Close but no cigar

[PonyUP]

http://http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/02/tax-deal-getting-close-democrats-worried-obama-may-cave/

I think this is why I get so frustrated with Washington. What Democrats aren't getting is that they do need to cave a little bit. It's ludacris to stick to your guns on the $250K mark. Small business owners will get killed by that, a middle class family living in New York or California will get killed by that.
There was a bipartisan compromise offer of extending it for everyone under $1million that seemed perfectly plausible to me.

I agree that they can't continue as placed, but a $1 mil compormise or extending them until the economy is fully back seems like the responsible thing to do.

Now I didn't start this to get more "Liberals are idiots" responses, I consider myself a liberal, but a level headed open minded liberal. The reason why I started this is I was curious about the response to the $1mil compromise suggestion.

as this site seems to be largely Republican, I'm curious if you think thats a good idea or not. Looking for spirited discussion, not more

"I'm x and y can never get it right"

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

http://http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/02/tax-deal-getting-close-democrats-worried-obama-may-cave/

I think this is why I get so frustrated with Washington. What Democrats aren't getting is that they do need to cave a little bit. It's ludacris to stick to your guns on the $250K mark. Small business owners will get killed by that, a middle class family living in New York or California will get killed by that.
There was a bipartisan compromise offer of extending it for everyone under $1million that seemed perfectly plausible to me.

I agree that they can't continue as placed, but a $1 mil compormise or extending them until the economy is fully back seems like the responsible thing to do.

Now I didn't start this to get more "Liberals are idiots" responses, I consider myself a liberal, but a level headed open minded liberal. The reason why I started this is I was curious about the response to the $1mil compromise suggestion.

as this site seems to be largely Republican, I'm curious if you think thats a good idea or not. Looking for spirited discussion, not more

"I'm x and y can never get it right"

:beer:
a level headed open minded liberal = oxymoron. ;) -----> :D

this site seems to be largely Republican... Not necessarily Republican, but definitely conservative.:cool:

BTW, fully agree with your points. FWIW, there was a wise man that once opined, "“You can’t tax your way into prosperity.” (SIGH!) Wish he were still around...

[PonyUP]

a level headed open minded liberal = oxymoron. ;) -----> :D

this site seems to be largely Republican... Not necessarily Republican, but definitely conservative.:cool:

BTW, fully agree with your points. FWIW, there was a wise man that once opined, "“You can’t tax your way into prosperity.” (SIGH!) Wish he were still around...

boy is that the truth. There are times when we are 50 individual states and times when we are one nation. It makes sense that when spending goes up, the revenue coming in needs to go up via taxation. However, wouldn't it jsut make sense to cut spending. There are worthwhile programs that I think need to be funded (and in some instances like with education, completely revamped and retooled as the existing federal funding isn't working) but then there are somethings that should be cut. Like do we need to invest in "a Star Wars" Missle defense or Obamacare, no. But they seem to have a license to print damning the consequences.

though I will say I was encouraged by the number of new congress people sleeping in their offices as opposed to taking money for housing. And even though I don't agree with our new speaker on a number of things, I detest our former speaker and was glad to hear that plane will no longer be used.

[GAMike]

You can tax your way to power tho...... As long as those tax dollars are redistributed to a larger patch of citizens than ones paying the taxes..... They will keep voting for the people that allow them to be on the dole.............

This combined with buying the debt as the Fed does, and the government buying their way in on the equity side (GM, AIG ect) of the same company as they have with all the TARP $$$.

These initiatives create an environment where those in power can influence company decisions, unions within the company org., and by extension influence product decisions/consumer choice.

With this in hand the government has alot of influence over the citizenry.... Not very appealing to me regardless of whose in power......:mad2:

[thathotrodlincn]

A signifivant problem with liberalisim is the liberals eventually run out out of other people's money.

[PonyUP]

A signifivant problem with liberalisim is the liberals eventually run out out of other people's money.


This doesn't hold true of all liberals, don't paint with such a broad brush. there are some liberals out there, like myself, that only want to spend the money we have and can budget for based on approval of the budget from both parties.

While both parties will never agree on the programs to spend it on entirely, there is room to accomplish both if planned correctly.

With a proper budget and finance management you could have

Health care for everyone
Tax cuts for everyone
Education Funding
and more states rights.

The problem is congress acts like a kid that got their first credit card

"You mean I can buy stuff without having the funds? Charge it"

And that's what both parties are doing. IMO,a lthough this particular administration is doing it at ALARMING rates that are scaring the hell out of me

[SC Cheesehead]

boy is that the truth. There are times when we are 50 individual states and times when we are one nation. It makes sense that when spending goes up, the revenue coming in needs to go up via taxation. However, wouldn't it just make sense to cut spending...

Hence, my oxymoron reference above...


This doesn't hold true of all liberals, don't paint with such a broad brush. there are some liberals out there, like myself, that only want to spend the money we have and can budget for based on approval of the budget from both parties.

With a proper budget and finance management you could have

Health care for everyone
Tax cuts for everyone
Education Funding
and more states rights.



I just figured it out. You're not a liberal; you, and the other "broad brush" folks you refer to are just confused conservatives...:D

[PonyUP]

Hence, my oxymoron reference above...



I just figured it out. You're not a liberal; you, and the other "broad brush" folks you refer to are just confused conservatives...:D

Maybe you're right. I think at the end of the day, for all level headed Americans, there is a lot more that unites us than divides us. The tough thing for me is that I agree with a number of things from both parties, and disagree with a number of things.

It's the extreme members on both sides that has the whole country fired up right now. I really have never seen so much resentment from the different political parties in my life. Sure, from the politicians, but there seems to be so much hatred between everyone that goes to the polls. I haven't seen this much violence at demonstrations and just general hatred since probably the 60's.

I guess part of it is a product of the 24hr agenda news stations. So many people are just sheep waiting to be lead and they spend endless hours watching these news channels, that the TV's opinion becomes their own. Whether it's CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or anyone else.

I saw a report the other day that Jimmy Carter said Fox News deliberately distorts the news to their benefit, then he threw in MSNBC so that he seemed even handed.
I hope none of the channels deliberately distorts the news (And Jimmy Carter has zero evidence) but I think all channels slant the news to their audience. The absent minded viewer takes the anger of people like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Keith Oberman, adopts it as their own and blows it out of proportion because what they don't realize is that all of the above are just trying to get ratings.

[kernie]

Maybe you're right. I think at the end of the day, for all level headed Americans, there is a lot more that unites us than divides us. The tough thing for me is that I agree with a number of things from both parties, and disagree with a number of things.

It's the extreme members on both sides that has the whole country fired up right now. I really have never seen so much resentment from the different political parties in my life. Sure, from the politicians, but there seems to be so much hatred between everyone that goes to the polls. I haven't seen this much violence at demonstrations and just general hatred since probably the 60's.

I guess part of it is a product of the 24hr agenda news stations. So many people are just sheep waiting to be lead and they spend endless hours watching these news channels, that the TV's opinion becomes their own. Whether it's CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or anyone else.

I saw a report the other day that Jimmy Carter said Fox News deliberately distorts the news to their benefit, then he threw in MSNBC so that he seemed even handed.
I hope none of the channels deliberately distorts the news (And Jimmy Carter has zero evidence) but I think all channels slant the news to their audience. The absent minded viewer takes the anger of people like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Keith Oberman, adopts it as their own and blows it out of proportion because what they don't realize is that all of the above are just trying to get ratings.

Perfect example, liberals need to quit trying to appease billy-bob.

[SC Cheesehead]

Perfect example, liberals need to quit trying to appease billy-bob.


Have you ever stopped to consider that Fox News isn't that far off on their reporting, and that it's the liberals demonizing the network that's really the issue?

Nope, prolly not.

Oxymoron reference #3...

[CBT]

Huffington Post, best news source. Wait, second best. Wiki-leaks is now the best source for finding the truth. Go Julian!!

[kernie]

Have you ever stopped to consider that Fox News isn't that far off on their reporting, and that it's the liberals demonizing the network that's really the issue?

Nope, prolly not.

Oxymoron reference #3...

Anyone who really believes {and i don't believe you really believe} that fox news isn't that far off the truth is well...not in the immediate neibourhood. :o

[PonyUP]

Let's get back on topic, I really don't want a liberal vs conservative Rocky type argument here. Waht do you guys think is the best compromise for the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts. Neither side is going to get what they want, so whats the best middle ground?

[kernie]

Let's get back on topic, I really don't want a liberal vs conservative Rocky type argument here. Waht do you guys think is the best compromise for the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts. Neither side is going to get what they want, so whats the best middle ground?

Well the only chance of that happening is if the liberal voice speaks with a very soft voice or not at all.

I won't appease anyone, ever! So good luck, i will bow out now.

[CBT]

Let's get back on topic, I really don't want a liberal vs conservative Rocky type argument here. Waht do you guys think is the best compromise for the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts. Neither side is going to get what they want, so whats the best middle ground?

Extend tax cuts to folks making less than 250,000. Extend unemployment benefits. Then tax the ever living **** out of:
1.) The companies that used to be here but shipped factories overseas to make a bigger profit.
2.) The companies that did stay here but outsource most of the online/tech/support centers out of the U.S.
3.) War profiteers.
4.) Mexico. Their biggest export is poverty, and it is exported to us, so send them a bill.

The Gov. allowed corporations to offshore or outright eliminate American jobs so **** 'em, let them keep paying unemployment benefits.

Next topic.

[MOTOWN]

Extend tax cuts to folks making less than 250,000. Extend unemployment benefits. Then tax the ever living **** out of:
1.) The companies that used to be here but shipped factories overseas to make a bigger profit.
2.) The companies that did stay here but outsource most of the online/tech/support centers out of the U.S.
3.) War profiteers.
4.) Mexico. Their biggest export is poverty, and it is exported to us, so send them a bill.

The Gov. allowed corporations to offshore or outright eliminate American jobs so **** 'em, let them keep paying unemployment benefits.

Next topic.
+1000 i couldnt have said it any better than that! i totaly agree with your stance:beer:

[PonyUP]

Extend tax cuts to folks making less than 250,000. Extend unemployment benefits. Then tax the ever living **** out of:
1.) The companies that used to be here but shipped factories overseas to make a bigger profit.
2.) The companies that did stay here but outsource most of the online/tech/support centers out of the U.S.
3.) War profiteers.
4.) Mexico. Their biggest export is poverty, and it is exported to us, so send them a bill.

The Gov. allowed corporations to offshore or outright eliminate American jobs so **** 'em, let them keep paying unemployment benefits.

Next topic.

I like taxing the companies outsourcing to other countries and definitely feel we need to curb the flow of illegal immigrants coming from all countries.
But don't you feel that if we raise taxes on those over $250K it hurts the small business owner, which means they won't hire anyone.
And it hurts the middle calss in area with a higher cost of living where salaries are higher.
$250K in New York would be similar to making $100K in Kansas.
But the key is it has to be based on the individual. The $250K cap they are talking about now is for houesholds, it's a little word they have slid in there.

[packardbob]

I don't usually comment on political issues, but I think the people here are much more level minded than elsewhere, so I will indulge myself and get political for a moment. I consider myself a Libertarian, small gov't, low taxes, and alot of personal freedom. Everybody wants low taxes, but then who foots the bill for DC? Penn Jillette said it best when he exclaimed, "the government needs to spend less of our f*****g money, problem solved!" Were the Dems ignorant for passing on a million dollar/year compromise? In a nutshell, yes, but Bush was stupid for cutting taxes and continuing to spend like a drunken sailor. Wait a moment, I didn't mean to insult sailors, at least they quit spending when they run out of money. If the Republicans want to cut taxes, which I am all for, they need to reel in spending first. If the Dems want to continue to tax the hell out of the people that earn the most money, get ready for a lousey economy. People arent going to invest more money into creating new jobs if the money is now on it's way to DC. These people aren't stupid, they have their money budgeted, X amount for payroll, Y amount for capital improvements, Z amount for savings... If the government comes in and starts taking a bigger chunk, businesses will cut the fat, but sooner or later personel will either get a payfreeze or get fired.

[CBT]

I like taxing the companies outsourcing to other countries and definitely feel we need to curb the flow of illegal immigrants coming from all countries.
But don't you feel that if we raise taxes on those over $250K it hurts the small business owner, <---No, I do not feel that way. which means they won't hire anyone.
And it hurts the middle calss in area with a higher cost of living where salaries are higher.
$250K in New York would be similar to making $100K in Kansas.
But the key is it has to be based on the individual. The $250K cap they are talking about now is for houesholds, it's a little word they have slid in there.


"The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. ... They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." --James MadisonBarack Hussein Obama, intent on increasing your taxes in January by way of letting the Bush-era tax reductions expire (ostensibly to reduce the deficits Democrats created (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/reference/who-got-stimulated/)1), has launched a ruse to steal the budget-cutting thunder of his Republican opponents.
First, Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for some 3,000 of his high-paid political appointees. Then he announced a freeze on the wages of all federal workers for the next two years.
One Social Security administrator summed up the reaction of her fellow federal union workers: "That's why Obama's ratings are below Bush's, and that's hard to be unless you're Osama bin Laden. I can't wait until I retire."
Well, given the fact that federal bureaucrats are now endowed with grossly disproportionate wages and benefits, one can understand why retirement remains attractive for them. On the other hand, millions of private sector citizens will be working well beyond retirement age in order to make ends meet, especially given the increased tax burdens they'll likely incur in the future to pay off Obama's deficit.
Let's review the most recent data.
Compared to more productive private sector employees, whose income is confiscated to pay government wages and benefits, hourly government workers are paid 57 percent more than those in the private sector for comparable jobs ($28.64/hour vs. $18.27/hour). Salaried bureaucrats enjoy average annual wages of $78,901, while those in the private sector average $50,111, and the number of bureaucrats collecting more than $150,000 a year has doubled since Obama took office.
When benefits such as taxpayer-funded contributions to pensions are included, government bureaucrats end up with 85 percent more compensation than their private sector comparables.
On top of that disparity, bureaucrat jobs are virtually tenured, both recession proof and unaffected by a dearth of productivity. Benjamin Franklin once famously said, "Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Today, however, you can add government jobs to the short list of guarantees.
Notably, Obama did not order a freeze on government hiring, and I can assure you that the number of exemptions for government agency wage freezes will eventually equal the number of government agencies. Additionally, Obama didn't freeze promotions, meaning that any federal worker can receive a de facto pay raise by "promotion" into the next incremental GSA scale.
Since the beginning of the current recession, private sector employment is down 6.8 percent. On the other hand, Obama has used taxpayer funds and debt on future generations, his so-called "recovery program (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/07/29/taxes-do-not-create-jobs/)2," to grow the ranks of central government bureaucrats by more than 10 percent in the same time period.
Of course, Obama's wage-freeze charade fails to put any noticeable dent into his accumulating $1,000,000,000,000-plus deficits. Taxes, he says, must be increased to do that.
Once again, let's review.
Like any devoted Socialist, Obama's objective is to break the back of free enterprise (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/07/08/barackracy-part-1/)3, in this case, with unbearable deficits. When challenged about his motives, Obama invariably claims that he "inherited this mess" from the Bush administration.
However, the Executive Branch does not set the budget. Congress does. And from the '09 budget forward, budget deficits have increased greatly.
For the record (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/reference/who-got-stimulated/)1, Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007, about the time the housing market collapse (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2008/09/26/economics-101-crisis-of-confidence/)4 began. Thus, Democrats controlled the budgets for FY2008 and FY2009 as they did with FY2010 and FY2011.
For FY2008 Democrats compromised with President Bush on spending. However, for FY2009 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed the Bush administration by way of continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office.
Again, for the record, Obama was a member of the Senate majority in 2007 and 2008, and he voted for those spending bills.
The last budget deficit that Democrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Thus, the only deficit Obama has inherited is that which he and his Democrat majorities generated.
Those pesky facts notwithstanding, a Republican majority is about to take over the House, and Republicans in the Senate seem to have found a spine.
If Republicans are serious about budget and deficit control, they should start by cutting their own bloated salaries and budgets. There is no greater sweetheart deal than being elected to our national legislature, where members of Congress are paid exorbitantly, and are eligible for lifetime benefits after "serving" for just five years -- one term for Senators. If they are perpetually elected, as is the case with many members, they are eligible for almost 80 percent of their salary as a guaranteed annual pension.
Membership certainly has its privileges.
If members of Congress don't like the pay cuts, perhaps we can cut their time accordingly. Send them home more often, and see if a little of the reality outside the Beltway sinks in.
As my colleague Cal Thomas opined this week, "The Founders were keenly aware of the danger of a Congress divorced from the realities of the rest of the country. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Roger Sherman of Connecticut wrote, 'Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.'"
If Republicans are really serious about the constitutional role of government (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/11/18/if-republicans-are-serious-about-budget-cutting/)5, they should identify any and all taxes and expenditures not expressly authorized by our Constitution, and schedule them for termination. While they are at it, they should revoke congressional exemptions, and make themselves subject to the same laws and regulations they impose upon the rest of us. (Oh, and Mr. Speaker-to-be, return Pelosi's opulent Boeing 757 to the Air Force, and settle for something smaller.)
For his part, poor Barry Obama lamented this week that he might have to delay his "holiday vacation" to Hawaii in order to get his tax-and-spend agenda through Congress. (How many golf outings and exotic vacations must our nouveau riche lotto winner take?)
Perhaps Obama should take a tax lesson from John Kennedy, the father of the modern Democrat party: "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget.... As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance."
Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers.

