Fact is fact, Tea Partiers are extremists

[kitty]

Cutting taxes reduces revenue. There is no place to cut spending. The Reps just had an opportunity to cut $500 billion from Medicare and ran against cutting it.

Mandatory spending Medicare and SS are the areas that are killing us. Try running a campaign telling granny you are going to cut her healthcare(medicare) and her living(Social Security).

Never happen.

What do you mean there is no place to cut spending? You telling me we need to be spending trillions more in money than 2 years ago? There isnt any waste to cut?

And cutting taxes increases economic activity and increased econimic activity increase revenues.

Actually, that approach didn't work during the Reagan years and it certainly didn't work during the W "cut taxes and start two wars" years.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Hahahaha...you're funny!

I know people who go to work every single day, and work two jobs, and STILL can't afford or get health insurance because of their pre-existing conditions. But you're right, you got yours, and if they can't take of themselves, that's their tough luck. It's the American Way.

I got mine cause I worked for it. now I gotta work for yours asswipe. cause you damn dumb democrats are too damn dumb to take care of yourselves,, you gotta have a damn nanny state. so hard working Americans get to go to work to buy health insurance for prostitutes n pimps and drug users and drug pushers,, and we're gonna love every single damn minute of it..

I've got mine too because I worked for it. I'm lucky, and so are you. A lot of people have lost their jobs, and because health insurance is usually (and unfortunately) tied to employment, they've lost their insurance as well. I don't mind paying a little more to help people out. Having said that, of course some people abuse the system. But are you going to penalize people who really really need the help?

What am I saying? Of course you are. That's what your posts are all about.

I don't think anyone minds helping people out. I mind when government mandates me to help someone out, I mind that government is now running health care, I mind government butting in when it isn't necessary to achieve change.

 

[WillowTree]

Hahahaha...you're funny!

I know people who go to work every single day, and work two jobs, and STILL can't afford or get health insurance because of their pre-existing conditions. But you're right, you got yours, and if they can't take of themselves, that's their tough luck. It's the American Way.

I got mine cause I worked for it. now I gotta work for yours asswipe. cause you damn dumb democrats are too damn dumb to take care of yourselves,, you gotta have a damn nanny state. so hard working Americans get to go to work to buy health insurance for prostitutes n pimps and drug users and drug pushers,, and we're gonna love every single damn minute of it..

I've got mine too because I worked for it. I'm lucky, and so are you. A lot of people have lost their jobs, and because health insurance is usually (and unfortunately) tied to employment, they've lost their insurance as well. I don't mind paying a little more to help people out. Having said that, of course some people abuse the system. But are you going to penalize people who really really need the help?

What am I saying? Of course you are. That's what your posts are all about.

good,, you can pay my share too,, cause I don't feel like paying for pimps and prostitutes and for illegals you go for it.

 

[WillowTree]

I got mine cause I worked for it. now I gotta work for yours asswipe. cause you damn dumb democrats are too damn dumb to take care of yourselves,, you gotta have a damn nanny state. so hard working Americans get to go to work to buy health insurance for prostitutes n pimps and drug users and drug pushers,, and we're gonna love every single damn minute of it..

I've got mine too because I worked for it. I'm lucky, and so are you. A lot of people have lost their jobs, and because health insurance is usually (and unfortunately) tied to employment, they've lost their insurance as well. I don't mind paying a little more to help people out. Having said that, of course some people abuse the system. But are you going to penalize people who really really need the help?

What am I saying? Of course you are. That's what your posts are all about.

I don't think anyone minds helping people out. I mind when government mandates me to help someone out, I mind that government is now running health care, I mind government butting in when it isn't necessary to achieve change.

you know the libtards always go to that compassionate sob story, 50% of Americans pay little or no federal taxes,, so of course they gotta steal what we have earned to get their damned freebies..

 

[Meister]

So you want the people with pre-existing conditions who can't get or can't afford coverage to just die?

Your telling me your an idiot?
Please try not to project in what I'm saying....your not very good at it obviously? There are other ways to deal with that problem, like through medicaid....as it is now. It doesn't take an overhaul of our entire healthcare system to acheive what you and I want....unless your for a socilized healthcare system.
You seem, to forget that 80%+ are happy with their insurance plan. You seem to forget that the majority of Americans think this bill down right sucks.....along with a lot of democrats, and that includes a lot of politicians that needed to be bribed to get it passed.

Medicaid is granted based on income levels. Some people who are above those levels (middle class) still cannot get or afford health insurance.

I haven't forgotten the polls, and I haven't forgotten the 20% who aren't happy, or the uncounted people who don't have coverage at all.

If we want to make health CARE (not insurance) affordable for everyone, we need to greatly reduce for-profit insurance companies' participation in the system. Their existence, and the level of control they have over the control of health care, adds quite a bit to the final cost that we pay.

You can change the existing income levels, Kitty. Hell, they're changing everything else by more extremes than what it would take with Medicaid.
Please show us the huge profits made by the insurance companies...provide some links that say they are more out of line than with most industries profit margin.
You must not have an idea on how screwed up our government will be in trying to contain the deficit with this bill. Try to understand the massive debt with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Amtrack. Once you can grasp those figures, come back and lets talk about those profit margins for the insurance companies.

 

[DE3]

Cutting taxes reduces revenue. There is no place to cut spending. The Reps just had an opportunity to cut $500 billion from Medicare and ran against cutting it.

Mandatory spending Medicare and SS are the areas that are killing us. Try running a campaign telling granny you are going to cut her healthcare(medicare) and her living(Social Security).

Never happen.

What do you mean there is no place to cut spending? You telling me we need to be spending trillions more in money than 2 years ago? There isnt any waste to cut?

