PDA

View Full Version : A reminder from a year ago



Uncle Bill
07-23-2011, 01:34 PM
Here's another "oldie but goodie" that some seem to forget about. Read this again, and you will understand why Obama is insisting on huge tax increases that obviously are the reason for the debt ceiling crisis shutdown that he is personally instigating.


UB



By Wayne Allyn Root , June 6th, 2010



Barack Hussien Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent.
To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing.


He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.


Barack Hussien Obama was my college classmate
( Columbia University , class of '83).


He is a devout Muslim do not be fooled.


Look at his Czars...anti-business..anti- american.


As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussien Obama is
following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University ...


They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system
with government spending and entitlement demands.


Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming.


Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn
the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority
that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted
on to always vote for bigger government.



Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
Universal health care . The health care bill had very little to do with health
care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and
health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions).


Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans
will add trillions to the national debt.

What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government .


Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill
in the middle of a depression?



Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with
health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming.


It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control
of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors.


Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns
NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants.


They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to
Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power.


The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars,
bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."


Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state?


Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government
entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression?


Certainly not American taxpayers.


But this has been Barack Hussien Obama's plan all along.


His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.


Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants.


Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America .



But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted
on to support big government.


Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children,
food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and
eventually Social Security .



Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go?


It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country.


It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could
keep paying union dues.



It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out
(after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions).


A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).


All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their
bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America .


The country goes broke, future gene rations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.



Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job
creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers,
redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did
nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).



Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.


With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussien Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.



Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by
my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussien Obama
using the Cloward and Piven Plan ...



"Correctly attributed" says snopes!


http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp)

Cody Covey
07-24-2011, 12:45 PM
800 Billion in closing tax loopholes in exchange for 4 TRILLION in spending cuts...I would've been okay with that...

Down East Labs 217
07-24-2011, 03:15 PM
800 Billion in closing tax loopholes in exchange for 4 TRILLION in spending cuts...I would've been okay with that...

Not I. The only way I will be Ok with a tax increase (closing tax loop holes) is if they can state for a fact that the spending cuts are real and will be enacted next year not 10 years from know.

I will never be Ok with taxing the people who worked hard and made there money to support the lazy of the world.

If you are going to raise taxes make it across the board. Raise them all or don't raise any. What is good for one is good for all.

Richard

JDogger
07-24-2011, 08:25 PM
Not I. The only way I will be Ok with a tax increase (closing tax loop holes) is if they can state for a fact that the spending cuts are real and will be enacted next year not 10 years from know. Always nice to hear from the limousine faction on RTF

I will never be Ok with taxing the people who worked hard and made there money to support the lazy of the world. Just who?....is proposing that?

If you are going to raise taxes make it across the board. Raise them all or don't raise any. What is good for one is good for all. Ahhh.... another proponent for the 'fair tax'. I understand. Do you?

Richard

Why the righties here, continue to oppose a closing of corporate tax loopholes, baffles me. Are so many of us in the doggy world among the super-rich? I'm not. Are you? JD

M&K's Retrievers
07-24-2011, 10:03 PM
Why the righties here, continue to oppose a closing of corporate tax loopholes, baffles me. Are so many of us in the doggy world among the super-rich? I'm not. Are you? JD

That's because you are easily baffled. Corporations should not pay income tax. Employees should. Stockholders should. Corporations should not. Maybe our products would be more competitive if corporations didn't have to add taxes to the cost of their products.

Just ask GE regards,

JDogger
07-24-2011, 10:15 PM
That's because you are easily baffled. Corporations should not pay income tax. Employees should. Stockholders should. Corporations should not. Maybe our products would be more competitive if corporations didn't have to add taxes to the cost of their products.

Just ask GE regards,

But Mike, just last year the Scotus gave the corporations the status of individuals when it came to political contributions.

"We wish to contribute as individuals, but please do not tax us
as such"....

...BS. JD

JDogger
07-24-2011, 10:25 PM
...and to the OP of this thread. While snopes correctly attributes the article in question.

Yes, it was stated by Wayne Allyn Root, but that is all it does.

Google Mr Root for yourself.


You decide... JD

M&K's Retrievers
07-24-2011, 10:59 PM
But Mike, just last year the Scotus gave the corporations the status of individuals when it came to political contributions.

"We wish to contribute as individuals, but please do not tax us
as such"....

...BS. JD

Why do I believe that is not a direct quote from anyone but rather a line made up by you to further your point.

Also, the SCOTUS had made numerous decisions that suck with more to follow I'm afraid.

JDogger
07-25-2011, 12:18 AM
Why do I believe that is not a direct quote from anyone but rather a line made up by you to further your point.

