• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

No, the point is the inner city will always be kept poor because of the dependence they have on the bureaucrats which is why bureaucrats continue to buy their votes

The question is very easy to answer and my post above is part of it. Inner city people are used to getting everything provide for them whereas in the suburbs people are used to taking care of themselves and understand personal responsibility and are tired of paying for the "things" the inner city people are getting off the spoils of their labor

What the Federal Govt. has done is create so much dependence that the liberal base has an entitlement mentality. One of these days the silent majority is going to wake up

And one more thing - perhaps if you came to live in the city for a while, you'd learn that people bust their asses here just as hard as they do in the country, if not harder. Remember, I was raised in the country - I've lived both sides.

Why do they have to bust their asses even harder in the city? It's called "competition"...and it's a function of there being a heck of a lot more people there...and you're having to compete with every doggone one of them. In the city, if you don't hustle and make things happen yesterday, your business is going to go tango uniform faster than you can say "unemployment compensation". Why do you think that generally speaking, people from the country talk more slowly, but people from the city talk more quickly? It's not just here in America, but all over the world. I remember that even when I was in the Delta last year, the towns pretty much shut down not long after dark, especially after ten at night. But in the city, it's just getting started! It's not just people partying, either...because in order for people to have somewhere to go, there has to be people working to keep those businesses open!

Don't get me wrong - running a farm is hard, dirty work, and I've got a great deal of respect for those who grew up working the fields...but it's not an all-year thing, and it's not an all-day-every-day thing. All too often in the city, it really is all-day-every-day.

So you need to check at the door your apparent belief that city slickers are somehow lazy and just look for handouts. The vast majority don't...just like the vast majority of those out in the country don't. Religious and cultural mores notwithstanding, people really are the same all over the world, in the city and in the country. It would do you a world of good to learn that.
 
And one more thing - perhaps if you came to live in the city for a while, you'd learn that people bust their asses here just as hard as they do in the country, if not harder. Remember, I was raised in the country - I've lived both sides.

Why do they have to bust their asses even harder in the city? It's called "competition"...and it's a function of there being a heck of a lot more people there...and you're having to compete with every doggone one of them. In the city, if you don't hustle and make things happen yesterday, your business is going to go tango uniform faster than you can say "unemployment compensation". Why do you think that generally speaking, people from the country talk more slowly, but people from the city talk more quickly? It's not just here in America, but all over the world. I remember that even when I was in the Delta last year, the towns pretty much shut down not long after dark, especially after ten at night. But in the city, it's just getting started! It's not just people partying, either...because in order for people to have somewhere to go, there has to be people working to keep those businesses open!

Don't get me wrong - running a farm is hard, dirty work, and I've got a great deal of respect for those who grew up working the fields...but it's not an all-year thing, and it's not an all-day-every-day thing. All too often in the city, it really is all-day-every-day.

So you need to check at the door your apparent belief that city slickers are somehow lazy and just look for handouts. The vast majority don't...just like the vast majority of those out in the country don't. Religious and cultural mores notwithstanding, people really are the same all over the world, in the city and in the country. It would do you a world of good to learn that.

I am from Seattle and you have certainly adopted that liberal mindset. You really ought to get out more and see what is happening just a few hundred miles south of you in LA. I have been in every state in the country, been in every major city, and sir, you don't have a clue which is why you lean progressive.
 
I am from Seattle and you have certainly adopted that liberal mindset. You really ought to get out more and see what is happening just a few hundred miles south of you in LA. I have been in every state in the country, been in every major city, and sir, you don't have a clue which is why you lean progressive.

I lived in San Diego for several years while I was stationed there, and yes, I've been all around that area. I've been more places than you may think...and not just here - I am retired Navy, remember.

And the reason I became liberal had nothing to do with living in Washington...and everything to do with watching the conservatives praise Oliver North's every word when he was obviously lying about Iran Contra, and then I watched the GOP go ape**** when Clinton was elected president, up to and including the point of a GOP senator from the Carolinas (can't remember which one) warning Clinton not to come to his state because he couldn't vouch for the president's safety. That was a level of disrespect for the commander-in-chief I'd never heard from the Dems.

