverage if they exhausted their resources. That is what FAILURE means."

You consider being struck with a catastrophic disease such as cancer a personal failure? Seriously? If someone has done everything right his whole life--stayed employed and worked hard, kept health care insurance--then through no bad choices of his own, wall street crashes, they lose their job and with it their employer-based health care, and THEN have the misfortune to be diagnosed with cancer--you say that is their own personal failing? They should lose everything they have to pay for their treatment and once their money is exhausted, they should be denied life-saving treatment and just die on a poor farm (and be quick about it too, to reduce some of the surplus population)?

Geez, what happened to you that made you this way?

Ah, the Constitutional challenges -
It's a smokescreen, really. Though no one can predict with certainty what any particular court will do, and the Supreme Court is one of the hardest, remember that the Constitution gives the Federal gov't two specific and enumerated rights: the right to tax, with all that implies in this arena and the right to regulate Interstate commerce. While not all insurance companies are multi-state, a preponderance of them absolutely are. Take those two elements together, and a constitutional challenge is unlikely to succeed.
In much the same way, all the talk of repeal in the last couple of days would require Republican control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Two out of three won't do it, it will require all.

Last, a more generalized statement - my politics are my own, and complicated. I like pieces of both parties, and would love it if a third party were viable, and if it fit my own personal thoughts and beliefs. But, and this is important, for all who refer to the current President as King Hussein, Karl Marx Obama, BHO and the like, I immediately discount every point you're trying to make, and typically stop reading at that point. I did the same in the not-so-distant past when people referred to 'the Shrub'.
It's petty, silly and utterly undoes your point except with someone who already agrees with you. Respect the office, if not the occupant, but really, it's just massively silly. And silliness undoes everything you're trying to accomplish in a blog like this.

There really isn't much to say about all of this until all of the dust settles on the looming Constitutional challenges.

Elected Democrats can act like a bullies and thugs and enjoy for now what ultimately will most likely be a short-lived "victory"; they just better not act surprised when the legislation and the method of enacting it are ruled unconstitutional.

Then elected Democrats better be well prepared for the results at their next local election when they have to face the music back home. "We the People" will be sending our message loud and clear that what we needed and wanted was ignored!

My parents and grandparents would be shocked and angered to see not only what happened, but how it happened. Reality is the Democratic Party of today isn't their Democratic Party of yesterday.

The Democratic Party better stop and figure out just what and who they are trying to represent instead of alienating millions of voting Americans. I used to be a Democrat and I know more and more people who say the same thing and who have switched parties because we have repeatedly been sold out. I'm not sure exactly WHAT the Democratic Party is trying to represent anymore and I'm just another average guy. If the Democratic Party doesn't represent me and my values and what is important for me and my family, my friends and neighbors, my co-workers, etc. then why should any of support the party or vote to elect any of its candidates?

Too many people vote party politics only because of personal or family traditions. It is time we all rethink the consequences of such traditions.

WT?

I have a serious question. Does anyone have any tape of the racial slurs and gay slurs. I have been listening to the most despised people in America - Pelosi and Frank and a few others talk about this, but yet I have yet to see one tape of any of this chatter? In today's world there is always a tape. Might the libs be making up stories again?????? I don't know. It does happen about every 3 minutes, so they might be.

I know you are a liberal but might you be giving Nancy too much credit? I don't want to have to go into her whole background. But if you think George Bush was a liar, this woman's nose makes Pinnochio's look normal.

How are you not seeing that this is jammed down our throats? It had bi-partisan disapproval. It had a general public disapproval rating. How are you not seeing that? These are facts not opinions. David Frum's words....the only words you are choosing to recite....are opinions. I know that is chic for libs to jump on one person's words, but for that one David Frum, there are 1,000,000 independents and conservatives who don't echo the same opinion. I guarantee David one thing. The economy will not improve by November. The stimulus joke has proven to be a failure. This health care along with Crook Obama's other plans are seizing capitalism and business as we once knew it. I don't think Americans are going to stand for that.

Do me a favor and look up the top five employers in this state. It probably won't make you want to just out the window as it sounds like you are all about big government, but it will make anyone who likes commerce, business, innovation, etc. wonder what the heck we are doing living here.

Oh I can't wait til November and more importantly 2012. Paul Ryan for president. Bring common sense back to Washington please.

75 years of undermining the Constitution and capitalism is now paying off big for the progressives and their charismatic mouth piece Karl Marx Obama.

The safeties have been completely removed from the constitution one by one as the Progressives (socialists) made political inroads into our government systems.