Also, the SCOTUS had made numerous decisions that suck with more to follow I'm afraid.

Of course I put my paraphrase in quotes. I said it. If I had been quoting someone else I would have cited it.

All to easy to just copy and paste. Eh...Bill?

JD

cotts135
07-25-2011, 05:20 AM
It simply is amazing to me that some on here would find no problem with huge Multi National Corporations paying less taxes than they do. We currently have oil companies in this country who receive large subsidies for their corporations while at the same time breaking all records for quarterly earnings. Is that not Corporate welfare at it's worst?
Imagine this scenario for one minute. An alien beams down and is watching what Congress is doing. Not knowing the current crisis of our economy what do you think his conclusion would be? He would have to conclude that the rich are in trouble in this country I mean with all the legislation benefiting big business or Wall St. How could he see it any other way.
The rich and Corporations should absolutely pay more taxes than the less well off. (They certainly get more benefit from tax money than the middle class) I don't think it is to much to ask for them to pay a little more in taxes for the benefit of having a better economy which by the way would be a benefit to them also.

ppro
07-25-2011, 06:23 AM
The problem with a little more is that a little more is never enough. I don't want subsidies going to any group, not oil companies, farmers, or foreign countries or others. That being said we all should pay taxes at the same rate. I am not rich but they are not better me either. Quit looking at the grass on the other side of the fence. And please make spending cuts now not over the next x years.

charly_t
07-25-2011, 09:21 AM
The problem with a little more is that a little more is never enough. I don't want subsidies going to any group, not oil companies, farmers, or foreign countries or others. That being said we all should pay taxes at the same rate. I am not rich but they are not better me either. Quit looking at the grass on the other side of the fence. And please make spending cuts now not over the next x years.

Ditto ! Make congress etc. take some cuts in pay..........of course that will never happen but I can dream. Local school sup. is getting a big salary boost when he shouldn't need it while the teachers and support staff get no raises.

Uncle Bill
07-25-2011, 02:41 PM
I wouldn't expect a socialist like NM Hugh to be anything but a class envyist. (that goes without saying for a typical New Yorker like Cotts)

But even one of your own...no less a lib than the Oracle of Omaha, (although this is just a 'cut and paste' which Hugh despises:rolleyes:) is quoted with one that even a conservative like me can appreciate.

UB



Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offered one of the best quotes heard in all this drama about the debt ceiling:



"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told Becky Quick. "You just pass a law that says, that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

bbmclain
07-25-2011, 02:56 PM
The REAL problem is SPENDING. NOT TAX rates.....period.

luvmylabs23139
07-25-2011, 03:47 PM
I'd be happy if they got rid of all those refundable tax credits people with kids are getting. That is flat out socialism. If anything they should pay more since they are the ones using the dept of ed.

Cody Covey
07-25-2011, 04:18 PM
But you don't believe that corporate welfare should be stopped? Do companies posting record profits really need the loopholes to write off billions?

JDogger
07-25-2011, 10:32 PM
I wouldn't expect a socialist like NM Hugh to be anything but a class envyist. (that goes without saying for a typical New Yorker like Cotts)

But even one of your own...no less a lib than the Oracle of Omaha, (although this is just a 'cut and paste' which Hugh despises:rolleyes:) is quoted with one that even a conservative like me can appreciate.

UB



Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offered one of the best quotes heard in all this drama about the debt ceiling:




"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told Becky Quick. "You just pass a law that says, that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."















I shall resist your blandishments, sir. I chose to respect the request that was made of me to disregard you in all forms. Hugh in NM.

cotts135
07-26-2011, 06:09 AM
The REAL problem is SPENDING. NOT TAX rates.....period.

And you and all that believe that it is just a spending problem are incredibly disillusioned or choose to live in a fantasy world where right wing talking points are treated as gospel.

Take a look if you would at this chart and notice what item on it has had the biggest effect on the deficit. Looks to me that the largest item in the chart is the Bush tax cuts. Excluding revenue as a component of the deficit and something that needs attention is just not dealing with reality......Period

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

(The graph is from the CBO not something the NY Times has made up)

Hew
07-26-2011, 06:26 AM
(The graph is from the CBO not something the NY Times has made up)
Not to split hairs, but that is NOT a CBO graph. That's a graph the notoriously liberal Times fabricated with info twisted from the CBO and the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

cotts135
07-26-2011, 07:12 AM
Not to split hairs, but that is NOT a CBO graph. That's a graph the notoriously liberal Times fabricated with info twisted from the CBO and the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
If it is please enlighten me. Are you claiming the figures are wrong? Maybe some figures are exaggerated or there are some omission errors, you tell me.
Just one other thing, is it your believe the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the current debt?

luvmylabs23139
07-26-2011, 07:31 AM
Bumface flushing a trillion dollars down the drain has a lot to do with the debt.
Lets add in obumma care. Want me to add more?

cotts135
07-26-2011, 08:02 AM
Bumface flushing a trillion dollars down the drain has a lot to do with the debt.
Lets add in obumma care. Want me to add more?

