• 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!

Stephanopoulos points out Merriam-Webster definition of taxes to president

Bitching about paying for indigent healthcare. Your paying for it now, it’s just not seen as taxes, your paying it if you have private health insurance according to President Obama, on the Stephanopoulos show.

Up to 30% of the premium that you, or your employer pays covers the indigent.

Think of that when your premiums go up another 14%, You’re paying for it when someone, (even illegals) go to an emergency for treatment. I believe its called cost shifting in the healthcare field.
 
So you are trying to tell me people in the highest tax bracket would not be willing to pay 1.5% more in taxes if their income went up by 3%? Plese note they are 1.5% ahead and maybe some pot holes on the roads can get fixed as well.
Being in the highest tax bracket, they already pay more than their fare share in taxes.
There are people in the lower end of the highest tax bracket who are certainly unwilling to pay 1.5% more.

If their income goes up 3% that corresponds to an increase of 3% in tax revenue from the individual. So no reason to increase their taxes.

As for the pot-holes. No. The Government needs to lessen the tax burden on society and then they need to manage what they have better.
 
Or Israel.... funny how this admin wants to cut where we DO have NS interests.... do I smell a rat?

(no racism meant against rats)

It does give one pause...

Doesn't look like anyone wants to comment on the leader of the free world needing a dictionary to define "tax". It does show he's more intelligent than the democrat that needed "is" defined for him.

Hurray for George Sephanopolis!
 
Being in the highest tax bracket, they already pay more than their fare share in taxes.
There are people in the lower end of the highest tax bracket who are certainly unwilling to pay 1.5% more.

If their income goes up 3% that corresponds to an increase of 3% in tax revenue from the individual. So no reason to increase their taxes.

As for the pot-holes. No. The Government needs to lessen the tax burden on society and then they need to manage what they have better.

So what is your position on trickle down economics?
 
Can you say maximum pwnage? Words mean things Mr. President, the healthcare bills would require an across the board tax increase, the middle lower class which is already tightening their belts will have to do so again, this combined with his cap and trade initiative will only further hurt folks who are already seriously hurting due to this administration mismanagement of the economy. But after all that is what the Radical in Chief really wants IE to bring the bourgeois middle class down to the level of the proletariat because he knows that's the only possible way they would ever accept his revolutionary socialist agenda and initiatives.

This interchange between two Democrats was priceless. Cudos to Stephanopoulis for standing his ground unlike many of his counterparts.
 
I really wish there was a special sarcasm font for the Internet.:mrgreen:

Using the green smiley face :)mrgreen:) usually allows for that. You have to realize that many here do not know one another so satire is difficult to discern sometimes; I thought it was damned funny however.

:2wave:
 
So you are trying to tell me people in the highest tax bracket would not be willing to pay 1.5% more in taxes if their income went up by 3%? Plese note they are 1.5% ahead and maybe some pot holes on the roads can get fixed as well.

Winston, the point is not how much the "rich" can afford to pay, it is the FACT that no amount of tax increases will end the efforts of Liberal Democrats to confiscate ever greater amounts of our wealth to engage in vote pandering programs that do NOTHING to solve the problems Liberal Democrats claim they will; I use the recent stimulus plan passed as exhibit one as NOT doing what the partisan politicians claimed it would. Then we have the declared war on poverty we have been waging for 50 years where this nation has spent in excess of $40 trillion with no discernable results as exhibit number two.

By the way, where or when, will be seeing those 5,000,000 new high paying jobs Obama promised us? Right now, after losing over 2,500,000 jobs since he took office, we are now at 7,500,000 new high paying jobs to get us there and climbing.
 
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You are 100% correct; so you should question any "candidate" who makes the facical claims Obama did while they jack up the deficit to levels not seen in 60 years.

This is not an issue of "raising taxes" as Winston is attempting, this is an issue of a President who LIED about NOT raising anyone's taxes who made less than $250K. I am fascinated how Obama supporters, not suggesting you are one of them, have such short or selective memories.