[PonyUP]

"The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. ... They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." --James Madison
Barack Hussein Obama, intent on increasing your taxes in January by way of letting the Bush-era tax reductions expire (ostensibly to reduce the deficits Democrats created (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/reference/who-got-stimulated/)1), has launched a ruse to steal the budget-cutting thunder of his Republican opponents.
First, Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for some 3,000 of his high-paid political appointees. Then he announced a freeze on the wages of all federal workers for the next two years.
One Social Security administrator summed up the reaction of her fellow federal union workers: "That's why Obama's ratings are below Bush's, and that's hard to be unless you're Osama bin Laden. I can't wait until I retire."
Well, given the fact that federal bureaucrats are now endowed with grossly disproportionate wages and benefits, one can understand why retirement remains attractive for them. On the other hand, millions of private sector citizens will be working well beyond retirement age in order to make ends meet, especially given the increased tax burdens they'll likely incur in the future to pay off Obama's deficit.
Let's review the most recent data.
Compared to more productive private sector employees, whose income is confiscated to pay government wages and benefits, hourly government workers are paid 57 percent more than those in the private sector for comparable jobs ($28.64/hour vs. $18.27/hour). Salaried bureaucrats enjoy average annual wages of $78,901, while those in the private sector average $50,111, and the number of bureaucrats collecting more than $150,000 a year has doubled since Obama took office.
When benefits such as taxpayer-funded contributions to pensions are included, government bureaucrats end up with 85 percent more compensation than their private sector comparables.
On top of that disparity, bureaucrat jobs are virtually tenured, both recession proof and unaffected by a dearth of productivity. Benjamin Franklin once famously said, "Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Today, however, you can add government jobs to the short list of guarantees.
Notably, Obama did not order a freeze on government hiring, and I can assure you that the number of exemptions for government agency wage freezes will eventually equal the number of government agencies. Additionally, Obama didn't freeze promotions, meaning that any federal worker can receive a de facto pay raise by "promotion" into the next incremental GSA scale.
Since the beginning of the current recession, private sector employment is down 6.8 percent. On the other hand, Obama has used taxpayer funds and debt on future generations, his so-called "recovery program (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/07/29/taxes-do-not-create-jobs/)2," to grow the ranks of central government bureaucrats by more than 10 percent in the same time period.
Of course, Obama's wage-freeze charade fails to put any noticeable dent into his accumulating $1,000,000,000,000-plus deficits. Taxes, he says, must be increased to do that.
Once again, let's review.
Like any devoted Socialist, Obama's objective is to break the back of free enterprise (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/07/08/barackracy-part-1/)3, in this case, with unbearable deficits. When challenged about his motives, Obama invariably claims that he "inherited this mess" from the Bush administration.
However, the Executive Branch does not set the budget. Congress does. And from the '09 budget forward, budget deficits have increased greatly.
For the record (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/reference/who-got-stimulated/)1, Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007, about the time the housing market collapse (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2008/09/26/economics-101-crisis-of-confidence/)4 began. Thus, Democrats controlled the budgets for FY2008 and FY2009 as they did with FY2010 and FY2011.
For FY2008 Democrats compromised with President Bush on spending. However, for FY2009 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed the Bush administration by way of continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office.
Again, for the record, Obama was a member of the Senate majority in 2007 and 2008, and he voted for those spending bills.
The last budget deficit that Democrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Thus, the only deficit Obama has inherited is that which he and his Democrat majorities generated.
Those pesky facts notwithstanding, a Republican majority is about to take over the House, and Republicans in the Senate seem to have found a spine.
If Republicans are serious about budget and deficit control, they should start by cutting their own bloated salaries and budgets. There is no greater sweetheart deal than being elected to our national legislature, where members of Congress are paid exorbitantly, and are eligible for lifetime benefits after "serving" for just five years -- one term for Senators. If they are perpetually elected, as is the case with many members, they are eligible for almost 80 percent of their salary as a guaranteed annual pension.
Membership certainly has its privileges.
If members of Congress don't like the pay cuts, perhaps we can cut their time accordingly. Send them home more often, and see if a little of the reality outside the Beltway sinks in.
As my colleague Cal Thomas opined this week, "The Founders were keenly aware of the danger of a Congress divorced from the realities of the rest of the country. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Roger Sherman of Connecticut wrote, 'Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.'"
If Republicans are really serious about the constitutional role of government (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000059/!x-usc:http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/11/18/if-republicans-are-serious-about-budget-cutting/)5, they should identify any and all taxes and expenditures not expressly authorized by our Constitution, and schedule them for termination. While they are at it, they should revoke congressional exemptions, and make themselves subject to the same laws and regulations they impose upon the rest of us. (Oh, and Mr. Speaker-to-be, return Pelosi's opulent Boeing 757 to the Air Force, and settle for something smaller.)
For his part, poor Barry Obama lamented this week that he might have to delay his "holiday vacation" to Hawaii in order to get his tax-and-spend agenda through Congress. (How many golf outings and exotic vacations must our nouveau riche lotto winner take?)
Perhaps Obama should take a tax lesson from John Kennedy, the father of the modern Democrat party: "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget.... As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance."
Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers.

I still lament that since they are talking about households, a husband that makes $150K (In New York this could be a middle management position) and a wife making $100K their taxes would go up greatly.

I think there needs to be a cap, it just needs to be higher than $250K. If a small business owner owns an ice cream shop, and it makes $500K in the year, he has no tax breaks and after he pays his employees, lease, utilities and vendors and the increased taxes, he takes home a lot less pay.

I will say that it is not a fair defense for Obama to say he inherited this economy. I also think the President doesn't have as much impact on the economy as we think. The crash, was not Bushes fault, no one was watching and some major institutions collapsed. It's really no different than previous market crashes that crippled the economy.

However the point about the Budget. Both Congress and the President need to sign off on the Budget. Congress yields the most power as they hold the right of continuing resolutions. but at the end of the day, the President submits a budget to congress for approval, and then they negotiate until both are happy that nothing is being accomplished. Which is why it's dangerous to have the same party in the White House that is in control of congress. It's why we haven't had a balanced Budget since Clinton with a Republican Congress. It could have happened under Bush with a democratic congress, but there were wars to fight which greatly increased spending, tax cuts that needed to be paid for, and other programs.
Maybe if we didn't enter the war in Iraq, a balanced budget may have been possible. But into todays world, there is just too much animosity between parties to work together.

[CBT]

I still lament that since they are talking about households, a husband that makes $150K (In New York this could be a middle management position) and a wife making $100K their taxes would go up greatly.

I think there needs to be a cap, it just needs to be higher than $250K. If a small business owner owns an ice cream shop, and it makes $500K in the year, he has no tax breaks and after he pays his employees, lease, utilities and vendors and the increased taxes, he takes home a lot less pay.

I will say that it is not a fair defense for Obama to say he inherited this economy. I also think the President doesn't have as much impact on the economy as we think. The crash, was not Bushes fault, no one was watching and some major institutions collapsed. It's really no different than previous market crashes that crippled the economy.

However the point about the Budget. Both Congress and the President need to sign off on the Budget. Congress yields the most power as they hold the right of continuing resolutions. but at the end of the day, the President submits a budget to congress for approval, and then they negotiate until both are happy that nothing is being accomplished. Which is why it's dangerous to have the same party in the White House that is in control of congress. It's why we haven't had a balanced Budget since Clinton with a Republican Congress. It could have happened under Bush with a democratic congress, but there were wars to fight which greatly increased spending, tax cuts that needed to be paid for, and other programs.
Maybe if we didn't enter the war in Iraq, a balanced budget may have been possible. But into todays world, there is just too much animosity between parties to work together.

There's another money saver, get out of other peoples sand boxes. Like my post last week said, kids who watched the twin towers fall in the 5th grade are now fighting in Iraq and Afghannyland. Can someone explain how these two wars has helped/benefited America? Oh snap, our tax dollars are funding it? I think people should be allowed to pay whatever amount of tax they feel like donating. Some. None. All. Whatever. Or, pick the specific social program they feel like thier tax dollars should go directly towards. I'm all about the welfare phones I posted about already. :mad2:

[FordNut]

Back to the original post,

I agree, increasing taxes at the $250k level is a bad idea, and the bipartisan plan to keep taxes the same for everybody under $1 million seems reasonable, even several millionaires think so.

A big problem with the tax policies is exactly as mentioned in another post, $250k is a lot of money here in East TN, but it's not very much in San Francisco or New York City. Taxes really need to be indexed based on the regional cost of living.

[FordNut]

Another thing, the Pelosi-led democrats are using the exact same "no amendments" tactic they had been using prior to the election, so they can try to ram thru legislation the way they want it... They didn't learn anything at all from the polls.

[PonyUP]

There's another money saver, get out of other peoples sand boxes. Like my post last week said, kids who watched the twin towers fall in the 5th grade are now fighting in Iraq and Afghannyland. Can someone explain how these two wars has helped/benefited America? Oh snap, our tax dollars are funding it? I think people should be allowed to pay whatever amount of tax they feel like donating. Some. None. All. Whatever. Or, pick the specific social program they feel like thier tax dollars should go directly towards. I'm all about the welfare phones I posted about already. :mad2:

A great point, the wars have cost over $1.3 Trillion, which would be a huge cost savings. I don't think leaving taxes up to whatever people want to donate however will work. There's too many people trying to scam the system that would donate nothing.

But it should all be public knowledge as to exactly where our taxes go. I guess this is addressed by the Freedom of Information act, however no one is going to read a bill that is 5000 pages long. How about we instead institute a 3 page limit to all bills, eliminate earmarks, and give everything a straight thumbs up or down vote

[PonyUP]

Another thing, the Pelosi-led democrats are using the exact same "no amendments" tactic they had been using prior to the election, so they can try to ram thru legislation the way they want it... They didn't learn anything at all from the polls.

And this is what saddens me, for both sides really. When Bush had a Republican congress the same thign went on, and this is the Dem's version of veangence. And it goes back long before that.

What really saddens me is that there a great ideas on both sides of the aisle, they just need to be willing to listen and work together as a team. There is no team atmosphere there, only name calling and an us vs. them mentality.

I get so angered when Democrats are called socialists, and liberals are termed as fringe fanatics. And conservatives are railed as bible bangers and tea party is pasted as nutbags. All groups above truly want what they feel is best for their country and their voice deserves to be heard, we are a free country. Unfortunately your freedom is determined by your bank account, which is why we must break the 2 party system and have hardline campaign finance reform. Until then, only 2 voices will be heard, and they will constantly be at each others throat

[Vortex]

When Republicans talk about how Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire on incomes over $250,000. would hurt small business, they are talking about some really, really huge businesses which are classified as 'small business' for tax purposes only. They are talking about any S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship, some of which have incomes of billions of dollars. For example, the Bechtel Corporation, the largest construction company in the world with 2009 revenues of $30.8 billion is classified as a 'small business' for tax purposes. Price Waterhouse Coopers, an accounting firm with $26 billion in revenue in 2009, is classified as a 'small business.' It seems that any business with less than 100 owners can be classified as a small business no matter how many employees or how much revenue they have. Some small businesses are owned by billionaires. Koch Industries, a conglomerate of partnerships with 70,000 employees, owned by the billionaire Koch brothers (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer) Charles and David, is classified as a 'small business.'

In other words, lets let the little guys foot the bill for the big guys some more. What a joke.

[1 Bad Merc]

I recently ran into a quote from a 18th century Frenchman that really rings true today. He said this about America -

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"-Alexis de Tocqueville

I find this statement to be very prophetic.

[MrBluGruv]

Back to the original post,

I agree, increasing taxes at the $250k level is a bad idea, and the bipartisan plan to keep taxes the same for everybody under $1 million seems reasonable, even several millionaires think so.

A big problem with the tax policies is exactly as mentioned in another post, $250k is a lot of money here in East TN, but it's not very much in San Francisco or New York City. Taxes really need to be indexed based on the regional cost of living.

Or maybe a flat tax. It's hard to be unfair with that....

[Mustang man]

After reading your posts it sounds as if you have mislabeled yourself a "liberal". You sound more like a Democrat that may have some liberal leanings. I've never talked to a true Liberal that sounds as level headed as you. Liberals usually dont know the meaning of compromise or common sense and believe they know everything and whats best for everybody.

[PonyUP]

After reading your posts it sounds as if you have mislabeled yourself a "liberal". You sound more like a Democrat that may have some liberal leanings. I've never talked to a true Liberal that sounds as level headed as you. Liberals usually dont know the meaning of compromise or common sense and believe they know everything and whats best for everybody.

Thanks for the kind words. Your assessment is probably more accurate that I am more of a dem with some liberal tendencies. I really believe that many views and beliefs in the realm of politics have validity, but too many times politicians are playing to their base. Unfortunately I think their base are actually the hardcore fanatics that refuse to compromise. Things can get done when we walk in one anothers shoes

:beer:

[LIGHTNIN1]

a level headed open minded liberal = oxymoron. ;) -----> :D

this site seems to be largely Republican... Not necessarily Republican, but definitely conservative.:cool:

BTW, fully agree with your points. FWIW, there was a wise man that once opined, "“You can’t tax your way into prosperity.” (SIGH!) Wish he were still around...

You get it. Too bad other people don't. Liberal thought does not work, just ask Frankie Roosevelt.

[kernie]

You get it. Too bad other people don't. Liberal thought does not work, just ask Frankie Roosevelt.

Check out the top 10 in this newsweek piece, they must be the 10 most liberal countries in the world.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

Just saying...

[justbob]

Politics cause way too much hatred just like feelings on abortion, religion, a teachers job, legalize pot, and so many more. Why argue an opinion? You can call something a fact, but there will always be something to counter it. There will always be better and wiser views than yours (whoever is reading this), government will never be small, money will always be wasted, and so and so will be a dumbass.

This thread has gone fairly well actually, where it makes me sick seeing the name calling in most... Get over your strong feelings about something you will never be 100% happy with, and things you have NO control over and go smoke some tires.

Most of us wouldn't even come to agreement on proper air pressure or even the simplest things like how to properly cup a boobie or what is the best underwear for men..

1. 40 PSI
2. From the rear obviously..
3. Expensive boxer briefs

Just glad to see not too much hatin this time. Were MEN, so we will always be able to solve issues over a cold one atleast..PEACE BROTHERS.

[SC Cheesehead]

Check out the top 10 in this newsweek piece, they must be the 10 most liberal countries in the world.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

Just saying...

So, by inference, if we all adopt socialistic governments, our problems will magically be solved?

Sorry, ain't buying that.