Didn't look at the graph did you? :rolleyes::rolleyes:


I forgot to add that Obama's tax cuts also have led to an increase in debt.

zeus3925
07-26-2011, 08:15 AM
Bumface flushing a trillion dollars down the drain has a lot to do with the debt.
Lets add in obumma care. Want me to add more?

And "W" flushed $5.7 trillion down the drain and that doesn't bother you?

troy schwab
07-26-2011, 08:25 AM
And "W" flushed $5.7 billion down the drain and that doesn't bother you?

5.7 Billion is a drop in the bucket compared to Obama....... Seriously??????

You do know that 999 billion is less than a trillion, right? WOW!

troy schwab
07-26-2011, 08:28 AM
Nevermind..... just looked at your comedic graph..... and I see you just made a typo...... that graph is a joke...... where did you find that liberals.com?????

zeus3925
07-26-2011, 08:39 AM
Ever try your own research...with an open mind??

cotts135
07-26-2011, 08:50 AM
Nevermind..... just looked at your comedic graph..... and I see you just made a typo...... that graph is a joke...... where did you find that liberals.com?????

What's comic is that you use logical fallacies to try to support your point instead of directly refuting the evidence.

Again I will ask all of you who believe it is just a spending problem whether the tax cuts implemented by President Bush and continued by President Obama have not significantly added to the deficit. If that is your believe than tell me why.

Hew
07-26-2011, 10:02 AM
bold = me

If it is please enlighten me. Are you claiming the figures are wrong? Maybe some figures are exaggerated or there are some omission errors, you tell me. I don't know what the errors are as I don't know how they derived the numbers for their graphs. And frankly, how they derived the numbers is probably too esoteric for most (and particularly me) to even understand. As readers of the chart, it is up to us to trust the source(s). I don't trust those sources anymore than you (or me) would completely trust a chart that Sean Hannity came up with. The sources of your chart have an axe to grind. You've also admitted that some figures might be exaggerated, shaded, etc.; so the possibility that the graph is bullsh!t has apparently crossed your mind as well.
Just one other thing, is it your believe the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the current debt? No. There are as many economists who say the tax cuts increased revenues as there are who claim the opposite. Your chart shows a drop in direct tax revenue from those cuts, but it doesn't account for increases in tax revenue as an indirect result of the cuts. Regardless, they're no longer the "Bush tax cuts." They're the "Bush/Obama tax cuts" since your boy signed on to extending them (which again points to the bullsh!t nature of that NYT graph since none of the supposed revenue decreases fall Obama's side of the chart when he signed the bill extending them).
.................

troy schwab
07-26-2011, 10:11 AM
What's comic is that you use logical fallacies to try to support your point instead of directly refuting the evidence.

Again I will ask all of you who believe it is just a spending problem whether the tax cuts implemented by President Bush and continued by President Obama have not significantly added to the deficit. If that is your believe than tell me why.

I do believe that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit..... funny though, how the chart does not give any of the tax break deficit contribution to OBAMA, it is ALL GW's fault. All of the tax burden from the deficit should NOW be accounted for in OBAMA's column, should it not? He could have ended them, but agreed they were necessary. AND it IS a spending problem...... way more entitlement programs exist now, since Obama took office. Most you dont hear about..... but do some RESEARCH, and you will find many. The more entitlement we have, the more money needed to facilitate those programs. But are the "programs" really necessary????? Health care, yes, I believe those programs are necessary, DOT funding, yes.....Vet care.....yes...... Education???? Highly debatable.... Foreign Contribution should be ended entirely, until we fix our own damn country..... JMO

BTW "Logical Fallacies" isnt that an oxymoron????? LOL

cotts135
07-26-2011, 11:04 AM
bold = me

.................


I agree with most of what you say here. I do want to point out a few things though. The Center on Budget and Policy Prioriites base their analysis on info taken from the CBO US Census and GAO office.These could hardly be called partisan.
If the implication was that I believed that the numbers were incorrect than you took it the wrong way, I was just throwing in there basic ways that info is misrepresented.
The point I disagree with you the most though is your statement about economists. Most economists agree that revenue would have been higher without the tax cuts
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
Finally Obama is not my boy and he is as accountable as Bush is when it comes to tax cuts. If we held all politicians accountable for their actions instead of having this tribal loyalty that infects politics on both sides we could bypass the blame game and get to what really needs to be done.