1. The States have been completely un-empowered and disabled by allowing direct election of the Senators. The States would have fired most of these clowns long ago and sent replacements that actually represented their States. Federalism is dead, its now top-down, cram-it-down-your-throat Federal Government. Bottom up from the citizens is dead.

2. Woodrow Wilson, a Progressive and an extreme racist, used political police and concentration camps for the opposition to ram his agenda down the throats of citizens and the States. His crowning achievement was implementing the Income Tax. Income Tax was sold as only being for the top 1%, this is the biggest lie of all time and is the foundation of our income redistribution Federal Government. This is the basis for the welfare mob rule that the Progressives are busy creating in the US. The core voting base for the progressives will all get vouchers to pay for their health care, everyone else will pay for it.

3. The Constitution calls for one Representative for each 30,000 citizens. The Federal Government didn't even bother to amend the Constitution on this one; they ignore our right to representation and keep the number of Congressman to something that is easy for the special interests to control. Naperville is entitled to 5 Congressman and we have zero. Ubber-Liberal Judy Biggert from Hinsdale is what we get.

4. The Progressives have worked tirelessly to put people who don't believe in the Constitution on the bench in the Federal Courts, we now have four Supreme Court Justices who's sole role is to undermine the Constitution as written.

The opponents of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez were the same as the Tea Party. People marginalized them just like WT marginalizes the Tea Party and guess what happened to people like WT?

I have begun reading this voluminous Health Care Bill. As a point of reference, I also source my companies insurance as well as understood how insurance works at major corporations from previous work. My observtions.

1. Insurance as we know it will end. PERIOD. I cannot see how any of the existing insurance companies will want to be exchange companies. There are price controls, PROFITS CONTROLS (after price controls), EXPENSE MANDATES, and operational control. Nobody would want to put up risk capital to these plans.

2. What will replace the insurance business. I can see companies like AIG and other scroundrals establish thinly capitalized companies to provide this coverage. They will take their 15% profit and people will suffer with poor coverage.

3. Ultimately, the government will swoop in to take over the entire industry. At that point, Barak Obama will have succeeded in establishing a SINGLE PAYOR system.

4. I am on page 148 (out of 2310). But here it is clear that there is no incentive for private employers to maintain their health insurance programs. The additional requirements and mandates will make it easier for them to drop the plans and pay the fine. The bill seems to force them to convert to Exchange plans and pay 65 to 78% of the premiums. Can't see this being done.

5. And for individual plans, after 2014, if your current insurance ends, you have to go to the government regulated plan. No options.

6. I also sense that the government approved plans require personal payments of up to $10,000 from an individuals pocket rather than the companies paying for such cost. This feature combined with the reduction of the pre tax Health Savings account will increase the cost that people pay. It will also increase their income taxes (SURPRISE!!!!).

The one thing I detest about my current and previous health plans is all of the fine print. There was always a cost in the fine print. Well this proposal increases the fine print, the costs will increase as well.

I am biased, but my reading of this bill is a takeover of health insruance. If they would have given all people the right, yes the right, to opt out, then fine, let the bleeding heart liberals, including WT, play that game. It is the lack of an option to opt out, just like Social Security and Medicare, that takes away our liberty.

And based on previous posts with WT, if somebody opts out and fails, they should fail. Move to the poor farm like the old days, be denied health coverage if they exhausted their resources. That is what FAILURE means.

By the way wegetit, I'm glad you do!

And just when I thought it couldn't get any better:

"Betting the farm on opposing Obama has been the GOP blueprint for the past year. And it will be going forward. Appearing on a local radio station in his home state of Arizona, Sen. John McCain defined the party ethos quite clearly.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," he said. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Awesome! This is too good to be true. No more of this bipartisanship crap? It's full speed ahead on whatever we want because the Reps are taking themselves out of the game. They're not even going to try to earn their paychecks! Maybe they all can go back to Hawaii and look for Obama's long form birth certificate in the interim. As long as they're not speed bumps on the Democratic road of progress, I couldn't care less. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Dan:

The Tea Party movement is more comparable to Hitler by far. We saw that exemplified yesterday through their mob mentality and behavior and their use of racial and homophobic slurs towards our elected government officials. Hitler hated blacks and homosexuals too.

What's hysterical is watching the Republicans two-stepping away from association with the tea party as fast as they can. After spending the past year courting their votes and supporting their cause, indeed, trying to claim the existence and the energy of the tea party movement as their own, the Reps now can't distance themselves from the Tea Party fast enough. Like I heard one Rep politician say today, "Remember, the Tea Party doesn't call themselves Republicans!" Someone better tell Palin, she may have to drop her self-appointed leadership of the Tea Party if she wants that reality show to happen. Given that she wants $1 million per episode for the reality show and the Tea Party only pays her $100,000 per speaking engagement, it's a no brainer which one will get dumped if a choice has to be made. Sorry, Tea folk, you're on your own. It just doesn't get any better than this!

