• 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!

Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

Whoever it was predicted liberalism and it's ruin of America.

Never mind those who promote the destruction of America by expanding teat suckling. You are correct. The dems want a majority of voters to be teat sucklers realizing 1000 unproductive or underproducing parasites and addicts can out vote 50 industrious employers
 
Yeah. At the White House passing out other people's money.

The only three cornered hats I have seen anywhere near the White House was across the street in the park and two secret agents were keeping very close tabs on him since he kept yelling something about the British coming .
 
Never mind those who promote the destruction of America by expanding teat suckling. You are correct. The dems want a majority of voters to be teat sucklers realizing 1000 unproductive or underproducing parasites and addicts can out vote 50 industrious employers

You just like saying that word over and over. :roll:
 
The only three cornered hats I have seen anywhere near the White House was across the street in the park and two secret agents were keeping very close tabs on him since he kept yelling something about the British coming .

He was right next to that deluded black woman who said now that Obama was president she no longer had to worry about paying for gasoline or her mortgage
 
Teat. Is that like a farm thing or a baby thing? There's so much I don't know.
 
The only three cornered hats I have seen anywhere near the White House was across the street in the park and two secret agents were keeping very close tabs on him since he kept yelling something about the liberals are here .

There, I fixed it.
 
Teat. Is that like a farm thing or a baby thing? There's so much I don't know.

If you ever saw the movie WITNESS starring Harrison Ford and Kelly McGillis you would be educated on this subject
 
Teat. Is that like a farm thing or a baby thing? There's so much I don't know.

Think of it as instead of a fierce bald eagle being replaced with a sow wallowing in the mud with liberals fighting for the teets.

Or maybe changing a famous American slogan from "Don't Tread On ME" to "What's In It for Me"

From this:
DTOM.jpg


To this:

Grandma’s Pig and Seven Baby Piglets
 
Have to admit, you got me. For awhile, it seemed this was going to be a rational post. But the highlighted sentences burst my bubble. I wonder if the mortgage company you did work for is still in business, most went bankrupt.

This happened becuase of low tax rates on hedge funds. This would be funny if it were not so sad. What hedge funds were involved in a major way in this issue. Other than taking sides like Paulson did, which BTW made he billions.

The mortgage company in question did go bust, I never implied otherwise. It was, in essence, a sales office for Countrywide and Lehman, pushing mortgage money out.

The low tax rates contributed to a mentality that encouraged feeing up these instruments. Firms like Countrywide and Lehman, were pushing product (in this case money) out into the market... and everyone along the supply chain was collecting fees. The ultimate instruments were packaged as a mix of high-grade and low grade mortgages, wrapped with insurance from our friends at AIG (often the instruments were re-phased into derivatives) and sold to various investment funds, including hedge funds.

The whole process had fees payable to everyone in the supply chain... anyone seriously looking into this realized it was a house of cards. For example, this particular mortgage company made 8-12% on the mortgage money it placed. Other fees were earned by participants further up the supply chain. You can't add that many fees to a mortgage... Moreover, though the mortgage company had its own credit lines, and those credit lines had recourse, the company did not have anywhere near the financial wherewithal to handle the recourse.

The problem with low personal income tax rates is that it encourages people to remove money from a business rather than retain earnings and re-invest. Hence, you get a lot of short-term financial goal setting rather than a focus on long-term growth (where you exit gets preferred tax treatment as capital gains)
 
You miss the point. The quote you mention is related to this point. It is as I always try to get you to see, you should read for comprehension and not to pick out individual lines as if they don't relate to each other. All of it relates to the overriding point, often refered to as the thesis. So, it isn't about regulating all mental activity, it's about the fact that they can't opt out of health care, so their choice can be regulated. Again, read to get the point, the thesis, the overriding argument. Until you do that, you'll be fooled by sites like NRO.

ah yes, the point is the thesis which is the other element of a 5 pronged argument which is the thesis point which points to the element thesis which.... wait... who's on first?


the Judge claimed that the individual mandate was constitutional because Congress had the right to regulate the choice not to purchase health insurance because it wasn't inactivity, it was "mental activity". your complete inability to defend that atrocious position is noted. I am simply happy to content myself with the image of someone trying to argue that logic in front of Justice Scalia :D. That rebutall is going to be legendary.
 
Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

I have to wonder how many of those who oppose entitlement cuts are sucking at the teet of the taxpayer.

most of them, the majority of Americans now get more from the federal government than they pay. in fact, transfer payments to Americans are now larger than revenues.
 
ah yes, the point is the thesis which is the other element of a 5 pronged argument which is the thesis point which points to the element thesis which.... wait... who's on first?


the Judge claimed that the individual mandate was constitutional because Congress had the right to regulate the choice not to purchase health insurance because it wasn't inactivity, it was "mental activity". your complete inability to defend that atrocious position is noted. I am simply happy to content myself with the image of someone trying to argue that logic in front of Justice Scalia :D. That rebutall is going to be legendary.

It's called reading for comprhension. The point is in is not inactivity. You cannot opt out of health care. You get injuried, you will be treated. That's a simple fact. Now, you can be as dishonest as NRO, pretend there is no connection between the ideas. Many do that that type of dishonest arguing. But the fact is the point is a simple and honest one. You cannot opt out of health care. No one can be certain they will never need care. In fact, it is almost a certainty that they will need care at some point. Serious care.
 
It's called reading for comprhension. The point is in is not inactivity. You cannot opt out of health care. You get injuried, you will be treated. That's a simple fact. Now, you can be as dishonest as NRO, pretend there is no connection between the ideas. Many do that that type of dishonest arguing. But the fact is the point is a simple and honest one. You cannot opt out of health care. No one can be certain they will never need care. In fact, it is almost a certainty that they will need care at some point. Serious care.

Boo I am a bit surprised with your post. Let me note up front that I have not kept track of the posts on this thread. That being said the bolded areas while being true misses a basic truth. That is some people for a variety of reasons are willing to understand the risk you mention above but do not want to pay the cost of insuring that risk. Sort of like saying that everyone dies, with that comes a cost of funerals etc. So why not have a law saying that everyone needs at least enough insurance to cover their burial costs. You can take this line of thought to just about anything that happens in life. So does the government have an unlimited right to have us insure whatever is their hotbutton issue is this week.
 
Boo I am a bit surprised with your post. Let me note up front that I have not kept track of the posts on this thread. That being said the bolded areas while being true misses a basic truth. That is some people for a variety of reasons are willing to understand the risk you mention above but do not want to pay the cost of insuring that risk. Sort of like saying that everyone dies, with that comes a cost of funerals etc. So why not have a law saying that everyone needs at least enough insurance to cover their burial costs. You can take this line of thought to just about anything that happens in life. So does the government have an unlimited right to have us insure whatever is their hotbutton issue is this week.

That's just not true. Saying you're willing to accept the risk is not the same as being capable of accepting the risk. You would ahve to be capable of paying the extreme possibility in order to honestly accept responsibility, or to say that while you're lying there bleeding to death that you won't let anyone treat you. This is largely not possible. Only a very small number could possibily afford such a thing, and those people are almost certainly insured.
 
That's just not true. Saying you're willing to accept the risk is not the same as being capable of accepting the risk. You would ahve to be capable of paying the extreme possibility in order to honestly accept responsibility, or to say that while you're lying there bleeding to death that you won't let anyone treat you. This is largely not possible. Only a very small number could possibily afford such a thing, and those people are almost certainly insured.

If you break out the segments of the population that would be asked to buy insurance, while there is some probability that this could/would happen is very small. It gets smaller still when you count the people who do not take the insurance, but can in fact pay the bill. I do support a universal program just not the one put forth in this law. A single payor system not only helps get everyone insured but also helps business compete in the world. Not sure why the dems could not better explain how a single payor system would HELP the employment picture. Maybe they don't really believe in it either.
 