I liked (and still like) Bush 41 better than Clinton and I was a Republican at the time (and I'd despised the prior Democratic candidates like Dukakis (ugh!))...but when I saw the GOP going off the deep end - with the Religious Right seemingly at the wheel - I knew it was time to leave. Since then, I've watched how the candidates of my former party dared not say a word that went against what the radio talk-show hosts like Rush said. If anything, the GOP candidates have been afraid of the talk-show kingmakers...and to that we now add billionaires who can dump all the want against the side that displeases them...and so it's all been a long, tortuous game of "I'm more conservative than the other guy" to the point that Reagan and Bush 41 would be metaphorically tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail if they tried to do today what they did then.

So...no. I went from conservative to liberal because the conservatives of today have gone nuts...and I will not go down that road with them.
 
I lived in San Diego for several years while I was stationed there, and yes, I've been all around that area. I've been more places than you may think...and not just here - I am retired Navy, remember.

And the reason I became liberal had nothing to do with living in Washington...and everything to do with watching the conservatives praise Oliver North's every word when he was obviously lying about Iran Contra, and then I watched the GOP go ape**** when Clinton was elected president, up to and including the point of a GOP senator from the Carolinas (can't remember which one) warning Clinton not to come to his state because he couldn't vouch for the president's safety. That was a level of disrespect for the commander-in-chief I'd never heard from the Dems.

I liked (and still like) Bush 41 better than Clinton and I was a Republican at the time (and I'd despised the prior Democratic candidates like Dukakis (ugh!))...but when I saw the GOP going off the deep end - with the Religious Right seemingly at the wheel - I knew it was time to leave. Since then, I've watched how the candidates of my former party dared not say a word that went against what the radio talk-show hosts like Rush said. If anything, the GOP candidates have been afraid of the talk-show kingmakers...and to that we now add billionaires who can dump all the want against the side that displeases them...and so it's all been a long, tortuous game of "I'm more conservative than the other guy" to the point that Reagan and Bush 41 would be metaphorically tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail if they tried to do today what they did then.

So...no. I went from conservative to liberal because the conservatives of today have gone nuts...and I will not go down that road with them.

Thanks for the history lesson but the reality is most liberals are good hearted people who think with their brain with leadership that appeals to the heart ignoring facts, logic, and common sense. Normally I haven't found too many "Progressives" your age as most seem to have outgrown it. Your dislike for religion and your naïve belief that spending in the name of compassion generates compassionate results when the fact show a different result. How anyone can support the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is beyond comprehension. What you support is a 3.5 trillion dollar federal govt. which is much larger than any business and buy what you are told by the politicians in charge because that is what you want to believe. With the government it is like an alligator fighting a frog with that alligator being the Federal Govt, the one you want to grow and continue to ignore their results.

Keep ignoring the actual results, keep ignoring that people keeping more of what they earn is good for the economy,

keep ignoring that less than 50% of income earners actually pay federal income taxes.

Keep ignoring that the line items in the U.S. Budget don't show ACA working which liberals claim.

Keep ignoring that most healthcare costs are borne by the state taxpayers not the Federal Govt.

Keep ignoring that liberal elites have indoctrinated their base well and created a loyalty that defies actual data and facts

But most important keep denying that it is the goal of liberals to keep their jobs by creating more and more dependence by buying votes.
 
Thanks for the history lesson but the reality is most liberals are good hearted people who think with their brain with leadership that appeals to the heart ignoring facts, logic, and common sense. Normally I haven't found too many "Progressives" your age as most seem to have outgrown it.

Actually, that old (and all-too-common) assumption is quite wrong. As they grow older and become elderly, studies have shown that they tend to grow more liberal, NOT more conservative. Your assumption is likely based on the common perception that most older people are conservative - and it is true that older people are generally more conservative than most younger people. That said, most elderly are significantly more liberal than they themselves were in their youth.

The key was to compare the elderly not to the young of today, but to how they themselves were in their youth.

Your dislike for religion

I've been a deacon in the Church of Christ since about 1998. You really gotta learn to watch those assumptions.

and your naïve belief that spending in the name of compassion generates compassionate results when the fact show a different result.

So why are the most successful democracies - in terms of both economics and "compassionate spending" (to use your words) are the very same ones with the governmental systems that you are sure is going to leave us all in the economic dustbin of history?

How anyone can support the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is beyond comprehension. What you support is a 3.5 trillion dollar federal govt. which is much larger than any business and buy what you are told by the politicians in charge because that is what you want to believe. With the government it is like an alligator fighting a frog with that alligator being the Federal Govt, the one you want to grow and continue to ignore their results.