Hew
07-26-2011, 11:40 AM
We can play dueling expert opinions all day:


But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a surprise windfall. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/



Finally Obama is not my boy and he is as accountable as Bush is when it comes to tax cuts. .
So then you agree that the NYT graph you posted is intentionally misleading. Good to have you aboard. ;-)

Gerry Clinchy
07-26-2011, 12:05 PM
Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offered one of the best quotes heard in all this drama about the debt ceiling:




"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told Becky Quick. "You just pass a law that says, that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

Wow! You could safely change the %-age to a reasonably higher number, but that SURELY is a powerful quote. I wonder if that would require a Constitutional amendment?

After all, whatever we are spending is ultimately the sole decision of those in Congress who voted to spend. And when spending got out of hand, they were the only ones who could stop it ... and chose not to.

Blame unions, lobbyists, big business, whomever ... but the only ones who vote on the floors of Congress are ... the elected Congress members. Stupid or corrupt? Both?

road kill
07-26-2011, 12:17 PM
I think many of you are truly NAIVE to Obama's agenda.

I recommend you read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Understand where the ONE came from, who he grew up with, who taught him and what his goals are.

Economic chaos is manifest in his core beleifs.

Prove me wrong!!

This guy does not give a rats patoot about any of you, he has a goal and it is not a strong prosperous America as we all know it!!


RK

cotts135
07-26-2011, 12:57 PM
We can play dueling expert opinions all day:



So then you agree that the NYT graph you posted is intentionally misleading. Good to have you aboard. ;-)

No that's not what I mean at all. I will give you that it is labeled differently and the wording is kinder to Obama. It only changes the wording not the amount and it doesn't change my believe that these tax cuts have added significantly to the nations debt.

Buzz
07-26-2011, 01:53 PM
I think many of you are truly NAIVE to Obama's agenda.

I recommend you read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Understand where the ONE came from, who he grew up with, who taught him and what his goals are.

Economic chaos is manifest in his core beleifs.

Prove me wrong!!

This guy does not give a rats patoot about any of you, he has a goal and it is not a strong prosperous America as we all know it!!


RK

Yup, Obama hates America.

He's a tool of Osama.

Oh, wait...

road kill
07-26-2011, 01:57 PM
Yup, Obama hates America.AS we know it now....YES!!!
He's a tool of Osama.Surprised you feel that way....noone else has stated anything remotely close to that, unless you just felt your case was weak and had to gin some crap up??Oh, wait...


Just sayin'.......


RK

huntinman
07-26-2011, 02:42 PM
Yup, Obama hates America.

He's a tool

Oh, wait...

Fixed it for you

Buzz
07-28-2011, 10:51 AM
And you and all that believe that it is just a spending problem are incredibly disillusioned or choose to live in a fantasy world where right wing talking points are treated as gospel.

Take a look if you would at this chart and notice what item on it has had the biggest effect on the deficit. Looks to me that the largest item in the chart is the Bush tax cuts. Excluding revenue as a component of the deficit and something that needs attention is just not dealing with reality......Period

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

(The graph is from the CBO not something the NY Times has made up)


Here is a discussion about that with Bruce Bartlett (the conservative that wingers love to hate) on Hardball yesterday. Gotta love it!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#43917503

cotts135
07-28-2011, 12:40 PM
Here is a discussion about that with Bruce Bartlett (the conservative that wingers love to hate) on Hardball yesterday. Gotta love it!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#43917503

Yea but none of them want to believe it, see it doesn't fit in with the agenda the right wing leaders are pushing.
An interesting point made was about the Capital Gains tax rate. It is no secret that the wealthy benefit significantly more than the poor or middle class when it comes to Capital Gains. The ultra wealthy now pay an effective tax rate lower than the middle class.
One other point needs to made and that is these tax rates have not produced the jobs the Republicans claimed they have. One of the reasons and not often discussed reasons is that it is far more profitable now to Speculate in the markets than it is to create jobs in some real kind of business. This structural problem is one that needs to be addressed and remedied.

Gerry Clinchy
07-28-2011, 10:29 PM
Yea but none of them want to believe it, see it doesn't fit in with the agenda the right wing leaders are pushing.
An interesting point made was about the Capital Gains tax rate. It is no secret that the wealthy benefit significantly more than the poor or middle class when it comes to Capital Gains.