My two cents worth is this; I do NOT agree with any tax increase, but I think that if Democrats are going to spend us into a $1.6 trillion deficit, they had better come to the table with some of that honesty and transparency they hyperbolically blathered about during the last 8 years of the Bush presidency and explain who is going to pay for their grand efforts to control vast amounts our economy.

The reason they refuse to be honest about who is going to pay for it and trying these asinine stealth efforts is because they know if they were honest about who is going to pay for all this Government largess before the 2010 mid terms, they will lose many, or more seats and possibly the political POWER they so desperately crave more than the welfare of the citizens of this great nation.

The good news about this thread topic is that many are not falling for the BS this adminstration is spewing.
 
Winston, the point is not how much the "rich" can afford to pay, it is the FACT that no amount of tax increases will end the efforts of Liberal Democrats to confiscate ever greater amounts of our wealth to engage in vote pandering programs that do NOTHING to solve the problems Liberal Democrats claim they will; I use the recent stimulus plan passed as exhibit one as NOT doing what the partisan politicians claimed it would. Then we have the declared war on poverty we have been waging for 50 years where this nation has spent in excess of $40 trillion with no discernable results as exhibit number two.

By the way, where or when, will be seeing those 5,000,000 new high paying jobs Obama promised us? Right now, after losing over 2,500,000 jobs since he took office, we are now at 7,500,000 new high paying jobs to get us there and climbing.

Well that was a lot to do about nothing as usual from you TD
 
Or military industrial complex spending. I'm not talking about the military I'm talking about the military industrial complex like ike talked about.

The primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government is to defend the nation; I haven't seen anything in the Constitution that says it is the responsibility of Government to provide for the welfare of its citizens.

Of course, you are free to show where it states this if you like. :2wave:
 
Bitching about paying for indigent healthcare. Your paying for it now, it’s just not seen as taxes, your paying it if you have private health insurance according to President Obama, on the Stephanopoulos show.

Fantastical argument for making it a public program; illegals deserve healthcare too! :rofl

Up to 30% of the premium that you, or your employer pays covers the indigent.

Do you have any credible facts to support this assertion?

Think of that when your premiums go up another 14%, You’re paying for it when someone, (even illegals) go to an emergency for treatment. I believe its called cost shifting in the healthcare field.


See above.
 
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Winston, the point is not how much the "rich" can afford to pay, it is the FACT that no amount of tax increases will end the efforts of Liberal Democrats to confiscate ever greater amounts of our wealth to engage in vote pandering programs that do NOTHING to solve the problems Liberal Democrats claim they will; I use the recent stimulus plan passed as exhibit one as NOT doing what the partisan politicians claimed it would. Then we have the declared war on poverty we have been waging for 50 years where this nation has spent in excess of $40 trillion with no discernable results as exhibit number two.

By the way, where or when, will be seeing those 5,000,000 new high paying jobs Obama promised us? Right now, after losing over 2,500,000 jobs since he took office, we are now at 7,500,000 new high paying jobs to get us there and climbing.

Well that was a lot to do about nothing as usual from you TD

Your inability to counter any debate/argument with anything more than such trite responses is hardly surprising.

The notion that my comments above are about nothing is merely another of your Liberal "because I say its so." Yet when it comes to substance, you are once more incredibly lacking.

:2wave:
 
The primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government is to defend the nation; I haven't seen anything in the Constitution that says it is the responsibility of Government to provide for the welfare of its citizens.

Of course, you are free to show where it states this if you like. :2wave:

In a lot of ways the military industrial complex is a welfare bnation. Where do you think the government gets the bucks to pay for it?
 
In a lot of ways the military industrial complex is a welfare bnation. Where do you think the government gets the bucks to pay for it?

Of course your claim is farcical and more along the lines of "because you say so," but anyone concerned with reality and the facts knows that claiming it is a form of welfare is patently absurd.