Funny how y'all keep saying how terrrrrrrible that federal gov't is...until y'all are in charge of it. And then when y'all are in charge of it, it's unAmerican to criticize them, and all of a sudden it's balls-to-the-wall spending, or don't you remember that Clinton left us with a budget surplus that was on track to pay off the ENTIRE federal debt by 2012? But then came Bush and Republican control of BOTH houses...and what happened to that surplus? And let's not forget the thousands of lives and hundreds - hundreds! - of billions of taxpayer dollars we threw away in Iraq!

In other words, what you're giving me is RHETORIC and nothing more. What I'm giving you in return is hard-and-fast HISTORY.

Keep ignoring the actual results, keep ignoring that people keeping more of what they earn is good for the economy,

Do you or do you not want to live in a first-world democracy? High taxes, sir, are the price of admission to living in a first-world democracy - ANY first-world democracy. You can't show me a single first-world democracy that doesn't have high taxes...because that's what it takes to enable a first-world standard of living not just for the rich, but for the population as a whole.

keep ignoring that less than 50% of income earners actually pay federal income taxes.

And ignoring that the RICH pay lower taxes than their secretaries, as Warren Buffet famously pointed out, hm? Ah, but I forget - it's eeeeevil to not charge income taxes to those who are one paycheck away from the streets, but it's REAL AMERICAN to charge the rich a lower EFFECTIVE tax rate than their secretaries.
 
Keep ignoring that the line items in the U.S. Budget don't show ACA working which liberals claim.

Do we have a higher percentage of the population covered by health insurance than ever before? YES. Is the rate of annual increase in health insurance costs lower than the average annual rise of health insurance costs for the 40-odd years before the ACA was passed? YES. That was the goal...and that means that yes, the ACA is working...as the Heritage Foundation designed it to work.

Keep ignoring that most healthcare costs are borne by the state taxpayers not the Federal Govt.

Tell you what - how about traveling to those nations where there's no taxpayer-funded healthcare, and tell me what life is like for the people there. I do know what it's like - got a house and lots of family in one such place - and it sucks. Bad.

Better yet, if you're 69 y.o., then you'll soon be part of the problem since 5% of the population - those who are getting close to the end of their lives - create about 50% of our health care costs. It's NOT the young or the middle-aged, it's not the poor, it's not the minorities...it's the OLD people who are costing the taxpayers so doggone much.

So if you really want to vote to get rid of the biggest healthcare cost burden on the taxpayer, then vote against Medicare for the elderly.[/QUOTE]

Keep ignoring that liberal elites have indoctrinated their base well and created a loyalty that defies actual data and facts

Um, sounds like projection to me...especially given the fact that Fox News viewers are shown to be least informed among those who regularly watch the news. MSNBC viewers aren't much better off...but I don't watch MSNBC...and Fox News viewers were still the least informed.

But most important keep denying that it is the goal of liberals to keep their jobs by creating more and more dependence by buying votes.

There you go again, making assumptions, thinking that liberals are just looking for handouts...when in reality our population as a whole works longer hours than those of any other country. Oh, wait - let me guess - you're now going to claim that only the conservatives work...and that we liberals have somehow kept anybody else from realizing it.....
 
Glen Contrarian;1064827077]Actually, that old (and all-too-common) assumption is quite wrong. As they grow older and become elderly, studies have shown that they tend to grow more liberal, NOT more conservative. Your assumption is likely based on the common perception that most older people are conservative - and it is true that older people are generally more conservative than most younger people. That said, most elderly are significantly more liberal than they themselves were in their youth.

I agree that I have become more liberal but being liberal to me means actually accomplishing something by getting results. I probably give more to charity than most people make but I know where the money is going and that isn't to a federal bureaucracy with high overhead and no incentive to actually generate results. One has to ask themselves where has all that spending in the name of compassion gone. You see SS and Medicare as helping but ignore that the money contributed to those programs has been spent by the bureaucrats on things other than SS and Medicare. You buy that ACA is going to help but ignore the costs associated with it and the fact that healthcare costs are mostly borne by the states and local citizens.

The key was to compare the elderly not to the young of today, but to how they themselves were in their youth.

Don't know about you but I learned personal responsibility growing up and that with choices comes consequences both good and bad. I have more than I ever thought I would have and I share that wealth with others and resent being forced to give it to a govt. agency so they can spend it for me, AFTER their administrative costs. All spending in the name of compassion has done is reduce incentive, create dependence along with waste, fraud and abuse.