Not necessarily. Today settled on a home for $184,000. The seller had a "profit" of maybe $20,000. She happened to ask about capital gains. Truthfully, I think that $20,000 tax-free to a person selling a house in this price range is pretty significant to them. Paying 35% of $20,000 is probably more painful than paying 35% of $1,000,000 because the one with the smaller home is living much closer to the vest.


The ultra wealthy now pay an effective tax rate lower than the middle class.

Heard some figures quoted today on radio: Top 5% of income earners pay something like 90%+ of the total income taxes.

When we talk about the middle class has anyone adjusted that for COL and inflation from 20 or 30 years ago, for example?


One other point needs to made and that is these tax rates have not produced the jobs the Republicans claimed they have. One of the reasons and not often discussed reasons is that it is far more profitable now to Speculate in the markets than it is to create jobs in some real kind of business. This structural problem is one that needs to be addressed and remedied.

I'd be all in favor of ending corporate welfare, i.e. subsidizing industries that do certain things. And then lower the tax rates for corporations equally. Some jobs would be lost, like at the IRS :-) That could help eliminate a lot of lobbyists (more jobs lost there) ... but would save that lobbying $ for corporations which they could use for constructive purposes. Less perks for Congresscritters, too, that way.

If corporations could plan based on stable tax rates, why would they just sit on $ rather than invest it to make even more $?

I'm still trying to figure out why people are starving in some parts of the world & we pay farmers not to plant stuff. I was always under the impression that US agriculture was among the most productive. So, if the price of a bushel of "x" can be produced economically here, selling lots of bushels should still be able to make a profit. If the bushels are being produced at a loss, why not plant something else that is in greater demand? Why pay somebody to produce nothing?

Heard some figures quoted today that were stunning, and makes me very suspect of CBO estimates of programs. In 1965, when Medicare was begun, the prediction was that by 1990 it would cost $12 billion/year. The reality: by 1990 Medicare was costing $110 billion/year (about 9X the original "estimate"). For Medicaid, in its first year, 1966, it cost $4 billion. By 1990, the price tag was $235 billion. Tell me again, how spending is not a problem.

$235 billion /300,000,000 population is $783/person. That's $3133 for a family of 4 (who are paying taxes) They didn't mention how many people are receiving the Medicaid benefits, but if the recipients numbered 60,000,000 that would mean that amount would be something like $3916/year for EACH recipient. For a single parent with 2 kids, that would be $11,749/year. Now, I ask you, couldn't you buy a pretty good health insurance plan for $979/mo? Why not just have the govt contract with a private health insuror to provide the coverage & maybe save some bucks by having a huge group like that.


Guess I've got too much time on my hands.

Uncle Bill
07-31-2011, 02:09 PM
I'd be all in favor of ending corporate welfare, i.e. subsidizing industries that do certain things. And then lower the tax rates for corporations equally. Some jobs would be lost, like at the IRS :-) That could help eliminate a lot of lobbyists (more jobs lost there) ... but would save that lobbying $ for corporations which they could use for constructive purposes. Less perks for Congresscritters, too, that way.

If corporations could plan based on stable tax rates, why would they just sit on $ rather than invest it to make even more $?

I'm still trying to figure out why people are starving in some parts of the world & we pay farmers not to plant stuff. I was always under the impression that US agriculture was among the most productive. So, if the price of a bushel of "x" can be produced economically here, selling lots of bushels should still be able to make a profit. If the bushels are being produced at a loss, why not plant something else that is in greater demand? Why pay somebody to produce nothing?

Heard some figures quoted today that were stunning, and makes me very suspect of CBO estimates of programs. In 1965, when Medicare was begun, the prediction was that by 1990 it would cost $12 billion/year. The reality: by 1990 Medicare was costing $110 billion/year (about 9X the original "estimate"). For Medicaid, in its first year, 1966, it cost $4 billion. By 1990, the price tag was $235 billion. Tell me again, how spending is not a problem.

$235 billion /300,000,000 population is $783/person. That's $3133 for a family of 4 (who are paying taxes) They didn't mention how many people are receiving the Medicaid benefits, but if the recipients numbered 60,000,000 that would mean that amount would be something like $3916/year for EACH recipient. For a single parent with 2 kids, that would be $11,749/year. Now, I ask you, couldn't you buy a pretty good health insurance plan for $979/mo? Why not just have the govt contract with a private health insuror to provide the coverage & maybe save some bucks by having a huge group like that.


Guess I've got too much time on my hands.


This is far too much common sense for those you are arguing with.

Just a quick reminder...when you attempt to argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level, and beat you with their experience.

BTW Hugh...how's that corruption in New Mexico going lately? I've heard you are going for first place by beating out the President's home state. Gotta be proud of that.:rolleyes:

UB