I would like to know how spending tax dollars to by military weaponry to defend the nation is in the same category as taxing citizens so that you can give the money to someone else you have deemed more deserving of it.

Take your time. :doh
 
Truth Detector said:
Fantastical argument for making it a public program; illegals deserve healthcare too! :rofl


Damn TD do you actually think that hospitals don’t pass on the cost of their emergency care? :roll:
Do you have any credible facts to support this assertion?

Ah yes, TD has to put the caveat of (any credible facts) in case of my having anything short of a letter from the pope stating that what I said is the truth. Here, now press your hot key dedicated to disputing the link as a lib front, with an agenda. :rofl

< Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.>

I was off by a few % points it’s actually a 37% shift. Sorry. :2wave:

Study: Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care - USATODAY.com





See above.


Meh… if my percentages were off by a few % take it out of the 7% overage from the above post. ;)

<Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 119 percent.>


NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Damn TD do you actually think that hospitals don’t pass on the cost of their emergency care? :roll:

I am curious why you divine arguments that haven’t been made in a desperate effort to support your hysterical false assertions?


Quote: Do you have any credible facts to support this assertion?
Ah yes, TD has to put the caveat of (any credible facts) in case of my having anything short of a letter from the pope stating that what I said is the truth. Here, now press your hot key dedicated to disputing the link as a lib front, with an agenda. :rofl

< Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.>

I was off by a few % points it’s actually a 37% shift. Sorry. :2wave:
Study: Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care - USATODAY.com

I am hardly surprised that you would not like the term “credible” or claim it to be a "caveat" as so much of your blather is more along the line of “incredible.”

Again, all one need do is look at the BIAS contained in your link to see that is suffers dearly in the credibility area.

Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.

So with this, I will take it that you have no “credible” sources to support your highly emotional, but fact-less hysterics.

Once again what we have here are wild-eyed uninformed, fabricated data to support a highly partisan political agenda; thank you again for illustrating it so brilliantly.
 
Truth Detector;I am curious why you divine arguments that haven’t been made in a desperate effort to support your hysterical false assertions?

Only it TD land could a reply about hospitals treating “indigents”, be interpreted as (Fantastical argument for making it a public program; “illegals” deserve healthcare too) and get a response like this (desperate effort to support your hysterical false assertions?)

How’s the life in that parallel universe you reside in TD?:2wave:

I am hardly surprised that you would not like the term “credible” or claim it to be a "caveat" as so much of your blather is more along the line of “incredible.”

Again, all one need do is look at the BIAS contained in your link to see that is suffers dearly in the credibility area.

Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.

So with this, I will take it that you have no “credible” sources to support your highly emotional, but fact-less hysterics.

Once again what we have here are wild-eyed uninformed, fabricated data to support a highly partisan political agenda; thank you again for illustrating it so brilliantly.

Ah yes, looks like TD,s fine tuned hot key is getting a good workout in this thread. What part of this confuses you TD? ;)

(Families USA is a national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Working at the national, state, and community levels, we have earned a national reputation as an effective voice for health care consumers for 25 years.)


Families USA: About Us Home

Could it be that part of your brain rejects the term “nonprofit”, :confused: or the part that it is a “non-partisan organization” :confused:dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans with suspicion? :rofl
 
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Winston, the point is not how much the "rich" can afford to pay, it is the FACT that no amount of tax increases will end the efforts of Liberal Democrats to confiscate ever greater amounts of our wealth to engage in vote pandering programs that do NOTHING to solve the problems Liberal Democrats claim they will; I use the recent stimulus plan passed as exhibit one as NOT doing what the partisan politicians claimed it would. Then we have the declared war on poverty we have been waging for 50 years where this nation has spent in excess of $40 trillion with no discernable results as exhibit number two.

By the way, where or when, will be seeing those 5,000,000 new high paying jobs Obama promised us? Right now, after losing over 2,500,000 jobs since he took office, we are now at 7,500,000 new high paying jobs to get us there and climbing.