I've been a deacon in the Church of Christ since about 1998. You really gotta learn to watch those assumptions.

I am active, very active as well and my assumptions are made upon observation, history, and actual data. I am very close to the Deacons in my church and my actions speak louder than words


So why are the most successful democracies - in terms of both economics and "compassionate spending" (to use your words) are the very same ones with the governmental systems that you are sure is going to leave us all in the economic dustbin of history?

I believe in government, discipline, responsibility, and neighbor helping neighbor. Our Founders got it right, power belongs at the state and local level which is closest to the people. I posted the line items in the budget, how many of those are duplicated at state and local levels?


Funny how y'all keep saying how terrrrrrrible that federal gov't is...until y'all are in charge of it. And then when y'all are in charge of it, it's unAmerican to criticize them, and all of a sudden it's balls-to-the-wall spending, or don't you remember that Clinton left us with a budget surplus that was on track to pay off the ENTIRE federal debt by 2012? But then came Bush and Republican control of BOTH houses...and what happened to that surplus? And let's not forget the thousands of lives and hundreds - hundreds! - of billions of taxpayer dollars we threw away in Iraq!

History says how successful the Federal Govt. is as we are 18.2 TRILLION in debt. You keep saying there was a Clinton surplus and I keep posting the Treasury data that shows no surplus. You confuse a PROJECTION with reality. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the reality just like you forget 9/11 and that only people that have to go on a diet financially are the citizens of this country, not the bureaucrat that runs it. Why is it that the Federal govt. needs the money more than the citizens? Tell me how much should a person be allowed to keep out of their paycheck AFTER Federal, State, and Local taxes?

In other words, what you're giving me is RHETORIC and nothing more. What I'm giving you in return is hard-and-fast HISTORY.

Mostly what you are giving me are opinions and projections which aren't actual reality
 
Do you or do you not want to live in a first-world democracy? High taxes, sir, are the price of admission to living in a first-world democracy - ANY first-world democracy. You can't show me a single first-world democracy that doesn't have high taxes...because that's what it takes to enable a first-world standard of living not just for the rich, but for the population as a whole.

Tell me what the tax rate should be in terms of local, state, and Federal taxes for an individual wage earner?


And ignoring that the RICH pay lower taxes than their secretaries, as Warren Buffet famously pointed out, hm? Ah, but I forget - it's eeeeevil to not charge income taxes to those who are one paycheck away from the streets, but it's REAL AMERICAN to charge the rich a lower EFFECTIVE tax rate than their secretaries
.

Effective tax rates are irrelevant as it is actual dollars being paid. Please explain how less than half the income earners in this country actually pay Federal Income Taxes and why the rich pay a much higher rate of the FIT collected than before the Bush tax cuts? Also explain how tax cuts actually grew govt. revenue?
 
Glen Contrarian;1064827081]Do we have a higher percentage of the population covered by health insurance than ever before? YES. Is the rate of annual increase in health insurance costs lower than the average annual rise of health insurance costs for the 40-odd years before the ACA was passed? YES. That was the goal...and that means that yes, the ACA is working...as the Heritage Foundation designed it to work.

Probably but most of those signing up were eligible or Medicaid but hadn't signed up so tell me why we need ACA? I am still waiting for you to tell me where the ACA costs were prior to ACA being approved? What you are buying is liberal rhetoric and ignoring actual facts. No ACA and no expenses, now we have ACA and we have expenses and whether or not that slows the growth in healthcare spending we have new expenses and an increase in the deficit thus the debt


Tell you what - how about traveling to those nations where there's no taxpayer-funded healthcare, and tell me what life is like for the people there. I do know what it's like - got a house and lots of family in one such place - and it sucks. Bad.

What you don't understand is the taxes that fund those healthcare programs and why there is a difference in costs vs. this country. Suggest you research and get the complete story

Better yet, if you're 69 y.o., then you'll soon be part of the problem since 5% of the population - those who are getting close to the end of their lives - create about 50% of our health care costs. It's NOT the young or the middle-aged, it's not the poor, it's not the minorities...it's the OLD people who are costing the taxpayers so doggone much.

Old people are covered under Medicare and Medicaid, we don't need ACA for their coverage.

So if you really want to vote to get rid of the biggest healthcare cost burden on the taxpayer, then vote against Medicare for the elderly.

Medicare is a self funded program by FICA taxes paid over the working career of an individual and is part of the SS system. Old people are covered so why ACA
 
Back
Top Bottom