[CBT]

A great point, the wars have cost over $1.3 Trillion, which would be a huge cost savings. I don't think leaving taxes up to whatever people want to donate however will work. There's too many people trying to scam the system that would donate nothing.

But it should all be public knowledge as to exactly where our taxes go. I guess this is addressed by the Freedom of Information act, however no one is going to read a bill that is 5000 pages long. How about we instead institute a 3 page limit to all bills, eliminate earmarks, and give everything a straight thumbs up or down vote

I like that idea :beer:

[CBT]

Politics cause way too much hatred just like feelings on abortion, religion, a teachers job, legalize pot, and so many more. Why argue an opinion? You can call something a fact, but there will always be something to counter it. There will always be better and wiser views than yours (whoever is reading this), government will never be small, money will always be wasted, and so and so will be a dumbass.

This thread has gone fairly well actually, where it makes me sick seeing the name calling in most... Get over your strong feelings about something you will never be 100% happy with, and things you have NO control over and go smoke some tires.

Most of us wouldn't even come to agreement on proper air pressure or even the simplest things like how to properly cup a boobie or what is the best underwear for men..

1. 40 PSI
2. From the rear obviously..
3. Expensive boxer briefs

Just glad to see not too much hatin this time. Were MEN, so we will always be able to solve issues over a cold one atleast..PEACE BROTHERS.

LOL, I don't even want to know why you think of boobies and mens underwear at the same time. :eek:

[justbob]

LOL, I don't even want to know why you think of boobies and mens underwear at the same time. :eek:
And this is why I love you man! Stay coooooool:D

[SC Cheesehead]

I like that idea :beer:

I'll second the motion! :up:

[PonyUP]

Politics cause way too much hatred just like feelings on abortion, religion, a teachers job, legalize pot, and so many more. Why argue an opinion? You can call something a fact, but there will always be something to counter it. There will always be better and wiser views than yours (whoever is reading this), government will never be small, money will always be wasted, and so and so will be a dumbass.

This thread has gone fairly well actually, where it makes me sick seeing the name calling in most... Get over your strong feelings about something you will never be 100% happy with, and things you have NO control over and go smoke some tires.

Most of us wouldn't even come to agreement on proper air pressure or even the simplest things like how to properly cup a boobie or what is the best underwear for men..

1. 40 PSI
2. From the rear obviously..
3. Expensive boxer briefs

Just glad to see not too much hatin this time. Were MEN, so we will always be able to solve issues over a cold one atleast..PEACE BROTHERS.


Big ++++++111111. From behind is always the best way to grab boobies, that way you can get a good rub on the arse.

that having been said, I have truly enjoyed this thread because it has been an open discussion with some ideas and not the name calling that you mentioned. We all come from different walks of life and have different things that are important to us. We come together in a community where we ahve something in common= The Mighty Marauder, and from there we ahve shared a number of things, helped each other out, argued, but at the end of the day all is always cool.

The politicians could learn something from mm.net (Both sites actually. How to act from Mercury Marauder.net, and how to order an asian mail bride from mm.net)

:beer:

[CBT]

I have learned something, I did not know mega-corporations could be classified as small business. That is B.S., I'm going to incorporate myself as a small business entity and get tax write offs.

[1 Bad Merc]

Did you happen to see the new unemployment figures for this month? We had a month of job losses and unemployment has gone up to 9.7 percent. This is the longest run ever (history of the US) for the unemployment rate to be over 9 percent!

I read that the real unemployment rate is an unbelievable -17%! These are levels never seen before in our country and it's worse then the depression era.

We've got some major problems my brothers.

[PonyUP]

I have learned something, I did not know mega-corporations could be classified as small business. That is B.S., I'm going to incorporate myself as a small business entity and get tax write offs.

You are a small business Casey, you walk the streets for money as Casey Garvin-Male Prostitute. Your a small business with a small package :lol:

I have to admit, I didn't know that either about corporations. There are so many loopholes in the tax code, perhaps greater effort should be put towards closing those loop holes, then we wouldn't have to worry about the tax cut or increase.

[PonyUP]

Check out the top 10 in this newsweek piece, they must be the 10 most liberal countries in the world.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

Just saying...

I understand your point Kernie, but it is tough to compare many of those countries to the United States. As a world leader, we face different challenges than a Switzerland or Sweden, or really even France for that matter. When something major goes wrong in the world, all those countries are able to bow out as far as participation, unfortunately we have not been so lucky.

We also face different issues. As a spoiled nation we want to have our cake and eat it to. Our country as a whole is obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses and getting what we want. We have bread a culture of I want it now and I'll worry about it in the future.

We also have a larger population, more land mass in many cases, as well as 50 states to worry about. Our country was designed to give power to the states as well as the Fed and sometimes the needs of the individual state are completely different from the Fed.

I think there are some things to learn from some of those countries, but they ahve some things to learn from us as well.

[sailsmen]

Any business owner who is taxed as an individual continues with the current tax rate on a pro-rata share for the time they own the business. This makes certain the small business owner, where ~80% of new jobs come from in a recovery/recession, does not get hit with the tax increase.

It will also encourage people to become business owners providing much needed capital. For ever $1 Gov't borrows it crowds out 33 cents in private capital. In 2 years Gov't has borrowed ~$3.5 Trillion chocking off private capital to the point of strangulation.

[GAMike]

Funny - I heard yesterday that a government spokesperson said " not extending jobless benefits will put up to 600,00 more people out of work"....

What is wrong with the government when they are looking at the "spending" habits of the unemployed to fuel growth? These guys have no fiscal compass what so ever. Just goes to show that you need demonstrated real world experience to run a country.......

Not community organizing kiss a$$ both side of the mouth shmoozing skills...:mad2:


Any business owner who is taxed as an individual continues with the current tax rate on a pro-rata share for the time they own the business. This makes certain the business owner, where ~80% of new jobs come from in a recovery/recession, does not get hit with the tax increase.

It will also encourage people to become business owners providing much needed capital. For ever $1 Gov't borrows it crowds out 33 cents in private capital. In 2 years Gov't has borrowed ~$3.5 Trillion chocking off private capital to the point of strangulation.

[sailsmen]

The only Cabinet member who ever owned a business was Orszag who started a consulting business and he quit in July. The rest of the Cabinet members the closest to private sector were lobbyist, attorneys for political law firms and academia.
They have impressive resumees and they have never started a business, never made a payroll, never made a business plan, never borrowed money to start a business, never purchased insurance, never hired a CPA or lawyer, never been through an OSHA audit, never attended an EEOC complaint as the employer, never been sued as a business owner, never laid off workers, etc, etc.

The $600 1099 requirement is a perfect example of their ignorance. I bought a business computer from Best Buy for $800 so I will have to get Best Buy's Tax ID number and then send them a 1099.

[CBT]

The only Cabinet member who ever owned a business was Orszag who started a consulting business and he quit in July. The rest of the Cabinet members the closest to private sector were lobbyist, attorneys for political law firms and academia.
They have impressive resumees and they have never started a business, never made a payroll, never made a business plan, never borrowed money to start a business, never purchased insurance, never hired a CPA or lawyer, never been through an OSHA audit, never attended an EEOC complaint as the employer, never been sued as a business owner, never laid off workers, etc, etc.

The $600 1099 requirement is a perfect example of their ignorance. I bought a business computer from Best Buy for $800 so I will have to get Best Buy's Tax ID number and then send them a 1099.

When I become an LLC, I'm writing off my computer also, thanks for the info!

[SC Cheesehead]

The only Cabinet member who ever owned a business was Orszag who started a consulting business and he quit in July. The rest of the Cabinet members the closest to private sector were lobbyist, attorneys for political law firms and academia.
They have impressive resumees and they have never started a business, never made a payroll, never made a business plan, never borrowed money to start a business, never purchased insurance, never hired a CPA or lawyer, never been through an OSHA audit, never attended an EEOC complaint as the employer, never been sued as a business owner, never laid off workers, etc, etc.

The $600 1099 requirement is a perfect example of their ignorance. I bought a business computer from Best Buy for $800 so I will have to get Best Buy's Tax ID number and then send them a 1099.


^^^^^ You nailed it, my friend. ^^^^^^

To paraphrase old Louie Armstrong, "If you can't feel it, I can't hardly 'splain it to you." Our current administration in a nutshell. :shake:

[PonyUP]

The only Cabinet member who ever owned a business was Orszag who started a consulting business and he quit in July. The rest of the Cabinet members the closest to private sector were lobbyist, attorneys for political law firms and academia.
They have impressive resumees and they have never started a business, never made a payroll, never made a business plan, never borrowed money to start a business, never purchased insurance, never hired a CPA or lawyer, never been through an OSHA audit, never attended an EEOC complaint as the employer, never been sued as a business owner, never laid off workers, etc, etc.

The $600 1099 requirement is a perfect example of their ignorance. I bought a business computer from Best Buy for $800 so I will have to get Best Buy's Tax ID number and then send them a 1099.

Yes, you really nailed it here. How can we expect the Congress to budget for a country and manage a tax system for a country,when they have no experience doing it on any level. Great point.

[sailsmen]

Very few Congressmen have ever owned a business. I think my suggestion of keeping the current tax rate for those who own a business that is taxed as an individual is brilliant and yet all these brilliant politicians never thought of it. Supposedly the Republicans are pro business so why didn't they think of it and supposedly the Democrats are Progressive with new ideas so why didn't they think of it? Because they are all focused on ideology and not solutions.

[MrBluGruv]

What is wrong with the government when they are looking at the "spending" habits of the unemployed to fuel growth? These guys have no fiscal compass what so ever. Just goes to show that you need demonstrated real world experience to run a country.......

I think that that's a sure sign of the long-term corruption within government, as such a HEAVY reliance on shady economic practices can only come about from turning a blind eye and refusing to address a problem or inappropriate behavior when it arises.

[SC Cheesehead]

I think that that's a sure sign of the long-term corruption within government, as such a HEAVY reliance on shady economic practices can only come about from turning a blind eye and refusing to address a problem or inappropriate behavior when it arises.


"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton

[sailsmen]

What is totally out of whack is the influence a small group of people have on our Nation's fiscal policy regardless of which party is in the WH it is the same group of WS guys. Yet if you look at the total monetary bucket this group represents it is less than 2% of our economy and they are calling all the shots.
Look at where all the top Treasury and Fed people came from for the past 40 years, all from the same small group.
They come up with schemes such as the Fed printing money and giving it to the banks as a 0% loan with no terms and then the banks use that free printed money to buy the TBills from the Treasury. The only real money is the interest that we pay.
This kind of "scheme" is exactly why the dollar will be replaced as the standard for trading oil. When you see the price of oil fluctuate most of the time it is due to changes in the value of the dollar, supply/demand does not change that quickly, from "schemes" this small group has cooked up.

Where are the torches and pitch forks?

[SC Cheesehead]

Line forms to the right...
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/07/500x_custom_1279603353670_fran kenstein_mob.jpg&sa=X&ei=7H_6TMqKEcH-8Aa6g-HlBw&ved=0CAQQ8wc4FA&usg=AFQjCNE5ryvAQtYx4H1zVv6ImA 3psRq0Yw

[kernie]

Line forms to the right...
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/07/500x_custom_1279603353670_fran kenstein_mob.jpg&sa=X&ei=7H_6TMqKEcH-8Aa6g-HlBw&ved=0CAQQ8wc4FA&usg=AFQjCNE5ryvAQtYx4H1zVv6ImA 3psRq0Yw
Whatcha after?

Liberals? :help:

[SC Cheesehead]

Whatcha after?

Liberals? :help:

:D

This is Sailsman's mob, and I think he's after politicians in general... ;)

[PonyUP]

:D

This is Sailsman's mob, and I think he's after politicians in general... ;)

I normally don't subscribe to a mob mentality, but if we're going after politicians in general, sign me up

[kernie]

:D

This is Sailsman's mob, and I think he's after politicians in general... ;)


I normally don't subscribe to a mob mentality, but if we're going after politicians in general, sign me up

Well i'm not overly fond of em myself...

But who are we gonna put in charge after we git em?

I say we let Leadfoot decide!

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

Well i'm not overly fond of em myself...

But who are we gonna put in charge after we git em?

I say we put Leadfoot in charge!

:beer:

fixed it for you... :D

[Leadfoot281]

Lol!!! ^^^

My rule would last about 3 weeks before someone knocked me off.

Domestic issues.
1. Appoint Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, and a German Shepard to the Supreme Court. After that, I'd teach the remaining members how to read and write.
2. Stop illegal "immigrants" by invading Mexico and turning it into out 51st state.
3. Kill the bill. No more nationalized health care. Companies are leaving the US rather than trying to deal with it. It's a global economy! How can we compete with one hand tied behind our back? If our stuff is cheaper maybe people will buy it. If you're smart you'll get your own dang insurance with the money you saved.
4. Privatize education. If the school sucks, don't go there. They'll figure out how to improve if they want to stay in business. The free market works, Fedzilla does not.

Fiscal policy.
1. Abolish absolutely ALL corporate taxes. When you tax a company, they pass the expense on to you. Tax 'em too much and their stuff gets to be too expensive to buy and that's when they leave America. Now you ain't got a job or money. That'd end under my rule.
2. Balanced budget amendment. No surpluses either.
3. Fire half of Fedzilla. The ATF's job can be done locally. Consider them gone. Privatize the other half of Fedzilla.
4. No more IRS refunds for anyone. I've never got one, why should anyone else? Tax the poor until they become succesfull. Reduce taxes on the succesfull as an incentive to the poor.

Foriegn relations.
1. Send France a "Get well soon" card.
2. Get out of Afganistan. Bin Laden isn't there and we all know it. We'll use the troops to take over Mexico instead.
3. Demand an appology from Canada for Bryan Adams, Paul Shaffer, and Celine Dion.

New Holidays!
1. National "Take your gun to work" day. This will held the first Monday of every week.
2. National "Draw a funny picture of the Prophet Muhhammed day".
3. National "Sink or swim day". On this special day people are reminded that help is not on the way and they'd better learn how to take of themselves and that it's not Fedzillas job to do so. The motto is "You have a safe country. You have plenty of opportunity. You don't need a baby sitter".

[kernie]

Lol!!! ^^^

My rule would last about 3 weeks before someone knocked me off.

Domestic issues.
1. Appoint Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, and a German Shepard to the Supreme Court. After that, I'd teach the remaining members how to read and write.
2. Stop illegal "immigrants" by invading Mexico and turning it into out 51st state.
3. Kill the bill. No more nationalized health care. Companies are leaving the US rather than trying to deal with it. It's a global economy! How can we compete with one hand tied behind our back? If our stuff is cheaper maybe people will buy it. If you're smart you'll get your own dang insurance with the money you saved.
4. Privatize education. If the school sucks, don't go there. They'll figure out how to improve if they want to stay in business. The free market works, Fedzilla does not.

Fiscal policy.
1. Abolish absolutely ALL corporate taxes. When you tax a company, they pass the expense on to you. Tax 'em too much and their stuff gets to be too expensive to buy and that's when they leave America. Now you ain't got a job or money. That'd end under my rule.
2. Balanced budget amendment. No surpluses either.
3. Fire half of Fedzilla. The ATF's job can be done locally. Consider them gone. Privatize the other half of Fedzilla.
4. No more IRS refunds for anyone. I've never got one, why should anyone else? Tax the poor until they become succesfull. Reduce taxes on the succesfull as an incentive to the poor.

Foriegn relations.
1. Send France a "Get well soon" card.
2. Get out of Afganistan. Bin Laden isn't there and we all know it. We'll use the troops to take over Mexico instead.
3. Demand an appology from Canada for Bryan Adams, Paul Shaffer, and Celine Dion.

New Holidays!
1. National "Take your gun to work" day. This will held the first Monday of every week.
2. National "Draw a funny picture of the Prophet Muhhammed day".
3. National "Sink or swim day". On this special day people are reminded that help is not on the way and they'd better learn how to take of themselves and that it's not Fedzillas job to do so. The motto is "You have a safe country. You have plenty of opportunity. You don't need a baby sitter".

