by louiville2_0 July 3, 2012 12:04 PM EDT I voted for Kerry in 2004 if that helps and was out of the country when Bush the first. I wanted McCain in 2000 since he was the only one who was seriously working on campaign finance reform
------------------
So.........curious louie....if you are for camapaign finance reform - how do you feel about corporations being "people"?
"They have this day set a blazing torch to the temple of constitutional liberty, and, please God, we shall have no more peace forever." -- James Petigru of Charleston, during celebration of secession, 20-Dec-1860 --
"No matter how each man or woman answers the question, I think there will be but one result from what we have allowed the extremists to do to us. Heartbreak." -- Robert E. Lee, on being called to Washington to discuss secession and being asked "Which way will you go, sir ... north or south?", Early 1861 --
05-Aug-1861, President Lincoln, a republican, signs into law the first income tax in American history, a flat tax rate of 3% to help fund civil war.
Should we have learned by now that extremism is costly ...?
All these Republican top bosses never stop talking about 2700 pages of law on Obamacare. I am sure their version of "Care!" would be no more than 2666 pages. There.
Why would any state, led by Dems or Reps, want to sign onto the Medicaid expansion when they can get it for nothing? The States have the choice to either set up Insurance Exchanges or not. If not the Feds will do it. By not signing onto the new Medicaid expansion, all those eligible for help under it will be allowed to go to the insurance exchanges. Where the FED will pick up the tab. No state has anything to gain from expanding Medicaid when the Feds will now and forever be saddled with All the costs. And no state then need worry about the Fed requiring them to pay more as their 'share' of costs in the future. Which we all Know is going to happen.
Inaccurate. The exchanges do not cover Medicaid, they cover purchasinfg of insurance. Medicaid is a government program.
And virtually all the states will sign up to the expansion as it is 100% federally financed for the first couple of years and 90+% finaced after that, so it is good for their citizens. not to mention RED states draw more federal aid, and have a higher percentage of people in or near poverty, than Blue states.
It's not a tax. It is a penalty the Congress can levy under its power to tax.
Doesn't matter what you call it, the bottom line is tht freeloaders that could afford their own health care but refuse to get it will pay a penalty for making the REST OF US pay for their emergency room care when they get sick or injured.
"They have this day set a blazing torch to the temple of constitutional liberty, and, please God, we shall have no more peace forever." -- James Petigru of Charleston, during celebration of secession, 20-Dec-1860 --
"No matter how each man or woman answers the question, I think there will be but one result from what we have allowed the extremists to do to us. Heartbreak. -- Robert E. Lee, on being called to Washington to discuss secession and being asked "Which way will you go, sir ... north or south?", Early 1861 --
05-Aug-1861, President Lincoln, a republican, signs into law the first income tax in American history, a flat tax rate of 3% to help fund civil war.
Should we have learned by now that extremism is costly ...?
Once again, the repubs are posturing and strutting to convince folks that they will repeal the ACA. They are pandering to all the folks who will actually believe them. They had gains during the last election due to the fact that they promised and lied about creating jobs, jobs, and more jobs. How's that working out?? To all of you who don't think that you should have to have health insurance, my guess is that you have no qualms about going to the ER and telling them that you have no $$ and no insurance and expect the rest of us to pay. Since the government says that anyone has to be treated, you are home free.
You are NOT "home free", if they find out you have the money and assets to pay, you WILL pay. If you go bankrupt, that is your choice, but you will still pay. Half the personal bankruptcies are due to massive medical bills that amount to TWICE as much as other countries pay for the same procedures.
by cubscout09 July 3, 2012 11:26 AM EDT Stop the presses!!!
Mitch McConnell Isn't Lying!!!
And, he didn't say, "smoke and mirrors."
------------------------
FALSE. McConnell can't move his lips WITHOUT lying. Trust me, I LIVE in Kentucky and have listened to that old goat more years than I can to think about.
by louiville2_0 July 3, 2012 11:22 AM EDT arthanyel
LOL 21.1B "That would have been enough to feed EVERY HUNGRY PERSON ON EARTH" talk about a clueless statement. Where did you get that? That's like $3.00 each figure in trying to get the stuff to them would end up like $0.75 ea. the rest going to the infastructure.
----- cut here -----
Shows how much you know.