If you break out the segments of the population that would be asked to buy insurance, while there is some probability that this could/would happen is very small. It gets smaller still when you count the people who do not take the insurance, but can in fact pay the bill. I do support a universal program just not the one put forth in this law. A single payor system not only helps get everyone insured but also helps business compete in the world. Not sure why the dems could not better explain how a single payor system would HELP the employment picture. Maybe they don't really believe in it either.

How often it happens is never the point. The fact is it can happen is the point. No one can say with any certainty that it will never happen. The fact is it does happen. And few, if any, who don't have insurance can actually pay a huge bill.

Good to see however that you support a single payer system. ;)
 
How often it happens is never the point. The fact is it can happen is the point. No one can say with any certainty that it will never happen. The fact is it does happen. And few, if any, who don't have insurance can actually pay a huge bill.

Good to see however that you support a single payer system. ;)

I was bitterly disappointed that we did not get single payer. Even with this "mandatory" insurance policy, there will be many who choose to pay the fee than buy insurance. Those are the people who also fall into your category of not being able to pay even a mid level cost.

To me, while we got a few good insurance fixes, not enough versus either what needed to be done, or the opportunity cost of working on some other issue that would have had a more beneficial impact to the country long term. If I am correct, they did not even fix the thing dems complained about with the bush medicare pill thing. That is the ability for medicare to fight to get the best prices for drugs!
 
I was bitterly disappointed that we did not get single payer. Even with this "mandatory" insurance policy, there will be many who choose to pay the fee than buy insurance. Those are the people who also fall into your category of not being able to pay even a mid level cost.

To me, while we got a few good insurance fixes, not enough versus either what needed to be done, or the opportunity cost of working on some other issue that would have had a more beneficial impact to the country long term. If I am correct, they did not even fix the thing dems complained about with the bush medicare pill thing. That is the ability for medicare to fight to get the best prices for drugs!

On this we agree.
 
Which is why we became the empowered populace in the history of mankind. Thank you.

How many times do you have to see this fail before you guys learn? Socialism fails because you eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

Raise taxes and watch unemployment skyrocket to 20+ percent, which is common elsewhere in the world.

Sorry, but 6 of the 10 most prosperous countries in the world are "socialist" countries. 9 of the 9 most prosperous countries in the world have higher taxes than the US and have socialized medicine. Its fine to say you do not like higher taxes and more social programs, but its incorrect to say it does not work.

Norway at top of prosperity index - CNN
 

Pity... too bad the Dems did not buy into the Republican idea of mandates in the 1990's. We would have 15 years of history under our belt on this and we would not be wasting our time having the Republicans so outraged about something that was their idea in the first place.

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea - Boston.com
 
obamacare---RECONCILED thru senate days after the party was prepared to DEEM it downstairs

with ZERO gop votes in the senate and ONE in pelosi's place, joseph cao's, the vietnamese seminarian from new orleans who was defeated on tsunami tuesday

which was the day, nov 2, when the gop won the most house seats since 1938, most state reps and legislatures in history, 10 gubs and 6 senators

all while campaigning centrally on REPEAL

obamacare, baby!

live it, libs, love it

it's all YOURS
 
It's called reading for comprhension. The point is in is not inactivity. You cannot opt out of health care. You get injuried, you will be treated. That's a simple fact. Now, you can be as dishonest as NRO, pretend there is no connection between the ideas. Many do that that type of dishonest arguing. But the fact is the point is a simple and honest one. You cannot opt out of health care. No one can be certain they will never need care. In fact, it is almost a certainty that they will need care at some point. Serious care.

the woman said congress can regulate mental activity. that she also made other claims is good if you want context, but doesn't discount the fact that that is what she claims.

still waiting on a defense of that.


but aware that you are unable to provide it, and are desperately now clinging to the notion that you can avoid it and it will go away.

which is fine - you and me don't really matter at this point on this debate - but the Supreme Court does and that argument being included in the briefs for the mandate is going to significantly harm it.
 
Back
Top Bottom