Well that was a lot to do about nothing as usual from you TD

Are reading impaired?
 
Only it TD land could a reply about hospitals treating “indigents”, be interpreted as (Fantastical argument for making it a public program; “illegals” deserve healthcare too) and get a response like this (desperate effort to support your hysterical false assertions?)

How’s the life in that parallel universe you reside in TD?:2wave:



Ah yes, looks like TD,s fine tuned hot key is getting a good workout in this thread. What part of this confuses you TD? ;)

(Families USA is a national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Working at the national, state, and community levels, we have earned a national reputation as an effective voice for health care consumers for 25 years.)


Families USA: About Us Home

Could it be that part of your brain rejects the term “nonprofit”, :confused: or the part that it is a “non-partisan organization” :confused:dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans with suspicion? :rofl

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities.

ACORN: About ACORN

I suppose that if I read further I would find that Acorn is also a non-partisan organization.
 
How’s the life in that parallel universe you reside in TD?:2wave:

Your irony comes full circle dude.

Ah yes, looks like TD,s fine tuned hot key is getting a good workout in this thread. What part of this confuses you TD? ;)

(Families USA is a national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Working at the national, state, and community levels, we have earned a national reputation as an effective voice for health care consumers for 25 years.)


Families USA: About Us Home

Could it be that part of your brain rejects the term “nonprofit”, :confused: or the part that it is a “non-partisan organization” :confused:dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans with suspicion? :rofl

First off, what part of my comments had anything “partisan” in them? Oh that’s right; NONE of them did.

I see that aside from your being incapable of comprehending anything written in the English language you also have trouble distinguishing the terms “agenda” from “partisan.”

Your source and the data therein, are derived from an organization devoted to a single payer public healthcare system and make no bones about it. What part of AGENDA do you continue to not comprehend?

I am not sure if your are just intellectually incapable of comprehension or just selectively choosing to feign complete and utter ignorance.

As for the non-partisan BS, I find that claim on the website with the AGENDA amusing in that its founder is a complete and total Liberal Democrat. The notion that this is not a partisan issue certainly would require the willing suspension of disbelief:

In 1997, Mr. Pollack was appointed by President Clinton as the sole consumer representative on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. In that capacity, Mr. Pollack helped prepare the Patients’ Bill of Rights that has been enacted by many state legislatures.

Mr. Pollack received his law degree from New York University where he was an Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Fellow.

Mr. Pollack was also the Founding Executive Director of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a leading national organization focused on eliminating hunger in the U.S. Two of his notable accomplishment at FRAC include: (1) arguing two successful cases on the same day in the U.S. Supreme Court to secure food aid for low-income Americans; and (2) the successful federal litigation that resulted in the creation of the WIC program for malnourished mothers and infants.


Bios Ron Pollack
 
Would a rose by any other name not smell the same?

Good shot Steph! :mrgreen:

Read my lips. No new taxes. (Just a bunch of tolls, fees, penalties, and other incidental stuff. But no taxes.) :roll:

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
 
Would a rose by any other name not smell the same?

Good shot Steph! :mrgreen:

Read my lips. No new taxes. (Just a bunch of tolls, fees, penalties, and other incidental stuff. But no taxes.) :roll:

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Correction; meet the new boss. Worse than the old boss. :cool:
 
Can you say maximum pwnage? Words mean things Mr. President, the healthcare bills would require an across the board tax increase, the middle lower class which is already tightening their belts will have to do so again, this combined with his cap and trade initiative will only further hurt folks who are already seriously hurting due to this administration mismanagement of the economy. But after all that is what the Radical in Chief really wants IE to bring the bourgeois middle class down to the level of the proletariat because he knows that's the only possible way they would ever accept his revolutionary socialist agenda and initiatives.

You are not serious.
 
Back
Top Bottom