Ha!

Good stuff leadfoot! I knew you were the man for the job!

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

[QUOTE=kernie;988288]Ha!

Good stuff leadfoot! I knew you were the man for the job!

:beer:[/QUOT
^^^^^^^^^^:banana:^^^^^^^^^
Folks, I have my write-in candidate for the next election.

Leadfoot in 2012! (Remember folks, you heard if here, first.)

[PonyUP]

Ha!

Good stuff leadfoot! I knew you were the man for the job!

:beer:

Good Stuff Ledfoot, couple of small things we'd probably disagree on, but nothing that I couldn't live with. I might write you in on the next ballot

:lol: "Send France a get Well Soon Card" :lol: I love it

[kernie]

Good Stuff Ledfoot, couple of small things we'd probably disagree on, but nothing that I couldn't live with. I might write you in on the next ballot

:lol: "Send France a get Well Soon Card" :lol: I love it

I might find a couple of things to disagree on also, he he.

BTW, I went to a Ted Nugent concert about 1975 {ish}, Bryan Adams opened for him, had never really heard of him, Adams was the concert! He was spectacular as a young rocker.

I am sorry for Paul Shaffer however, he is uncalled for, you more than made up for it with Sarah Palin though, we can see her from our backyard!

:beer:

[CBT]

I might find a couple of things to disagree on also, he he.

BTW, I went to a Ted Nugent concert about 1975 {ish}, Bryan Adams opened for him, had never really heard of him, Adams was the concert! He was spectacular as a young rocker.

I am sorry for Paul Shaffer however, he is uncalled for, you more than made up for it with Sarah Palin though, we can see her from our backyard!

:beer:
Paul Shaffer wrote "It's Raining Men", he should be on all Canadian money. And half of ours.

[Crown Vicman]

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you guys before about the New World Order? It all goes down in 2012. By making the middle class poor, it will only be the rich vs the poor in the future. Gee I wonder who wins anything against the rich. In 2012 the dollar is going to be destroyed because its still plummeting downward. 2012 is going to be the worst year in American history. I also think 2012 will be the year of world war 3.

[Leadfoot281]

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you guys before about the New World Order? It all goes down in 2012. By making the middle class poor, it will only be the rich vs the poor in the future. Gee I wonder who wins anything against the rich. In 2012 the dollar is going to be destroyed because its still plummeting downward. 2012 is going to be the worst year in American history. I also think 2012 will be the year of world war 3.

Too late. The "Global war on terror" is/was world war 3. I don't think we're still fighting the war on terror anymore, are we?

I also agree about their efforts to kill the middle class. These are the folks that can't pack up and leave the US like the mega rich can. They have a business or two, kids in college and a mortgage payment to make. They can't escape.

Redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the poor (with Fedzilla in the middle taking an extra large chunk of it for themselves) is gonna leave everyone broke. Worst yet is all the government dependance this will create.

A nation full of people that can't fend for themselves will be easy prey to a corrupt (and power hungry) Fed. Soon we'll all be thanking Big Brother for increasing our chocolate rations.

Live free or die. Work for cash. Pay as little taxes as you can. Starve the beast.

[PonyUP]

They are definitely setting it up so that the middle class has to pay for everyone. The Rich get all the tax breaks, the poor get all the welfare and the middle class has to pay for it all. Perhaps a flat tax is the answer.

But I think the real answer is that their needs to be an expiration to welfare, not unemployment benefits. There are many americans that have been killed by this economy that are honest, hardworking people. Those are the people we need to help through unemployment. The freeloaders that continue to have kids they can't afford with no incentive to get a job, those are the people that need to get off their ass.

[CBT]

Speaking of taxes and people getting handouts....
Number 8 is the best. And this was up for vote Friday, the Dems put off the vote until sometime this coming week. We're being taxed to death in a no job market, I can't see justifying the Dream Act.

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans
Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.
Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.
2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application
Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. 3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act
Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.
4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply
Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5 years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.
5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits
The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.
6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.
If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education requirement can be waived altogether.
7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.
Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.
8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration
Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years after enactment) and are 21 years of age.
Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States. When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.
9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid
Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.
10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process
When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however, prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the nearly impossible task of proving a negative.

[Leadfoot281]

I might find a couple of things to disagree on also, he he.

BTW, I went to a Ted Nugent concert about 1975 {ish}, Bryan Adams opened for him, had never really heard of him, Adams was the concert! He was spectacular as a young rocker.

I am sorry for Paul Shaffer however, he is uncalled for, you more than made up for it with Sarah Palin though, we can see her from our backyard!

:beer:

Canada is fundamentally screwed up if you think Byran Adams is actually better than uncle Ted. Here's proof. ;)

Ted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQTcUy6kpg&feature=related (Lol @ 7:30) . :beer:

Bryan Adams. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onn8x-qDrtg&feature=fvw :puke:

Also, who would actually complain about seeing Sarah Palin? :confused: Personally, I'd PAY for that view!

[PonyUP]

Canada is fundamentally screwed up if you think Byran Adams is actually better than uncle Ted. Here's proof. ;)

Ted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQTcUy6kpg&feature=related (Lol @ 7:30) . :beer:

Bryan Adams. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onn8x-qDrtg&feature=fvw :puke:

Also, who would actually complain about seeing Sarah Palin? :confused: Personally, I'd PAY for that view!


I have to concur, Bryan Adams can't hold a light to the Nug

And I wouldn't mind seeing Sarah Palin, but having to talk to her for an extended period of time might put me off

[PonyUP]

[QUOTE=CBT;988479]Speaking of taxes and people getting handouts....
Number 8 is the best. And this was up for vote Friday, the Dems put off the vote until sometime this coming week. We're being taxed to death in a no job market, I can't see justifying the Dream Act.



Yeah, this is where I differ from my party quite a bit. This is just an irresponsible act of legislation aimed at the benefits of citizens of other nations. I understand people wanting to come here and make a better life, but with that also comes drug dealers that want to exploit that better life.

When we opened our borders for Cuban Refugees, look at what happened. Castro gathered up all of his criminals and sent them here. I am okay with immigrants coming to this country, it seems rather simple, just do it legally.
Unless you are running from persucution, which the government does have the right to grant amnesty in those instances, it really isn't that difficult to apply for a visa. Isn't that what happens when we go to other countries for an extended period of time?

Follow procedure and we won't have to boot you out of the country. If you can't get approved for a visa, then you don't come. Seems simple to me.

Where's the Dream act for our own citizens?
Wheres the Dream act to help middle america pay for college for their kids?
Where's the Dream Act to protect me from violating political correctness laws?

Has the government forgot, it's American Citizens that they represent, not the illegal freeloaders.

[CBT]

Looks like it passed, unreal.


Friends of ALIPAC,

We regret to inform everyone that Dream Act Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens has passed in the US House by a vote of 216-198.

While 38 Democrats joined Republicans voting No on the measure, 8 Republicans broke ranks and voted for Amnesty to hand Pelosi, Reid, and Obama their victory!

Republican turncoats were Cao, Castle, Diaz-Balart, L., Diaz-Balart, M., Djou, Ehlers, Inglis and Ros-Lehtinen.

The US Senate will vote at 9:30am EST tomorrow Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010. There first vote will be on Amnesty.

We will contact you at 8am with more instructions, targets, and messages. Please be ready.

While some pundits, reporters, and groups feel confident that Amnesty will fail in the Senate, WE DO NOT SHARE THAT CONFIDENCE.

THE CHANCES AMNESTY WILL PASS THE SENATE IN THE MORNING AND BECOME LAW ARE VERY HIGH! TO MANY AMERICANS ARE RELAXED BY THESE UNFOUNDED ASSURANCES.

Only a few Republicans in the Senate need to surprisingly join with the Democrats to do the deed, just like tonight!

Please be at your computers, and on our website at alipac.us at 8am EST to receive our instructions.

JOIN US TOMORROW IN WHAT MAY BECOME AMERICA's LAST CHANCE.

If we lose in the Senate tomorrow, most future battles will be fought as we retreat step by step, while millions of illegal aliens become legal workers, students, and voters who are used to replace Americans and put in positions of authority over us.

May God Save The United States.

Rally your kith and kin and join us shortly after dawn on the East Coast for our next battle tomorrow.

We must hold the line in the Senate! WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO STOP THIS NATION KILLING LEGISLATION BUT WE WILL NEED ALL OF YOUR HELP IN THE MORNING.

May God favor our efforts.

William Gheen and The ALIPAC Team
www.alipac.us (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000010/!x-usc:http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=a4fe5ccab&et=1104045455051&s=5582&e=001wKEXE7ROfNaVma7Svq7B0973l m-LE2LGiTCmb-l9pzY91Mhv3aQUR_jS50yeEtq5aMkj uVfmJBLJaQnyKKRjLH_7HWOiq2RAzP swFMpM2zk=)

[FordNut]

I'm hoping it dies in the senate. Projections are that Snowe and Collins will vote against it, and they're commonly the senate RINOs. The house RINOs that aren't lame ducks need to be remembered in 2012.

[Leadfoot281]

Unbelievable. Wow, an illegal alien bailout.

I'm speechless.

[CBT]

Dems admit not enough votes to pass it, whew!

(CNN) -- Senate Democrats conceded Thursday they don't have the votes to pass the DREAM Act, a bill that would have offered a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children.
Democrats voted to pull the measure from consideration on Thursday. That likely kills any chance of passage this year for the hotly contested bill, Senate supporters say.
Senate Republicans opposed the bill, standing by their pledge to block any legislation during the lame duck session until the chamber approves bills to extend the Bush tax cuts and fund the government.

They are in a Mexican Standoff (pun intended) on this whole tax issue. I don't know if that is good or bad for tax payers or not.....

[FordNut]

So now the democrats are pushing tax increases... Good platform to stand on to get support for the party in 2012.

[SC Cheesehead]

So now the democrats are pushing tax increases... Good platform to stand on to get support for the party in 2012.

Yeah, "All change, no hope..." ;)

[PonyUP]

This last month is getting very frustrating for me. Obama does the right thing and extends the tax cuts (Though I still think the $1 million cap was the best proposal) what do Democrats do, they paste him on every news show saying he could have forced the $250K cap in if he wanted to.

These Democrats obviously didn't get the message. America is tired of the constant temper tantrums and taking completely different sides of the aisle, work together, it doesn't seem that hard. Here let me show you

I have three cookies I am prepared to munch on. You are looking at me with hunger in your eyes and insist those cookies belong to you. So I give you one cookie. You again plead your case, and I plead mine, so I split a second cookie and hand you have. We both walk away with cookies.

See Congress, really not tough

And the Dream Act? Thank God it's not going ot pass in the senate.

"Gimme you tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free"

Just do it legally.

[88LTDCV351]

Let's face it, unless we want China to be our new overlords or the overlords of our grandchildren, we have to increase taxes and pay down that debt and cut spending to essential things the government needs to do (defense, etc.). Having said that, don't raise my taxes or cut programs in my backyard, lol.

As far as extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 (unfortunately, I'm not affected since I don't make nearly that much, ha ha), I'm all for it if there is an incentive that those getting the tax cuts spend it to create jobs. There are too many companies right now and upper income individuals sitting on and accumulating the cash instead of creating jobs and spending it (they have all been scared about the economy like the rest of us and in the wait and see mode and the do more with less mode). (I'd like to learn that I have a long lost relative who sat on a bunch of money and I get to inherit it though, lol). But I read that yahoo article about how the wealthy and companies despite tax cuts have been just accumulating most of it and not using it to create the jobs which were the purpose of the tax cuts. Perhaps there is somekind of incentive they can create that only gives the tax cuts to small business owners, large companies, and the wealthiest if they create jobs and spend it?

I don't know. Maybe that is a stupid idea. We just need to do something to create jobs so people can work again and have the money to purchase things again and start the upward movement of the economy.

[CBT]

This last month is getting very frustrating for me. Obama does the right thing and extends the tax cuts (Though I still think the $1 million cap was the best proposal) what do Democrats do, they paste him on every news show saying he could have forced the $250K cap in if he wanted to.

These Democrats obviously didn't get the message. America is tired of the constant temper tantrums and taking completely different sides of the aisle, work together, it doesn't seem that hard. Here let me show you

I have three cookies I am prepared to munch on. You are looking at me with hunger in your eyes and insist those cookies belong to you. So I give you one cookie. You again plead your case, and I plead mine, so I split a second cookie and hand you have. We both walk away with cookies.

See Congress, really not tough

And the Dream Act? Thank God it's not going ot pass in the senate.

"Gimme you tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free"

Just do it legally.

Oh it's not over.....


We are glad to report that the major votes on the Dream Amnesty bill in the US Senate has been pushed back again to Monday of next week. This extra time slightly increases our chances of defeating Amnesty.

Senator Reid plans to push the version of the bill that just passed the House.

The bad news is that I estimate this Amnesty has about a 65% chance (at this moment) of making it to President Obama's desk, although I hope to be wrong and will do all in my power to stop Amnesty.

The Republicans are filibustering on the Dream Amnesty for now to get what they want in the government budget and tax breaks for Americans making over $250,000 per year. They are signaling that they are willing to help pass Amnesty if Obama, Reid, and Pelosi give them what they want. <---Remember what I posted about it being a standoff? Now it looks like both partys will give in to the other and BOTH sides will be able to say they did something.

The GOP leadership in the Senate is not fighting to defeat or destroy Dream Amnesty. Many of them are simply pushing back the vote to increase the price tag on their Cloture votes.

In back rooms and hallways, the offers to Republicans in the form of legislation they want, funding for their districts, funds for their campaigns, and probably things that will help their personal wealth rise are being offered.

There are more than enough RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) who are willing to defy the national GOP Platform to pass Dream Amnesty.

The most likely scenario is that Republicans will keep pushing back the vote on Dream Amnesty. Then, just before they adjourn a few Republicans will suddenly defect to the side of the Democrats and vote Yes on Cloture to let the bill proceed to a vote. Then many of them will turn around and vote against the Amnesty bill, but it will earn over 50 votes and pass.

The shifty ones will then exclaim they voted against Amnesty, when in fact they voted to pass it.

They will likely send over Republican Senators who are not up for reelection in 2012 that are in states they feel they can easily reelected a GOP traitor. After all, the election results from AZ and NV told Senators there is no need for them to listen to their constituents on immigration issues. You can betray your constituents like McCain and Reid and still be elected to the US Senate is the example that has been set!

This will be much easier for them to do considering the major media black out.

While Fox News has reports about Dream Amnesty votes on their website they are NOT broadcasting content or notice of these votes.

I personally had Fox News on in the background for over 4 hours today and heard no mention of the impending vote in the Senate nor the historic passage of the Dream Act Amnesty in the House last night.

The Drudge Report also took a dive and had no news contents warning conservative readers of the impending amnesty votes. Who knows how much Matt Drudge was paid with Saudi money flooding DC to lay down, but there was nothing there.

This is very unfortunate for us because most of our allies in talk radio have become addicted to the ease of getting their daily news stories for their shows from the Drudge Report news aggregation service!

So between Fox News and Drudge Report blacking this story out, and Lou Dobbs now being a turn coat Amnesty supporter and being off of CNN, most of America has no idea that this is even happening.

The American public is not informed enough or agitated enough for us to stop this Amnesty push in my opinion and the communication channels necessary to alert them are being disrupted.

Pundits continue to assure English speaking conservative audiences that there is no reason for alarm or concern and that these votes on the Dream Act Amnesty are merely symbolic and have no chance of passage.

This is pure propaganda designed to keep the patient calm and docile, while major surgery takes place on lady America,while she sleeps.

Please remember that while the Tea Party groups fought against the unpopular health-care legislation, that 2 out of 3 Americans opposed, Congressman Luis Gutierrez assured his awaiting illegal alien troops to rest easy because the passage of the health-care bill was the practice run for Amnesty.

They have our communications choked off and a media blackout or brown out in place. Dream Amnesty activists are practicing a high degree of aggression towards groups like ALIPAC. English speaking audiences are being pacified with lies, and the amount of political theater taking place speaks to the danger level.