And it really is too late to discuss all these great Republican ideas now. It's over. It's a done deal. It's too late. Maybe the Republicans should have focused more on negotiating when they had the opportunity rather than, as David Frum stated, making a strategic decision to make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing; they chose instead to try to make health care Obama's Waterloo. They went for all the marbles and ended up with none. The Waterloo is the Republican's.

And there's no way this will be repealed, even though I understand the Reps need to have a stated purpose. To quote Frum, "It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs." But it's fine with me if some Dems get the boot this Nov. anyway. Many DINOs need to go, such as Blanche Lincoln and Bart Stupak and numerous others.

And given that we're still hearing statements like "hijacking of the process the way we have just witnessed" and "ramming this down the throats of the American people", it's clear that Fox-speak is still riding high! That's fine, too. You guys just keep on doing what you've been doing. It's working out great for the rest of us.

"Perhaps the main lesson of Medicare, though, is that even its opponents eventually came around. One of Ronald Reagan's most famous quotes came in 1980 when he chided Jimmy Carter for saying Reagan started his political career by campaigning against Medicare. "There you go again," Reagan said. The audience laughed. But Carter was correct: Reagan initially opposed Medicare but eventually supported it. If Republicans want to embrace Reagan's legacy, here's their chance."

http://www.slate.com/id/2222296/

I use ALL CAPS to MAKE MY POINT.

Wt, the mob isn't going anywhere, until November. Then, hopefully, the Democrat mob will be voted out, and will take their offensive behavior and nasty attitudes home with them.

It is a real problem trying to sort out over 2,000 pages of issues. But let me start with a basic concept.

The purchase of insurance and tax credits.

Beginning in 2014, people will HAVE TO purchase any new insurance based on government standards from one of these Federal "exchanges". Insurance companies will be PROHIBITED in selling any other type of insurance. If people do not buy insurance, an army of IRS agents will be out there to harrass those who do not.

I am aware that the exchanges will "require" that insurance premiums for a type of coverage not be more than 2 times for any person. To illustrate. Today a single coverage for a male 55 years old is $1,200 per month. The coverage for a single male 25 years old is $150 per month. The ratio is 8 times. To comply with the new law, the premiums for all males cannot be different by a factor of 2. So the insurance company will set a minimum premium of $600 for the 25 year old male. It cannot afford to set a lower premium (these premiums are based on actuarial studies, otherwise the insurance company loses revenues.)

Now let's assume this male is earning $30,000 per year. He should only pay 8% for health insurance ($200 per month). Can he still buy the "regular" insurance for $150 instead? NO Or will he be forced to buy the new "exchange" insurance for $600 per month with a credit of $400 from the government? YES

Let's contrast this mess to the Republican plan. Insurers would have been free to sell plans without any regulation accross state lines. People would be able to purchase the lowest cost insurance ($150) and not need a credit. The Republicans were also going to give CREDITS!!!

So assuming that insurance companies do participate in the Democratic plan, we are going to pay more for insurance under this example.

But let's make two specific points of disagreement.

1. Republicans wanted a MARKET SOLUTION for the sales of insurance, not a GOVERNMENT DIRECTED approach.

2. Individuals have CHOICE under Republican initiatives. They have to take what is ALLOWED by the state under this plan.

And the long term outlook?

1. Will companies maintain their health insurance plans costing them $5,000 to $30,000 per employee (depending on type of of coverage and funding levels) or will they drop the coverage and pay $2,000 per poor employee?

2. Will insurance companies even try to compete in these "health exchanges" with substantial government regulation? If not, do we end up with the "PUBLIC OPTION"?

This is just the start, we know where this game is going.

Great. I can now fill King Hussein's coffers with my tax money. I can hear the gleeful rubbing of hands . . .

One can only hope that the King is a one and done.

Hello fellow comrades!

It's a beautiful day in the new mother Russia!!

I believe the men that molded the original United States also worked quite hard to formulate a method of government that would not allow the hijacking of the process the way we have just witnessed. I have mixed emotions and opinions about the health care issue - I really don't know if it is good or bad. what I do know is that the process of enacting our laws is dangerously close, if not over, the edge. What is next to go? Allowing this type of lawmaking, by any party, is going to come back to haunt us - and probably in the near future. I do know that the election process is going to be incredibly interesting this November.

The framers constructed our government to guard against mob rule, so the mobs can now take their offensive behavior and nasty attitudes and GO HOME!

It's a brave new world, people!