To deliver enough protein and vitamins to keep a person from starving costs about $1.50 per day (look it up). 21.4B would be about, as you say, $3.00 per day - more than double the actual cost. As for infrastructure costs, the 50% margin is plenty AND there are already many mechanisms in place to deliver the food, they just need the food itself - by best estimates, it would cost pretty close to the number you guessed, $0.75 per person, to add in ALL the new logistics sources. Which still leaves $2.25 for the food, which is more than $1.50.
How is it "breaking job creators" (and by the way, they arent creating ANY JOBS since they have had more tax breaks than ever and jobs arent being created) to ask them to donate the INCREASE IN THEIR WEALTH? I am not asking them to spend one penny they don't already have - and they already have BILLIONS.
I was just pointing out that if we need money to do the right thing the money is there, a fact you consistently ignore.
Louie - I work, and I make a healthy income - solidly in the top 5% :-)
And contrary to your opinion, stored wealth does not get redistributed so it never "goes back to the people", it stays locked up in trust funds, Cayman Islands "investments" and Swiss bank accoutns forever. Ask Romney - he knows all about it.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
I voted for Kerry in 2004 if that helps and was out of the country when Bush the first. I wanted McCain in 2000 since he was the only one who was seriously working on campaign finance reform
------------------
So.........curious louie....if you are for camapaign finance reform - how do you feel about corporations being "people"?
And How do you feel about Romney?
I don't really think Obama is divisive at all - I just think FINALLY we have a Democrat with a backbone! And I'm enjoying every minute of it! : )
And I think a good deal of the "divisiveness" DOES go back to the fact that he dares to be President AND Black!
"No matter how each man or woman answers the question, I think there will be but one result from what we have allowed the extremists to do to us. Heartbreak." -- Robert E. Lee, on being called to Washington to discuss secession and being asked "Which way will you go, sir ... north or south?", Early 1861 --
05-Aug-1861, President Lincoln, a republican, signs into law the first income tax in American history, a flat tax rate of 3% to help fund civil war.
Should we have learned by now that extremism is costly ...?
And virtually all the states will sign up to the expansion as it is 100% federally financed for the first couple of years and 90+% finaced after that, so it is good for their citizens. not to mention RED states draw more federal aid, and have a higher percentage of people in or near poverty, than Blue states.
Uhhh, someone want to remind the author 'it's a TAX" stupid.
Doesn't matter what you call it, the bottom line is tht freeloaders that could afford their own health care but refuse to get it will pay a penalty for making the REST OF US pay for their emergency room care when they get sick or injured.
"No matter how each man or woman answers the question, I think there will be but one result from what we have allowed the extremists to do to us. Heartbreak. -- Robert E. Lee, on being called to Washington to discuss secession and being asked "Which way will you go, sir ... north or south?", Early 1861 --
05-Aug-1861, President Lincoln, a republican, signs into law the first income tax in American history, a flat tax rate of 3% to help fund civil war.
Should we have learned by now that extremism is costly ...?
Stop the presses!!!
Mitch McConnell Isn't Lying!!!
And, he didn't say, "smoke and mirrors."
------------------------
FALSE. McConnell can't move his lips WITHOUT lying. Trust me, I LIVE in Kentucky and have listened to that old goat more years than I can to think about.
arthanyel
LOL 21.1B "That would have been enough to feed EVERY HUNGRY PERSON ON EARTH" talk about a clueless statement. Where did you get that? That's like $3.00 each figure in trying to get the stuff to them would end up like $0.75 ea. the rest going to the infastructure.
----- cut here -----
Shows how much you know.
To deliver enough protein and vitamins to keep a person from starving costs about $1.50 per day (look it up). 21.4B would be about, as you say, $3.00 per day - more than double the actual cost. As for infrastructure costs, the 50% margin is plenty AND there are already many mechanisms in place to deliver the food, they just need the food itself - by best estimates, it would cost pretty close to the number you guessed, $0.75 per person, to add in ALL the new logistics sources. Which still leaves $2.25 for the food, which is more than $1.50.
Even you can probably do that math.
How is it "breaking job creators" (and by the way, they arent creating ANY JOBS since they have had more tax breaks than ever and jobs arent being created) to ask them to donate the INCREASE IN THEIR WEALTH? I am not asking them to spend one penny they don't already have - and they already have BILLIONS.
I was just pointing out that if we need money to do the right thing the money is there, a fact you consistently ignore.
And contrary to your opinion, stored wealth does not get redistributed so it never "goes back to the people", it stays locked up in trust funds, Cayman Islands "investments" and Swiss bank accoutns forever. Ask Romney - he knows all about it.