Please continue your calls to the house and the Senate. Please continue sending in your much needed donations and please continue to rally the Americans around you.

[88LTDCV351]

I think that in the end the tax cut for the $250,000+ earners is going to be extended. Right or wrong, I don't think there is any choice. Democrats don't want to be said to raise taxes (even if its just to those making over $250,000) and Republicans need it extended to have more fuel for those who might use it to create jobs.

[CBT]

I think that in the end the tax cut for the $250,000+ earners is going to be extended. Right or wrong, I don't think there is any choice. Democrats don't want to be said to raise taxes (even if its just to those making over $250,000) and Republicans need it extended to have more fuel for those who might use it to create jobs.

Yes but it will be low wage jobs that "average American won't do".

[88LTDCV351]

As far as immigration, I don't like the fact that people come over here illegally versus legally. However, there is a human side of me that understands that they are coming here for a better life as we all would do and we should have compassion on them from at least a religious perspective. But when you add the illegal part plus the additional taxes we pay for the programs they qualify for, it gets complicated. I don't have an answer on that one.

[bosscj72]

I can write a book here but these are the facts:

1. The top 1% earners pay 38% of the taxes.
2. The top 5% pay 58% of the overall taxes.
3. The bottom 50% only pay 2.9% of the overall taxes!

I think keep the tax rate at the current level will allow small business who employ around 70% of us all so they know what their taxes will be next year.

Also if you raise taxes revenue does NOT increase! The only way to improve the revenue from the 2.2-2.6 Trillion dollars the government takes in is to grow the economy! Since the lame congress since 2007 has spent on average around 3.0-3.8 Trillion dollars per year that is the main reason the deficit has been raising to scary Greece like levels!

They should cut spending back by 20%. Cut everything. Also Obamacare will add one thing to us (besides the deficit) it will add 15,000-20,000 more IRS WORKERS!!!!!!

The government is suppose to be locally powerful and federally just to keep our borders safe (not happening!) and protect us from threats.

OK I will stop so you can take this in.

Keep all taxes lower would be best but cutting spending is MORE IMPORTANT! One last fact 40 million people (not all legal residents) are now getting food stamps. The welfare train is bleeding us dry.....

Dave

[kernie]

Let's face it, unless we want China to be our new overlords or the overlords of our grandchildren, we have to increase taxes and pay down that debt and cut spending to essential things the government needs to do (defense, etc.). Having said that, don't raise my taxes or cut programs in my backyard, lol.

As far as extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 (unfortunately, I'm not affected since I don't make nearly that much, ha ha), I'm all for it if there is an incentive that those getting the tax cuts spend it to create jobs. There are too many companies right now and upper income individuals sitting on and accumulating the cash instead of creating jobs and spending it (they have all been scared about the economy like the rest of us and in the wait and see mode and the do more with less mode). (I'd like to learn that I have a long lost relative who sat on a bunch of money and I get to inherit it though, lol). But I read that yahoo article about how the wealthy and companies despite tax cuts have been just accumulating most of it and not using it to create the jobs which were the purpose of the tax cuts. Perhaps there is somekind of incentive they can create that only gives the tax cuts to small business owners, large companies, and the wealthiest if they create jobs and spend it?

I don't know. Maybe that is a stupid idea. We just need to do something to create jobs so people can work again and have the money to purchase things again and start the upward movement of the economy.

Bingo!!! The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, how the top 1% get billie-bob to do thier bidding i will never know.

[88LTDCV351]

I guess for me right now, all I really care about is jobs. Let's put the citizens and those with their permanent resident cards to work again with good wages. And those jobs that we have leftover that we don't want to do.....I don't know. Aren't there temporary visa's for those that come over legally? Isn't it not fair for those that come legally throught the process when others come over illegally?

And by all means, those with specialized skills we have here in short supply, bring non-US citizens over on a visa to work. We need to continue innovation and technological advancement and they help provide a lot of that (we want the brightest and smartest to be on our side). But first, we need more effort to develop and use talent that is already here.

[88LTDCV351]

bosscj72,

those are some good facts. Thanks for sharing them. Yes, I think the best way is for the economy to improve. God, we need that right now.

[88LTDCV351]

Its kind of funny. When I moved to California (you all know California has budget problems), Shwartzenegger did try to cut stuff. But people that got that money and did those programs cried fowl. In the end, nothing got cut. California government is still in the same boat all these years later.

I heard on the radio they were going to cut such and such fund. And then someone cried fowl because some of that money went to elder care and you can't put those people on the streets, etc. Geez, you can't cut anywhere without someone being hurt. So I guess its better to just wait for our Chinese overlords to make the decisions for our grandchildren. Maybe they will have some better ideas of where to cut.

[FordNut]

Bingo!!! The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, how the top 1% get billie-bob to do thier bidding i will never know.

I didn't know this was a Canadian congressional session...

[88LTDCV351]

I'm getting laid off in three months (or sooner), as some of you know. I knew it was coming so I had my resume out there for the last six months and no offers. The job market is improving slowly but the competition is still fierce for those few jobs. Bring back the jobs! I'm disappointed that the government isn't working harder on helping jobs be created. I feel like they dropped that ball and took their eye off the ball. That is what I care about. Obama work on that because that is what we need right now. That should have been the priority.

[kernie]

I didn't know this was a Canadian congressional session...Is that all you have?

[FordNut]

Is that all you have?

It's all I need. American politics. You're a Canadian. It's none of your business.

[CBT]

As far as immigration, I don't like the fact that people come over here illegally versus legally. However, there is a human side of me that understands that they are coming here for a better life as we all would do and we should have compassion on them from at least a religious perspective. But when you add the illegal part plus the additional taxes we pay for the programs they qualify for, it gets complicated. I don't have an answer on that one.

Hmmmm........nope. Rewarding one because another broke the law has nothing to do with religion.

[FordNut]

Hmmmm........nope. Rewarding one because another broke the law has nothing to do with religion.

Besides that, there's such a thing as separation of religion and state...
Religion isn't supposed to play into politics at all.

[PonyUP]

I can write a book here but these are the facts:

1. The top 1% earners pay 38% of the taxes.
2. The top 5% pay 58% of the overall taxes.
3. The bottom 50% only pay 2.9% of the overall taxes!

I think keep the tax rate at the current level will allow small business who employ around 70% of us all so they know what their taxes will be next year.

Also if you raise taxes revenue does NOT increase! The only way to improve the revenue from the 2.2-2.6 Trillion dollars the government takes in is to grow the economy! Since the lame congress since 2007 has spent on average around 3.0-3.8 Trillion dollars per year that is the main reason the deficit has been raising to scary Greece like levels!

They should cut spending back by 20%. Cut everything. Also Obamacare will add one thing to us (besides the deficit) it will add 15,000-20,000 more IRS WORKERS!!!!!!

The government is suppose to be locally powerful and federally just to keep our borders safe (not happening!) and protect us from threats.

OK I will stop so you can take this in.

Keep all taxes lower would be best but cutting spending is MORE IMPORTANT! One last fact 40 million people (not all legal residents) are now getting food stamps. The welfare train is bleeding us dry.....

Dave

Well much like raising taxes won't solve the problem, cutting taxes won't do it either. The key, as you mentioned is to cut spending and thus becomes the double edge sword.

When the economy initally tanked in 2008, A Republican effort produced the first relief program of over $750 Billion. A Necessary step to stop the bleeding. Once Democrats came into power, they continued that with two more bail outs totaling nearly $2 Trillion. This is where it gets challenging, the economy is not a Republican or Democrat problem, and yet we tend to give the President credit or blame for the economy. I think we needed some of those bail out's to happen. But did we take it too far. was it necessary to bail out the car companies? Depending on who you ask, some would suggest it was prudent to allow them to fail and balance the economy, other's will tell you it was necessary to save an important part of the economy and save jobs. I don't know what the answer is to this. But I do know we need to cut spending. The problem is no one can agree on where to cut spending. Democrats will tell you to cut defense spending, Republicans will tell you to cut NEA, Education, and Obamacare. They cannot agree on what to cut just like they can't agree on a tax plan.

Solution, as I believe someone mentioned, 20-25% cut across the board on everything. Cut earmarks so votes cannot be bought. And lastly, and this will enver happen, campaign finance reform. Lobbyists need to be escorted out of Washington. These representives are supposed to be representitives of the people in the districts they represent, not the lobbyist that give them the biggest soft money contributions.

[FordNut]

I have mixed feelings on the lobbyist suggestion... I have joined a few organizations and pay their membership fees, and part of those fees go to pay lobbyists who work to see that the voices or their members are heard. Without those lobbyists I wouldn't have a voice, because Washigton will never listen to us little guys.

[PonyUP]

I have mixed feelings on the lobbyist suggestion... I have joined a few organizations and pay their membership fees, and part of those fees go to pay lobbyists who work to see that the voices or their members are heard. Without those lobbyists I wouldn't have a voice, because Washigton will never listen to us little guys.

A very valid point, it's kind of damned if we do, and damned if we don't. I think though that the larger conglomerates (Banks, and Wall Street namely) will always have more power, money and influence, than the organizations that are trying to speak for Joe Citizen. I think if we eliminated lobbyists all together, we may find that more voices are heard. Ofcourse this only allows for the richest single voice to be heard, which is why the soft money gap needs to be fixed.

[CBT]

Good points, that's why we need MORE elected officials. People say we have too many. That is not true. The ones that get elected are usually so far removed from the "common folk", they have no idea what it is like to try and EARN a living. I don't know about you, but I do not have millions of spare dollars laying around to burn on a campaign for an office I may or may not even win.

[CBT]

A very valid point, it's kind of damned if we do, and damned if we don't. I think though that the larger conglomerates (Banks, and Wall Street namely) will always have more power, money and influence, than the organizations that are trying to speak for Joe Citizen. I think if we eliminated lobbyists all together, we may find that more voices are heard. Ofcourse this only allows for the richest single voice to be heard, which is why the soft money gap needs to be fixed.

Hee hee hee hee....

[Leadfoot281]

Bingo!!! The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, how the top 1% get billie-bob to do thier bidding i will never know.

That's because us dumb "Billie-bobs" work for the rich and we like having a job. We also understand that if you continue to harrass business owners with endless red tape, unnessesary regulation and excessive taxation they'll go someplace that actually wants them. Like China. That means, goodbye job, goodbye car payment, and hello to unemployment and food stamps.

If the poor keep getting poorer, it's because jobs keep getting forced out of the country by people that have no experiance in private sector business. Taxing the rich to help the poor only compounds the problem.

[FordNut]

I'm getting laid off in three months (or sooner), as some of you know. I knew it was coming so I had my resume out there for the last six months and no offers. The job market is improving slowly but the competition is still fierce for those few jobs. Bring back the jobs! I'm disappointed that the government isn't working harder on helping jobs be created. I feel like they dropped that ball and took their eye off the ball. That is what I care about. Obama work on that because that is what we need right now. That should have been the priority.

Obama pressed forward with his agenda. Jobs weren't part of that agenda, it was healthcare reform, shutdown Guantanamo and bring the terrorists to America for trial, Immigration, and the rest of the socialistic agenda.

I feel the pain, I've been jobless since July 2009. Competition is fierce and compensation is way down. Don't be surprised to take a 30% to 50% cut from what you used to make.

[sailsmen]

Per McClatchy News Corp - "The plan would total about $900 billion over two years — adding that to the projected federal deficit and the federal debt. Extending the Bush-era tax cuts would cost the Treasury $3.7 trillion over 10 years, including $3 trillion in taxes on annual incomes below $250,000 and $700 billion on incomes higher than that."
Interesting in that some say we cannot afford the "tax cuts" for the rich when the "tax cuts" are only 20% for the rich and 80% for the non rich. Using their logic we can only afford "tax cuts" for the rich.

From the WSJ- "Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.

We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long."

As respects illegal immigrants 60% come from Mexico. 20% of the Population of Mexico works in the USA illegally. The Mexican Gov't hands out brochures on how to work illegally in the USA and issues fake IDs to facilitate working in the USA. Mexicans at great risk to themselves and their families, pay thousands of dollars to break into the USA.

Why? What is wrong with Mexico? Answer Mexcians who tolerate corruption and Mexicans who are corrupt. Mexico is a country with vast natural resources and an industrious population. Our refusal to enforce our immigration laws provides an economic outlet for the corrupt Mexican Gov't, proping it up. Enforce our laws by prosecuting those who hire illegals and with in 6 months the illegal Mexicans will return home over throwing their corrupt Gov't breaking the cycle of poverty. (Pres Eisenhower, operation "Wetback").

By granting amnesty the illegals will no longer have a cost advantage in being hired. Most are uneducated and illleterate. They will then be condemned to a life on welfare.

We turn our heads to the human suffering from breaking in. Many die in the desert, are forced to mule drugs and many of the women are *****.

[sailsmen]

Are the Poor getting Poorer? No they are getting RICHER by every measure.
Robert Rector, researcher at the Heritage Foundation, presents data collected from several government sources in a report titled "How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the 'Plague' of Poverty in America" (8/27/2007):

-- Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

-- Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

-- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

-- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

-- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

-- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

-- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

-- Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Walter Williams - "Poverty is not static for people willing to work. A University of Michigan study shows that only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 remained there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution — middle class or higher. Moreover, three out of 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved all the way into the top fifth of income earners by 1991. "

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/69901#ixzz17gX2RsDz

[sailsmen]

If you thinks it's an income problem for Gov't to increase spending by 29% in 3 years then no one should kep the existing tax rates. From the OMB

Year Total On-Budget Off-Budget
Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit(−) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit(−) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit(−)

2008 2,523,999 2,982,554 -458,555 1,865,953 2,507,803 -641,850 658,046 474,751 183,295
2009 2,104,995 3,517,681 -1,412,686 1,450,986 3,000,665 -1,549,679 654,009 517,016 136,993
2010 estimate 2,165,119 3,720,701 -1,555,582 1,529,936 3,163,742 -1,633,806 635,183 556,959 78,224
2011 estimate 2,567,181 3,833,861 -1,266,680 1,893,113 3,255,668 -1,362,555 674,068 578,193 95,875
2012 estimate 2,926,400 3,754,852 -828,452 2,205,925 3,154,610 -948,685 720,475 600,242 120,233
2013 estimate 3,188,115 3,915,443 -727,328 2,422,390 3,285,517 -863,127 765,725 629,926 135,799
2014 estimate 3,455,451 4,161,230 -705,779 2,646,408 3,498,677 -852,269 809,043 662,553 146,490
2015 estimate 3,633,679 4,385,531 -751,852 2,777,742 3,687,663 -909,921 855,937 697,868 158,069

[GAMike]

Typical politics.......... This President came into office and spent up to the midterm election, ram rodding pet policies....... When that election comes and his party got its butt kicked, his advisors decided it was time to start the campaign for re-election. The realization sets in, that the tactics employed for the first two years put keeping power, at serious risk. Hence the compromise on the Bush Tax cuts, and all the centerist sound bytes of the past week. Chameleon politics I call it

The bigger risk is, what happens if by some fluke a re-election occurrs??? My prediction? 4 more years of the first 2 years, of the first term.... Or worse.....


Obama pressed forward with his agenda. Jobs weren't part of that agenda, it was healthcare reform, shutdown Guantanamo and bring the terrorists to America for trial, Immigration, and the rest of the socialistic agenda.

[PonyUP]

Typical politics.......... This President came into office and spent up to the midterm election, ram rodding pet policies....... When that election comes and his party got its butt kicked, his advisors decided it was time to start the campaign for re-election. The realization sets in, that the tactics employed for the first two years put keeping power, at serious risk. Hence the compromise on the Bush Tax cuts, and all the centerist sound bytes of the past week. Chameleon politics I call it

The bigger risk is, what happens if by some fluke a re-election occurrs??? My prediction? 4 more years of the first 2 years, of the first term.... Or worse.....

It's largely going to depend on who runs against him. In 2004 I think everyone was distraught with Bush and was ready for a change, the problem was there was no real challenger put against, in which case the Devil you know is better than the one you don't.

For their to be a serious challenge, I think it will need to be a case of the Democrats are distraught enough that someone would run against a sitting President, and we will need to see who emerges from the Republican side. Right now it appears Newt Gingrinch and Sarah Palin will run and don't think either have the support to unseat him.

In addition, as much as the Tea Party helped the midterm elections, it may become a challenge in a Presidential race. If the Republican support is split, then when all is said and done they may not emerge with enough support to unseat him.

One thing is for certain, it will be an interesting campaign. I hope it is one were issues can be discussed intelligently, like we have on this thread regardless of Poilitical background, but ultimatley it will probably be a largely mudslinging campaign and we will again emerge with no real leader.

[SC Cheesehead]

...One thing is for certain, it will be an interesting campaign. I hope it is one were issues can be discussed intelligently, like we have on this thread regardless of Poilitical background, but ultimatley it will probably be a largely mudslinging campaign and we will again emerge with no real leader.

ANYONE's gotta be better than the current "leader." :rolleyes:

http://images.villagehatshop.com/media/im-the-leader-dual-bill-cap.gif

[SC Cheesehead]

"More than 50 percent of Americans say they are worse off now than they were two years ago when President Barack Obama took office, and two-thirds believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a Bloomberg National Poll shows...The pessimism cuts across political parties and age groups, and is common to both sexes. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/most-americans-say-they-re-worse-off-under-obama-poll-shows.html

C.Y.C.B.I. :shake:

[CBT]

Capitalism at work: Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. :shake:

[GAMike]

Very true... Repubs need to field a very credible candidate. I personally like Mitt Romney, but I don't think America will stand for a Mormon in the Whitehouse....... Just please don't run Sarah Palin......:argue:


It's largely going to depend on who runs against him. In 2004 I think everyone was distraught with Bush and was ready for a change, the problem was there was no real challenger put against, in which case the Devil you know is better than the one you don't.

For their to be a serious challenge, I think it will need to be a case of the Democrats are distraught enough that someone would run against a sitting President, and we will need to see who emerges from the Republican side. Right now it appears Newt Gingrinch and Sarah Palin will run and don't think either have the support to unseat him.

In addition, as much as the Tea Party helped the midterm elections, it may become a challenge in a Presidential race. If the Republican support is split, then when all is said and done they may not emerge with enough support to unseat him.

One thing is for certain, it will be an interesting campaign. I hope it is one were issues can be discussed intelligently, like we have on this thread regardless of Poilitical background, but ultimatley it will probably be a largely mudslinging campaign and we will again emerge with no real leader.

[SC Cheesehead]

"WASHINGTON -- In the spirit of the holiday season, President Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers...The tax deal, reached behind the scenes and still informal, now includes ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs and wind and solar grants for the environmentalists -- all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats...It's all expected to come to a decisive vote next week, total cost by the latest congressional estimate: $857.8 billion."

Can anyone say, "Stimulus II?"

D.D.S.O.S...:shake:------>:mad2:

[kernie]

"WASHINGTON -- In the spirit of the holiday season, President Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers...The tax deal, reached behind the scenes and still informal, now includes ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs and wind and solar grants for the environmentalists -- all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats...It's all expected to come to a decisive vote next week, total cost by the latest congressional estimate: $857.8 billion."

Can anyone say, "Stimulus II?"

D.D.S.O.S...:shake:------>:mad2:

Don't worry help is on it's way, you can get a preview sunday at 9pm on A&E.

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

Don't worry help is on it's way, you can get a preview sunday at 9pm on A&E.

:beer:

Gene Simmons: Family Jewels (http://www.aetv.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=5 8096) ???? :confused:

[kernie]

Don't worry help is on it's way, you can get a preview sunday at 9pm on A&E.

:beer:


Gene Simmons: Family Jewels (http://www.aetv.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=5 8096)???? :confused:
Oops, TLC not A&E.
Sarah Palin's Alaska. :D

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

Oops, TLC not A&E.
Sarah Palin's Alaska. :D

:beer:

Ahhhhh, YES! Now you're talking! ;) --------> :D

[PonyUP]

Oops, TLC not A&E.
Sarah Palin's Alaska. :D

:beer:

I personally do not want to see Sarah Palin in the White House, really don't think anything good can come from that. At first I thought you were referring to david Hasselhoff's new show :lol:

[En4cer71]

I'd take Newt over Palin hands down. Give her a cabinet post. Not sure what though. Is there a secretary of swimsuits?!?

[GAMike]

It sucks that politicians lead the public to beleive that all that bill entails is keeping the Bush Tax Cuts in place for another 2 years...

It should be law, that every bill be broken down by line item, sponsor of the "line item" and published in newspapers at least 2 weeks prior to being voted on. Sick of the back door being left open regardless of who's in power.....


"WASHINGTON -- In the spirit of the holiday season, President Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers...The tax deal, reached behind the scenes and still informal, now includes ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs and wind and solar grants for the environmentalists -- all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats...It's all expected to come to a decisive vote next week, total cost by the latest congressional estimate: $857.8 billion."

Can anyone say, "Stimulus II?"

D.D.S.O.S...:shake:------>:mad2:

[En4cer71]

I think it was Reid that added $ for Hollywood and other industries.

[SC Cheesehead]

It sucks that politicians lead the public to beleive that all that bill entails is keeping the Bush Tax Cuts in place for another 2 years...

It should be law, that every bill be broken down by line item, sponsor of the "line item" and published in newspapers at least 2 weeks prior to being voted on. Sick of the back door being left open regardless of who's in power.....

Yeah, how the h*** did we go from a piece of legislation meant to be a basic extension of expiring tax cuts to the abortion of a bill that's going to COST the taxpayer an additional $859 BILLION...:confused: -------> :mad2:

[SC Cheesehead]

"WASHINGTON -- President Obama's plan to cut payroll taxes for a year would provide big savings for many workers but makes Social Security advocates nervous that it could jeopardize the retirement program's finances..."

Big savings, yeah, sure. The reduction from 6.2% to 4.2% deduction would result in the following: Annual earnings of $50,000 = $19.20 per week "big savings". Annual earnings of $75,000 = $28.85 per week "big savings".

Oh, and did PrezBO consider that the reduction in funding for an already troubled federal program will further accelerate the point at which the SS fund becomes insolvent?

More C.Y.C.B.I...:shake:

[PonyUP]

Yeah, how the h*** did we go from a piece of legislation meant to be a basic extension of expiring tax cuts to the abortion of a bill that's going to COST the taxpayer an additional $859 BILLION...:confused: -------> :mad2:

And that's the huge problem with earmarks, Bills are no longer about one thing, in order to gain votes to pass one thing, you ahve to buy their vote by promisiing another. It's Washington's way of again complicating something that truly is easy.

I'm a congressman and say I want to raise the minimum wage by $.10. I propose a bill of no more than 3 pages pleading my case as to why this is a good idea. Nothing is allowed to be added or subtracted fromt he bill. It gets a straight up or down vote. If it's denied and you want to rewrite a different version, you can, this time no more than one page.

Now there's enough in that to make everyone happy

More legislation is happening with more voting
Voting records are completeing transparent
there's no more buying votes
And think of all the trees we'd save. That should allow us to make more V8's and faster cars.

If we stop approaching politics from a whats in it for me approach and starting taking it as what can I do for my country, well that really would be change you can believe in.

It'll never happen, but I can dream

[CBT]

Very true... Repubs need to field a very credible candidate. I personally like Mitt Romney, but I don't think America will stand for a Mormon in the Whitehouse....... Just please don't run Sarah Palin......:argue:
I've got an autographed shirt from him, was hoping he'd be Prez so's I could wear it. Or sell it.

[SC Cheesehead]

Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or under the General Welfare Clause.

"It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance," wrote Hudson...


Maybe there still is some sanity left in this world. :rolleyes:

[sailsmen]

The Constitutional Fix is very simple, the Gov't provides healthcare for "free" and then raises income tax to pay for it.
The easiest way is to expand Medicare. You cannot opt out of Medicare or they with hold your SS checks.

I am not advocating the above, just explaining how it can be done.

[SC Cheesehead]

The Constitutional Fix is very simple, the Gov't provides healthcare for "free" and then raises income tax to pay for it.
The easiest way is to expand Medicare. You cannot opt out of Medicare or they with hold your SS checks.

I am not advocating the above, just explaining how it can be done.


Shhhhhh!

They might be listening.... ;)

[kernie]

The Constitutional Fix is very simple, the Gov't provides healthcare for "free" and then raises income tax to pay for it.
The easiest way is to expand Medicare. You cannot opt out of Medicare or they with hold your SS checks.

I am not advocating the above, just explaining how it can be done.

:banana:And tell the insurance industry to get lost.
:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

:banana:And tell the insurance industry to get lost.
:beer:

There you go, replace private industry with a government entity to manage healthcare, that oughta work out really well for us... ;)

[kernie]

There you go, replace private industry with a government entity to manage healthcare, that oughta work out really well for us... ;)

Wrong, my friend, just eliminate a step, period.

What is the insurance industies role? Why are they needed?

Just treat the sick, period.

:beer:

[Leadfoot281]

:banana:And tell the insurance industry to get lost.
:beer:

If you really want to punish insurance companies, make them actually compete for our dollars.

The free market system works. For instance, I can drive across town and find probably 5,000+ cars for sale. Any color I want, any options I want. They range in price from $50.00 to $90,000+. Why? Free Market!

Fedzilla drops $1,300,000,000,000.00 on "Health care reform" and guess what...I have just two options when it comes to health care: Take it or leave it. As a bonus, if I don't want it ("opt out"), I still have to pay for it.

I'm going to a Steak House tonight Kernie. You are invited to join me. You can "opt out" though. The bill for opting out is $50. Sound fair to you?

It sure would be fun to see insurance companies start offering plans that people want at prices people will pay.

[CBT]

I'm going to a Steak House tonight Kernie. You are invited to join me. You can "opt out" though. The bill for opting out is $50. Sound fair to you?


That is a very simple, yet entirely accurate, explanation.

[kernie]

Next time you guys go to your doctor, ask him if he\she thinks the insurance industry is needed to treat the sick?

Ask them if they enjoy dealing with them?

Ask them how they feel about giving thier patients the bad news...sorry they said no.

Please explain to me why they need to be part of the process?

You guys can't all work for this industry...

Again, please tell me thier role and why they have to be involved?

Be cool, your friend.
:beer:

[FordNut]

At least with our capitalistic healthcare system we can get quality care in a timely manner. Too bad some foreigners want our system to be brought down to their level.

[sailsmen]

:banana:And tell the insurance industry to get lost.
:beer:

Their ~5% profit is outrageously low, lees than the annual Medicare fraud.

[sailsmen]

Wrong, my friend, just eliminate a step, period.

What is the insurance industies role? Why are they needed?

Just treat the sick, period.

:beer:

Their role is to mitigate the economic consequences of an unforseen fortuitous loss by assuming risk.

Are you sugeesting we replace the insurance companies with Gov't administering? By the IRS own account half the answers it gives out are wrong. IT is estimated the new healthcare regulations will exceed the number of pages for the IRS regulations.

We will not wait around and die because a procedure has met it's annual budget. Why do so many from Canada come to the USA for treatment including high elected officials?

[sailsmen]

Next time you guys go to your doctor, ask him if he\she thinks the insurance industry is needed to treat the sick?

Ask them if they enjoy dealing with them?

Ask them how they feel about giving thier patients the bad news...sorry they said no.

Please explain to me why they need to be part of the process?

You guys can't all work for this industry...

Again, please tell me thier role and why they have to be involved?

Be cool, your friend.
:beer:
Same can be said for life insurance, home insurance, auto insurance. Just pay the dead's family, just give them a new home, just fix their car.

I lived in the UK. My mother was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 1996. Had she lived in the UK she would be dead, if you met her you would never know she has cancer.
My father was diagnosed with cancer in 1998. Had he lived in the UK he would probably be dead and would be disabled, if you met him you would not know he had cancer.

[kernie]

Their role is to mitigate the economic consequences of an unforseen fortuitous loss by assuming risk.

We will not wait around and die because a procedure has met it's annual budget. Why do so many from Canada come to the USA for treatment including high elected officials?


Ahh yes, the two tier system, that is a system that can work. The Canadian public system is far from perfect. There are wait times for an overloaded\underfunded universal system. So if i'm a millionaire and i get cancer i as a Canadian i can bypass the lineup by crossing the border and paying big bucks out of pocket for immediate service. This IMO is fair as i'm still paying my share for the universal system and without me in the lineup the poor smucks without the cash acually have a shorter line and are thankfull that i went private.

Can that not be done in the USA?

Notice my two-tier choice doesn't involve a blood sucking insurance company, why should it?

:beer:

[sailsmen]

Their role is to mitigate the economic consequences of an unforseen fortuitous loss by assuming risk.

We will not wait around and die because a procedure has met it's annual budget. Why do so many from Canada come to the USA for treatment including high elected officials?


Ahh yes, the two tier system, that is a system that can work. The Canadian public system is far from perfect. There are wait times for an overloaded\underfunded universal system. So if i'm a millionaire and i get cancer i as a Canadian i can bypass the lineup by crossing the border and paying big bucks out of pocket for immediate service. This IMO is fair as i'm still paying my share for the universal system and without me in the lineup the poor smucks without the cash acually have a shorter line and are thankfull that i went private.

Can that not be done in the USA?

Notice my two-tier choice doesn't involve a blood sucking insurance company, why should it?

:beer:

In the USA we have Medicaid, Medicare, Charity Organization, CHIPS, State Health Programs. Gov't pays about 50% of all medical bills.

Insurance companies do not suck blood. 5% profit is hardly blood sucking. BlueCross/BlueShield are non-profit and have a large share of the market. I explained what an insurance company does as simply as I can. I am sure you understand it and are just interested in stirring up trouble.

[kernie]

Same can be said for life insurance, home insurance, auto insurance. Just pay the dead's family, just give them a new home, just fix their car.

I lived in the UK. My mother was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 1996. Had she lived in the UK she would be dead, if you met her you would never know she has cancer.
My father was diagnosed with cancer in 1998. Had he lived in the UK he would probably be dead and would be disabled, if you met him you would know he had cancer.

You are prettymuch saying that the insurance industry saved your parents not the medical folks.

Does that make sense?

Does a two tier system work for anyone?

:beer:

[kernie]

[QUOTE=kernie;990894]

In the USA we have Medicaid, Medicare, Charity Organization, CHIPS, State Health Programs. Gov't pays about 50% of all medical bills.

Insurance companies do not suck blood. 5% profit is hardly blood sucking. BlueCross/BlueShield are non-profit and have a large share of the market. I explained what an insurance company does as simply as I can. I am sure you understand it and are just interested in stirring up trouble.

Not at all, over and out.

:beer:

[FordNut]

[QUOTE=kernie;990894]

In the USA we have Medicaid, Medicare, Charity Organization, CHIPS, State Health Programs. Gov't pays about 50% of all medical bills.

Insurance companies do not suck blood. 5% profit is hardly blood sucking. BlueCross/BlueShield are non-profit and have a large share of the market. I explained what an insurance company does as simply as I can. I am sure you understand it and are just interested in stirring up trouble.

Hit the nail on the head...

Unfortunately, the government-run healthcare system we currently have has decided they (medicaid) won't pay for certain transplants. Won't pay for root canals. Won't pay enough to cover costs on numerous procedures. Delay payments to providers for months... So they are in essence the death panels for transplant candidates. They force people to have teeth pulled because they will pay for extractions but not root canals. They cause people to commute to another town to find a healthcare provider because their compensation rates are so low Doctors refuse to accept it. They drive providers into bankruptcy because they delay payments so long.

The problem is not as much the commercial insurance companies as it is the government run insurance companies (medicare, medicaid).

So the solution of the liberals seems to be let the government take over even more of it.

[SC Cheesehead]

Their role is to mitigate the economic consequences of an unforseen fortuitous loss by assuming risk.

We will not wait around and die because a procedure has met it's annual budget. Why do so many from Canada come to the USA for treatment including high elected officials?


Ahh yes, the two tier system, that is a system that can work. The Canadian public system is far from perfect. There are wait times for an overloaded\underfunded universal system. So if i'm a millionaire and i get cancer i as a Canadian i can bypass the lineup by crossing the border and paying big bucks out of pocket for immediate service. This IMO is fair as i'm still paying my share for the universal system and without me in the lineup the poor smucks without the cash acually have a shorter line and are thankfull that i went private.

Can that not be done in the USA?

Notice my two-tier choice doesn't involve a blood sucking insurance company, why should it?

:beer:

Kernie, read sailsman's previous post again:


Their role is to mitigate the economic consequences of an unforseen fortuitous loss by assuming risk.
Are you sugeesting we replace the insurance companies with Gov't administering?

Insurance companies are a business, and just like any other business, if they can't make a profit, they will not remain in business. Anyone with a basic understanding of a free market economic system realizes this. If it costs you more to do something than you are paid for it, you'll quit doing it. If you were paid $100 a day at your job, but it cost you $105 per day to do it, how long would you continue working that job?

If that point is accepted, the argument then often becomes they're making "too much profit," (point of reference above: "a blood sucking insurance company") but I then ask the question what is considered "too much?"

A survey was commissioned by Excellus BlueCross BlueShield in 2009 to gauge consumer knowledge of and attitudes toward health insurer profitability. Responses are summarized below to the question, "What would you consider to be an excessive profit margin percentage for a health insurance company?" According to the survey, 69% of the respondents felt that margins 11% or higher were excessive.
Profit margin: Respondents
4% or less:5%
5-10%:15%
11-20%:31%
21-30%:14%
31-40%:5%
41-50%:4%
51+%:8%
No answer:18%
http://readme.readmedia.com/Most-New-Yorkers-Define-Excessive-Profit-Margins-of-Health-Plans-To-Be-Above-10/1213859

Now look at reality. The top five health insurance companies reported an average profit margin of 5.2% for 2009. Wellpoint had the highest profit margin racking up a 7.6% in profits. Humana’s 3.4% profit was the lowest for the top 5 health insurance companies.
http://conservativepatriothq.com/2010/02/13/obscene-health-insurance-company-profits-for-2009/

Updated data are now available for Q4 of 2009 (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html), and the Health Care Plan industry (includes Humana (HUM (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/hum)), Aetna (AET (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/aet)), WellPoint (WLP (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/wlp)), Magellan (MGLN (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/mgln)), Unitedhealth Group (UNH (http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/unh)), etc.), and the health insurance industry slipped to #88 with a profit margin of 3.4%. Actually, that industry profit margin was boosted by WellPoint's 18% profit margin for Q4 2009, which was due largely to a one-time sale of its Pharmacy Benefit Management division. Without that sale, WellPoint's profit margin would have been only 3.9%, the industry average profit margin would have been closer to 3%, and the ranking for the industry would have fallen a few places down to #92.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/189285-health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by-industry-profit-margin

Would we save huge quanties of money by doing away with insurance companies? Doubtful. Again referencing the article above:

"America's Health Insurance Plans ((AHIP) (http://www.ahip.org/)), the industry's trade association representing 1,300 members, reported (http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/2009IndividualMarketSurveyFina lReport.pdf) last October that annual health insurance premiums averaged $2,985 for individual coverage and $6,328 for family plans in 2009. Using the industry average profit margin of 3.4% means that insurance companies make about $100 per policy in profits for individual coverage, and a little more than $200 in profits for each family policy.

So even if we could strip away 100% of the health insurance industry's profits, it would only save patients between $100 and 200 per year in health insurance costs."

So why are insurance (or you could substitute the term medical) costs so high? Lots of reasons, government regulations, mountains of (IMO, unnecessary) paperwork, abusive legal settlements, I can go on and on. One thing of which I am ABSOLUTELY certain: MORE government intervention WILL NOT result in lower healthcare costs.

[kernie]

The Constitutional Fix is very simple, the Gov't provides healthcare for "free" and then raises income tax to pay for it.
The easiest way is to expand Medicare. You cannot opt out of Medicare or they with hold your SS checks.

I am not advocating the above, just explaining how it can be done.

So sorry i spoke up, i thought i saw some common sense, my mistake, i will be a good liberal now and be quiet.

:beer:

[sailsmen]

You are prettymuch saying that the insurance industry saved your parents not the medical folks.

Does that make sense?

Does a two tier system work for anyone?

:beer:

No where did I say that. Again you are just stirring up trouble.

We do have a two tier system. As I previously stated we have Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, Charity and State provided, half of all medical bills are paid by Gov't.

[SC Cheesehead]

So sorry i spoke up, i thought i saw some common sense, my mistake, i will be a good liberal now and be quiet.

:beer:

By golly, first you get yourself a Blue, now this. You're starting to learn, my friend! :D :D :D

[kernie]

No where did I say that. Again you are just stirring up trouble.

I just don't understand why you keep saying that, my big beef is with the insurance industry, man these guys don't meed to send lobyists to Washington they have you guys!

Man! i'm thinking i'm on your side but i'm treated like a troublemaker, the heck with it, whatever!, live with your sub-par system, why should i care!

Over and freakin out!

[kernie]

By golly, first you get yourself a Blue, now this. You're starting to learn, my friend! :D :D :D
But i have a capable brain that keeps screaming at me to help these poor brainwashed rightwingers!

I will use the override button...he he.

:beer:

[FordNut]

I just don't understand why you keep saying that, my big beef is with the insurance industry, man these guys don't meed to send lobyists to Washington they have you guys!

Man! i'm thinking i'm on your side but i'm treated like a troublemaker, the heck with it, whatever!, live with your sub-par system, why should i care!

Over and freakin out!

First this ^^^ then 7 minutes later, this VVV


But i have a capable brain that keeps screaming at me to help these poor brainwashed rightwingers!

I will use the override button...he he.

:beer:
Liar liar pants on fire!!!

[sailsmen]

We have the highest cancer survival rates in the world. Cancer survival being defined from the date of diagnosis. Cancer is the one of the most difficult diseases to treat and is an excellent measure of the quality of healtcare. We also have a very diverse population.

The world gets much of their medical advances from us.

If the USA had the UK cancer survival rate for men every year 130,000 men in the USA would DIE.

Health insurance companies do not determine services rendered. They only determine what they have contractually agreed to pay based on what policy coverage you bought. If they say "no" they will not pay you can appeal to the insurance company, appeal to your State Insurance Commissioner, pay for the service yourself, go to a charity hospital, borrow the money, hold a fund raiser or work out an installment plan with the medical provider.

A survey by the Pew and others revealed ~80% are satisfied with their health insurance.
The new healthcare law provides for 2/3 of the cost for health insurance for thsoe who have gone 6 months with out insurance. The Gov't estimated 375,000 would sing up this year and 450,000 in subsequent years. To date 8,100 have signed up. Most in the USA who have private insurance have it rhu work. With unemployment at 9.8% one would think more than 8,100 people would need insurance who can't get it.

Is our Gov't that incompetent that it budgets and builds an infrastructure for 375,000 and finds out only 8,100?

[FordNut]

Is our Gov't that incompetent that it budgets and builds an infrastructure for 375,000 and finds out only 8,100?

In a word, yes.

[CBT]

Awwwwwww yeeeeaaaaaaah!!!!!!! Go Ron!!


Audit the Fed in 2011 Since the announcement last week that I will chair the congressional subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve, the media response has been overwhelming. The groundswell of opposition to Fed actions among ordinary citizens is reflected not only in the rhetoric coming out of Capitol Hill, but also in the tremendous interest shown by the financial press. The demand for transparency is growing, whether the political and financial establishment likes it or not. The Fed is losing its vaunted status as an institution that somehow is above politics and public scrutiny. Fed transparency will be the cornerstone of my efforts as subcommittee chairman.
Thanks to public pressure earlier this year, Congress did pass legislation that requires the Fed to disclose some information about its bailout of select industries and companies following the 2008 financial crisis. So two weeks ago the Fed released data concerning more than $3 trillion of assistance it offered to banks through its bailout facilities. After reviewing this data, however, we are left with many more questions about the Fed's “lending”.

In the “Term Securities Lending Facility”, the Fed was supposed to have loaned against AAA-rated securities-- yet over half of the collateral put up by banks to obtain loans had no listed credit rating. Should we assume that the Fed accepted absolute junk rated securities as collateral for loans? Presumably these securities were so bad that they wouldn’t even publicize their credit rating. So why should our central bank, backed up by your taxes, accept such collateral?

On another note, of the $1.25 trillion purchased under the Fed’s “Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program,” only $877 billion in purchases have been publicized. What happened to the remaining $400 billion?

These kinds of limited disclosures by the Fed only underscore the need for a full and complete audit of the Fed’s financial books. This audit should be done by an independent third party, in the same manner that public companies are audited. The Fed should make public its balance sheet, income statement, and perhaps most importantly its cash flow statement. It also should publicize the notes explaining those financial statements.
We seem to forget sometimes that Congress created the Fed-- it is a government-created banking monopoly, and its top decision-makers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If the Fed does not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of these politicians and their constituents, the Chairman and Governors may not be re-nominated.
In theory, Congress could even repeal the Federal Reserve Act altogether since it has the authority to do so. Obviously Congress is within its authority to audit an organization it created by statute, and it is time to assume that responsibility.

With 320 Members of Congress cosponsoring my legislation to fully audit the Fed in the 111th Congress, my hope is that we can build on our broad bipartisan coalition in 2011 and continue the push for greater Fed transparency going forward.

Congressman Ron Paul

[guspech750]

Awwwwwww yeeeeaaaaaaah!!!!!!! Go Ron!!


Audit the Fed in 2011 Since the announcement last week that I will chair the congressional subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve, the media response has been overwhelming. The groundswell of opposition to Fed actions among ordinary citizens is reflected not only in the rhetoric coming out of Capitol Hill, but also in the tremendous interest shown by the financial press. The demand for transparency is growing, whether the political and financial establishment likes it or not. The Fed is losing its vaunted status as an institution that somehow is above politics and public scrutiny. Fed transparency will be the cornerstone of my efforts as subcommittee chairman.
Thanks to public pressure earlier this year, Congress did pass legislation that requires the Fed to disclose some information about its bailout of select industries and companies following the 2008 financial crisis. So two weeks ago the Fed released data concerning more than $3 trillion of assistance it offered to banks through its bailout facilities. After reviewing this data, however, we are left with many more questions about the Fed's “lending”.

In the “Term Securities Lending Facility”, the Fed was supposed to have loaned against AAA-rated securities-- yet over half of the collateral put up by banks to obtain loans had no listed credit rating. Should we assume that the Fed accepted absolute junk rated securities as collateral for loans? Presumably these securities were so bad that they wouldn’t even publicize their credit rating. So why should our central bank, backed up by your taxes, accept such collateral?

On another note, of the $1.25 trillion purchased under the Fed’s “Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program,” only $877 billion in purchases have been publicized. What happened to the remaining $400 billion?

These kinds of limited disclosures by the Fed only underscore the need for a full and complete audit of the Fed’s financial books. This audit should be done by an independent third party, in the same manner that public companies are audited. The Fed should make public its balance sheet, income statement, and perhaps most importantly its cash flow statement. It also should publicize the notes explaining those financial statements.
We seem to forget sometimes that Congress created the Fed-- it is a government-created banking monopoly, and its top decision-makers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If the Fed does not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of these politicians and their constituents, the Chairman and Governors may not be re-nominated.
In theory, Congress could even repeal the Federal Reserve Act altogether since it has the authority to do so. Obviously Congress is within its authority to audit an organization it created by statute, and it is time to assume that responsibility.

With 320 Members of Congress cosponsoring my legislation to fully audit the Fed in the 111th Congress, my hope is that we can build on our broad bipartisan coalition in 2011 and continue the push for greater Fed transparency going forward.

Congressman Ron Paul

Sure sounds nice. But it will never ever happen!!:alone:

This thread hurts my head mommy. http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6TOCt7RoE3nNlM: (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZGa9_gGxfyw/See_2RgNs3I/AAAAAAAAADk/Pd4H8OgYnqo/s320/ericmask.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.geocities.ws/bdllgseekoawoq/blbbhjxzkvvifbj.html&usg=__z0pIAtHVYeuOT2bNmLYas737 1Is=&h=150&w=150&sz=4&hl=en&start=4&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=6TOCt7RoE3nNlM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmask%2Bthe%2Bmovi e%2Bwith%2Bcher%26hl%3Den%26gb v%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1)

[CBT]

Sure sounds nice. But it will never ever happen!!:alone:

This thread hurts my head mommy. http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6TOCt7RoE3nNlM: (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZGa9_gGxfyw/See_2RgNs3I/AAAAAAAAADk/Pd4H8OgYnqo/s320/ericmask.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.geocities.ws/bdllgseekoawoq/blbbhjxzkvvifbj.html&usg=__z0pIAtHVYeuOT2bNmLYas737 1Is=&h=150&w=150&sz=4&hl=en&start=4&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=6TOCt7RoE3nNlM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmask%2Bthe%2Bmovi e%2Bwith%2Bcher%26hl%3Den%26gb v%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1)

And on that note

[CBT]

HEY! Why didn't the thread lock?! I thought I had admin privs? :D

[sailsmen]

Next time you guys go to your doctor, ask him if he\she thinks the insurance industry is needed to treat the sick?

Ask them if they enjoy dealing with them?

Ask them how they feel about giving thier patients the bad news...sorry they said no.

Please explain to me why they need to be part of the process?

You guys can't all work for this industry...

Again, please tell me thier role and why they have to be involved?

Be cool, your friend.
:beer:

Per USA Today " The American Medical Association says 17% of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Among primary care physicians, the rate is 31%.

The federal health insurance program for seniors paid doctors on average 78% of what private insurers paid in 2008.

"Physicians are saying, 'I can't afford to keep losing money,' " says Lori Heim, president of the family doctors' group.

What more and more Doctors are saying is if you have Medicare we cannot treat you. If you have private insurance we can treat you. The Gov't denies payment, with holds payments for over a year in many cases and requires enormous amounts of wastefull paper work to pay you.

[guspech750]

And when doctors do treat non paying patients they only treat non paying patients at the hospital and not at their office so the hospital gets stuck with the bills.

[kernie]

Their role is to mitigate the economic consequences of an unforseen fortuitous loss by assuming risk.

Are you sugeesting we replace the insurance companies with Gov't administering? By the IRS own account half the answers it gives out are wrong. IT is estimated the new healthcare regulations will exceed the number of pages for the IRS regulations.

We will not wait around and die because a procedure has met it's annual budget. Why do so many from Canada come to the USA for treatment including high elected officials?

I have a close relative that worked for GE, he had a company car, guess who insured that car? GE, thats who, why? Because GE was big enough that it didn't need a profit motivated outsider.

Does the mighty USA government need a profit motivated entity to mitigate it's risk?

Silly position, IMO.

Not that it's any of my buisness and of course i'm just a troublemaker, :shake:

[FordNut]

Plus they never know if/when congress will get locked down and NOT defer the additional 25% reimbursement cut. Healthcare reform should have addressed that issue on a permanent basis but it was not affordable from the get-go so adding that would never fly. Instead the elected morons would rather let even more doctors refuse to treat medicare patients. Sure they can mandate insurance coverage but they can't force anybody to accept it.

[FordNut]

I have a close relative that worked for GE, he had a company car, guess who insured that car? GE, thats who, why? Because GE was big enough that it didn't need a profit motivated outsider.

Does the mighty USA government need a profit motivated entity to mitigate it's risk?

Silly position, IMO.

Not that it's any of my buisness and of course i'm just a troublemaker, :shake:

We know...

[kernie]

We know...
Oh you are just angry about the billy-bob reference, he he.

Can't you see the benefits of a universal system where everyone is covered?

You know, like the top 35 or so systems in the world?

It's such a wierd feeling, you know your right but you can't find a single soul to agree with you, he he.

:D

[FordNut]

Sure, in a utopian existence where everything is free and fairies dance in the night with their magic wand just making everything right in the world. I live in reality instead. Personally I prefer quality. You know, the place where people who can afford to go anywhere in the world for health care come to? It ain't Canada, either.

[kernie]

Sure, in a utopian existence where everything is free and fairies dance in the night with their magic wand just making everything right in the world. I live in reality instead. Personally I prefer quality. You know, the place where people who can afford to go anywhere in the world for health care come to? It ain't Canada, either.
Yes, money does talk!

Do you qualify?

:beer:

[sailsmen]

I have a close relative that worked for GE, he had a company car, guess who insured that car? GE, thats who, why? Because GE was big enough that it didn't need a profit motivated outsider.

Does the mighty USA government need a profit motivated entity to mitigate it's risk?

Silly position, IMO.

Not that it's any of my buisness and of course i'm just a troublemaker, :shake:

No but I and your close relative do. Blue Cross/Blue Shield and several other medical insurance companies are non-profit. The USA Gov't does not buy insurance. In some cases the USA Gov't utilizes medical insurers to administer certain programs just like it hires various contractors to administer various programs.

The proof we have the best healthcare system is that we have the highest cancer survival rate in the World. Thousands from all around the world come to the USA every year to get their healthcare from the same hospital that I choose to go to.

I don't want Gov't controlled Medicaid or my State medical system. I buy insurance that meets my needs that all doctors accept, unlike the Gov't system.

I keep answering your questions and you keep throwing out inflamatory statements. IF you are asking questions to learn then why ignore the answers or reply with an inflamatory statement? You keep giving me the impression you are just interested in stirring trouble.

[FordNut]

Yes, money does talk!

Do you qualify?

:beer:

Except in socialistic places, then everybody gets crappy service... except politicians. And they have the peons convinced they have it good. :banana:


No but I and your close relative do. Blue Cross/Blue Shield and several other medical insurance companies are non-profit. The USA Gov't does not buy insurance. In some cases the USA Gov't utilizes medical insurers to administer certain programs just like it hires various contractors to administer various programs.

The proof we have the best healthcare system is that we have the highest cancer survival rate in the World. Thousands from all around the world come to the USA every year to get their healthcare from the same hospital that I choose to go to.

I don't want Gov't controlled Medicaid or my State medical system. I buy insurance that meets my needs that all doctors accept, unlike the Gov't system.

I keep answering your questions and you keep throwing out inflamatory statements. IF you are asking questions to learn then why ignore the answers or reply with an inflamatory statement? You keep giving me the impression you are just interested in stirring trouble.

True, that's what liberals do when they know they're losing...

[kernie]

No but I and your close relative do. Blue Cross/Blue Shield and several other medical insurance companies are non-profit. The USA Gov't does not buy insurance. In some cases the USA Gov't utilizes medical insurers to administer certain programs just like it hires various contractors to administer various programs.

The proof we have the best healthcare system is that we have the highest cancer survival rate in the World. Thousands from all around the world come to the USA every year to get their healthcare from the same hospital that I choose to go to.

I don't want Gov't controlled Medicaid or my State medical system. I buy insurance that meets my needs that all doctors accept, unlike the Gov't system.

I keep answering your questions and you keep throwing out inflamatory statements. IF you are asking questions to learn then why ignore the answers or reply with an inflamatory statement? You keep giving me the impression you are just interested in stirring trouble.
Argue that point with newsweek, an american publication, they have the USA rated at 26th using much more detail than we are.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

I mean for you to say you have the best...
BTW, what is the definition of "stirring trouble", not agreeing with the majority?

[Vortex]

We need socialized medicine just like the UK/Canada/Australia/France ect.... Our present system is horrible, period.

[sailsmen]

Healthy Life expectancy is what Newsweek used. Healthy Life expectancy is not directly related to quality of healthcare. Cancer survival rate is directly related to quality of healthcare.

We have a minority that has a low life expectancy rate, 5 years less. We also have many health problems from obescity as a result of our high standard of living. 25% of our youth are too fat to be accepted into the military. In the USA a baby that dies at any time after birth is recorded as a death and in many countries a baby that dies with in 6 months of birth is not recorded as a death. If one looks at each group in the USA their life expectancy rate is higher in the USA than it is in their native country.

2009
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Dr. Ann Doig, incoming CMA president told The Canadian Press. "We know that there must be change. We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current CMA president, said there was a need to make the system more patient-centric. According to CP, Dr. Ouellet believes that Canadian wait lists can be made to disappear, and that "competition should be welcomed, not feared."
"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," Doig told CP.

Our system is far from perfect, reform can be done on 1 page. Our Gov't passed a 2,700 page bill and to this day we do not even know who wrote it. Over 4,500 pages of new regulations have been written and they are only 40% finished. Over 100 new commissions have been created. None of this will improve healthcare or make it more affordable.

Stirring the pot - "Notice my two-tier choice doesn't involve a blood sucking insurance company, why should it?"
"You are prettymuch saying that the insurance industry saved your parents not the medical folks.

Does that make sense?"
"... live with your sub-par system, why should i care!"
"... help these poor brainwashed rightwingers!"

Perhaps that is just the way you post. If so I will not view it as stirring trouble.

[sailsmen]

We need socialized medicine just like the UK/Canada/Australia/France ect.... Our present system is horrible, period.

Not if you get sick. Particularly the UK, their system for many is circa 1900.

From Canadian TV "The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent." Note the survival rate starts from diagnosis.

The 5 main cancers Canada is ~58% to USA 64% to UK 44%. When you get one of the 5 main cancers where do you want to be diagnosed?

Gov't is immune from all LIABILITY and this is what happens when your are immune from your actions.

There are a large number of well published articles about the horrors in the UK;
Not a single official has been disciplined over the worst-ever NHS hospital scandal, it emerged last night.
Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care.
But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction.
Indeed, some have either retired on lucrative pensions or have swiftly found new jobs.
Former chief executive Martin Yeates, who has since left with a £1million pension pot, six months’ salary and a reported £400,000 payoff, did not even give evidence to the inquiry which detailed the scale of the scandal yesterday.
… The independent inquiry headed by Robert Francis QC found the safety of sick and dying patients was ‘routinely neglected’. Others were subjected to ‘ inhumane treatment’, ‘bullying’, ‘abuse’ and ‘rudeness’.
… Bosses at the Trust – officially an ‘elite’ NHS institution – were condemned for their fixation with cutting waiting times to hit Labour targets and leaving neglected patients to die.
But after a probe that was controversially held in secret, not a single individual has been publicly blamed.
The inquiry found that:
• Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;
• Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;
• Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;
• Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.
… The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall ‘dangerously low’, causing nurses to neglect the most basic care. It said: ‘Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to.
‘Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.’ Food and drink were left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases.
While many staff did their best, Mr Francis said, others showed a disturbing lack of compassion to patients."

[SC Cheesehead]

I just don't understand why you keep saying that, my big beef is with the insurance industry, man these guys don't meed to send lobyists to Washington they have you guys!

Man! i'm thinking i'm on your side but i'm treated like a troublemaker, the heck with it, whatever!, live with your sub-par system, why should i care!

Over and freakin out!

This is an assumption, and an arrogant one at that.

[kernie]

This is an assumption, and an arrogant one at that.

Don't you have something better to do?

Troublemaker!

[Bluerauder]

Not at all, over and out.

:beer:


So sorry i spoke up. I will be a good liberal now and be quiet.

:beer:


Over and freakin out!


Not that it's any of my buisness and of course i'm just a troublemaker. :shake:


Oh you are just angry about the billy-bob reference, he he.
:D


Don't you have something better to do?

Troublemaker!

Kernie just can't resist these political threads ... its the only kind he'll post in. :rolleyes:

[kernie]

Kernie just can't resist these political threads ... its the only kind he'll post in. :rolleyes:
That statement isn't true at all.

But it was so nice of you to stop in and give your opinion.

[SC Cheesehead]

Don't you have something better to do?

Troublemaker!

Yes, I do, but it's just so much fun giving you grief... ;) -------> :D

[FordNut]

Kernie just can't resist these political threads ... its the only kind he'll post in. :rolleyes:


That statement isn't true at all.

But it was so nice of you to stop in and give your opinion.

Some people just exaggerate... It's not the ONLY kind he'll post in, just look at his post history, there are at least 5 posts in the most recent 3 pages of post history that are not in a political based thread.

[kernie]

Would you guys prefer me to give you advice on your cars?



:beer:

[FordNut]

Would you guys prefer me to give you advice on your cars?

:beer:

That statement infers that you know something we don't and/or we WANT your advice. On cars, politics, women, farting, doesn't matter what the subject, we don't want it or need it. However, if you have any questions on any subjects we'll be happy to give you advice...

[SC Cheesehead]

Would you guys prefer me to give you advice on your cars?



:beer:

Well, you got a Blue car, so you're definitely headed in the right direction...;)

[kernie]

Well, you got a Blue car, so you're definitely headed in the right direction...;)
Ha, that just shows i have good taste, but really i have a vast amount of mechanical knowledge...just down the road at the garage! :D

:beer:

[PonyUP]

I've been out of town on business for a week, just got back thought I would chime in. As a dem, I have very much been in favor of reforming healthcare. But we needed a comprehensive approach with views from both sides. Instead we got a 2600 page bill that has no teeth and was forced through.

That having been said, when our health system is compared as inferior to foreign systems (Canada,U.K,, France) I get a little upset. I recently saw a friend and colleague of mine that has been working in London for the last 3 years. He had a son while he was over there and told me that he was only allowed to have a midwife. This really rocked me, because while I'm sure they are capable, when it comes to my kid being born, I want to be in a hospital that is prepared for every contingency, not have someone come to my house as a midwife. I want the best for my kids (when I ahve them) That's costs money, a lot of it, which is why we have insurance companies.

I'll take U.S. medecine, and a capital market. but I do think we need some governement oversight to regulate the insurance companies.

[SC Cheesehead]

I've been out of town on business for a week, just got back thought I would chime in. As a dem, I have very much been in favor of reforming healthcare. But we needed a comprehensive approach with views from both sides. Instead we got a 2600 page bill that has no teeth and was forced through.

That having been said, when our health system is compared as inferior to foreign systems (Canada,U.K,, France) I get a little upset. I recently saw a friend and colleague of mine that has been working in London for the last 3 years. He had a son while he was over there and told me that he was only allowed to have a midwife. This really rocked me, because while I'm sure they are capable, when it comes to my kid being born, I want to be in a hospital that is prepared for every contingency, not have someone come to my house as a midwife. I want the best for my kids (when I ahve them) That's costs money, a lot of it, which is why we have insurance companies.

I'll take U.S. medecine, and a capital market. but I do think we need some governement oversight to regulate the insurance companies.

FWIW, Maybe we should start by regulating the ambulance chasers and cap malpractice awards and cut out some of the current over-regulation of medical practice. There is HUGE amount of money spent on uneeded tests, redunant and useless paperwork, etc., all in the name of "government oversight." I hear it almost daily, anecdoatally from one who sees it daily.

[CBT]

DREAM act was shot down again, woo hoo!

[PonyUP]

FWIW, Maybe we should start by regulating the ambulance chasers and cap malpractice awards and cut out some of the current over-regulation of medical practice. There is HUGE amount of money spent on uneeded tests, redunant and useless paperwork, etc., all in the name of "government oversight." I hear it almost daily, anecdoatally from one who sees it daily.

I would agree with that, there are so many frivelous lawsuits that run up medical costs. Malpractice insurance alone causes a good spike because it is so expensive to make up for those lawsuits. Why is it, that the fix seems so easy to us, and these politicians can't figure it out. In this thread alone, we have had people from both sides of the aisle be able to agree on so many solutions, if the day ever comes that this ass monkeys can figure out how to work together, maybe we actually could improve this country.

[SC Cheesehead]

I would agree with that, there are so many frivelous lawsuits that run up medical costs. Malpractice insurance alone causes a good spike because it is so expensive to make up for those lawsuits. Why is it, that the fix seems so easy to us, and these politicians can't figure it out. In this thread alone, we have had people from both sides of the aisle be able to agree on so many solutions, if the day ever comes that this ass monkeys can figure out how to work together, maybe we actually could improve this country.

Hey, here's an idea....

http://images1.cpcache.com/product/12510811v7_480x480_Front.jpg

:D:D:D

[kernie]

I've been out of town on business for a week, just got back thought I would chime in. As a dem, I have very much been in favor of reforming healthcare. But we needed a comprehensive approach with views from both sides. Instead we got a 2600 page bill that has no teeth and was forced through.

That having been said, when our health system is compared as inferior to foreign systems (Canada,U.K,, France) I get a little upset. I recently saw a friend and colleague of mine that has been working in London for the last 3 years. He had a son while he was over there and told me that he was only allowed to have a midwife. This really rocked me, because while I'm sure they are capable, when it comes to my kid being born, I want to be in a hospital that is prepared for every contingency, not have someone come to my house as a midwife. I want the best for my kids (when I ahve them) That's costs money, a lot of it, which is why we have insurance companies.

I'll take U.S. medecine, and a capital market. but I do think we need some governement oversight to regulate the insurance companies.

To be fair it should be mentioned that in this

http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

article US spending per capita was {2005 numbers i believe} $7,290 while Brittan's was $2,840 for a difference of $4,450 per year per citizen, that's a big number.

[CBT]

To be fair it should be mentioned that in this

http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

article US spending per capita was {2005 numbers i believe} $7,290 while Brittan's was $2,840 for a difference of $4,450 per year per citizen, that's a big number.

And you get what you pay for. Next.

[SC Cheesehead]

To be fair it should be mentioned that in this

http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

article US spending per capita was {2005 numbers i believe} $7,290 while Brittan's was $2,840 for a difference of $4,450 per year per citizen, that's a big number.

Yes, but once again, you need to look at the whole picture.

There is no such thing as "free" health care. The per capita numbers quoted in no way cover the cost of medical care in either country. For those countries with socialized medicine, the government pays for the gap between personal outlay and actual cost through (guess what) taxes. So with that in mind; consider these BIGGER numbers:

US Income Tax Rate: 35%
US Corporate Tax Rate: 35%
US Sales Tax/VAT Rate: 0%

UK Income Tax Rate: 50%
UK Corporate Tax Rate: 28%
UK Sales Tax/VAT Rate: 17.5%

And to throw one more into the mix

Canada Income Tax Rate: 50%
Canada Corporate Tax Rate: 34%
Canada GST/HST/PST Rate: 5% - 15%
http://www.taxrates.cc/index.html


And you get what you pay for. Next.

^^^^^ TRUE, THAT. ^^^^^^

[kernie]

Yes, but once again, you need to look at the whole picture.

There is no such thing as "free" health care. The per capita numbers quoted in no way cover the cost of medical care in either country. For those countries with socialized medicine, the government pays for the gap between personal outlay and actual cost through (guess what) taxes. So with that in mind; consider these BIGGER numbers:

US Income Tax Rate: 35%
US Corporate Tax Rate: 35%
US Sales Tax/VAT Rate: 0%

UK Income Tax Rate: 50%
UK Corporate Tax Rate: 28%
UK Sales Tax/VAT Rate: 17.5%

And to throw one more into the mix

Canada Income Tax Rate: 50%
Canada Corporate Tax Rate: 34%
Canada GST/HST/PST Rate: 5% - 15%
http://www.taxrates.cc/index.html



^^^^^ TRUE, THAT. ^^^^^^
If you look at the second table the private and public outlays are clearly separated for each country, thus the totals as i stated. BTW, forget about how it's paid for, per capita cost...period.

Also you have no state sales taxes?

[SC Cheesehead]

If you look at the second table the private and public outlays are clearly separated for each country, thus the totals as i stated. BTW, forget about how it's paid for, per capita cost...period.

Also you have no state sales taxes?

Spoken like a true socialist... ;)



Listed federal taxes only. State sales taxes vary by state, in in some cases, no state sales tax (TN, TX)