And cutting taxes increases economic activity and increased econimic activity increase revenues.

The inreases where almost all due to mandatory spending. That means by law, whether it be Medicare or SS. Try running against cutting those two and get elected.

Cutting taxes does not increase economic activity enough to offset the oss in revenue. It never has, despite what politicans and many pundits insist.

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

This link shows a detailed study by the Bush treasury Dept. of tax increases and decreases on the impact of revenues. In no instance have tax cuts EVER inreased revenues.

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.



Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME

 

[Meister]

I've got mine too because I worked for it. I'm lucky, and so are you. A lot of people have lost their jobs, and because health insurance is usually (and unfortunately) tied to employment, they've lost their insurance as well. I don't mind paying a little more to help people out. Having said that, of course some people abuse the system. But are you going to penalize people who really really need the help?

What am I saying? Of course you are. That's what your posts are all about.

I don't think anyone minds helping people out. I mind when government mandates me to help someone out, I mind that government is now running health care, I mind government butting in when it isn't necessary to achieve change.

you know the libtards always go to that compassionate sob story, 50% of Americans pay little or no federal taxes,, so of course they gotta steal what we have earned to get their damned freebies..

What percentage pays no taxes, and gets a check for not paying any taxes?

 

[boedicca]

The inreases where almost all due to mandatory spending. That means by law, whether it be Medicare or SS. Try running against cutting those two and get elected.

Cutting taxes does not increase economic activity enough to offset the oss in revenue. It never has, despite what politicans and many pundits insist.

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

This link shows a detailed study by the Bush treasury Dept. of tax increases and decreases on the impact of revenues. In no instance have tax cuts EVER inreased revenues.

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.



Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME

A good deal of the spending IS discretionary.

Why oh why do we need 1 Census worker per 300 member of the population? How about sunseting programs such as agricultural subisdies which are no longer relevant? How about using the TARP repayments to reduce the deficit instead of (in violation of The Law) recycling them in to expanding government spending?

There is also a great deal that can be done to get entitlement spending under control. SS has been modified to accelerate annual increases beyond standard CPI. We'd save a ton if we just limited increases to CPI. The real solution is to privatize it along the lines of the Chilean model, but the Dems have thwarted every step in that direction.

 

[WillowTree]

I don't think anyone minds helping people out. I mind when government mandates me to help someone out, I mind that government is now running health care, I mind government butting in when it isn't necessary to achieve change.

you know the libtards always go to that compassionate sob story, 50% of Americans pay little or no federal taxes,, so of course they gotta steal what we have earned to get their damned freebies..

What percentage pays no taxes, and gets a check for not paying any taxes?

yes, I remember that shit too. Americans who went out and worked their asses off and paid their federal taxes had to give fucking rebates to the libtards who paid zero taxes..

 

[kitty]

Your telling me your an idiot?
Please try not to project in what I'm saying....your not very good at it obviously? There are other ways to deal with that problem, like through medicaid....as it is now. It doesn't take an overhaul of our entire healthcare system to acheive what you and I want....unless your for a socilized healthcare system.
You seem, to forget that 80%+ are happy with their insurance plan. You seem to forget that the majority of Americans think this bill down right sucks.....along with a lot of democrats, and that includes a lot of politicians that needed to be bribed to get it passed.

Medicaid is granted based on income levels. Some people who are above those levels (middle class) still cannot get or afford health insurance.

I haven't forgotten the polls, and I haven't forgotten the 20% who aren't happy, or the uncounted people who don't have coverage at all.

If we want to make health CARE (not insurance) affordable for everyone, we need to greatly reduce for-profit insurance companies' participation in the system. Their existence, and the level of control they have over the control of health care, adds quite a bit to the final cost that we pay.

You can change the existing income levels, Kitty. Hell, their changing everything else by more extremes than what it would take with Medicaid.
Please show us the huge profits made by the insurance companies...provide some links that say they are more out of line than with most industries profit margin.
You must not have an idea on how screwed up our government will be in trying to contain the deficit with this bill. Try to understand the massive debt with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Amtrack. Once you can grasp those figures, come back and lets talk about those profit margins for the insurance companies.

We could change existing income levels, and the cost of that would get passed to the taxpayer, too.

I didn't say that insurance companies make huge profits, meister. I said that their participation in health care delivery adds to the cost of our health care (via our premiums). Back in the day, my parents paid out-of-pocket for normal visits and blood work. They had "major medical" insurance to handle significant costs. Both out-of-pocket costs and the insurance were a lot more affordable back then. The expansion of health insurance, and the attendant administrative costs and profit (low as it is), add to our cost. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Medicaid is granted based on income levels. Some people who are above those levels (middle class) still cannot get or afford health insurance.

I haven't forgotten the polls, and I haven't forgotten the 20% who aren't happy, or the uncounted people who don't have coverage at all.

If we want to make health CARE (not insurance) affordable for everyone, we need to greatly reduce for-profit insurance companies' participation in the system. Their existence, and the level of control they have over the control of health care, adds quite a bit to the final cost that we pay.

You can change the existing income levels, Kitty. Hell, their changing everything else by more extremes than what it would take with Medicaid.
Please show us the huge profits made by the insurance companies...provide some links that say they are more out of line than with most industries profit margin.
You must not have an idea on how screwed up our government will be in trying to contain the deficit with this bill. Try to understand the massive debt with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Amtrack. Once you can grasp those figures, come back and lets talk about those profit margins for the insurance companies.

We could change existing income levels, and the cost of that would get passed to the taxpayer, too.

I didn't say that insurance companies make huge profits, meister. I said that their participation in health care delivery adds to the cost of our health care (via our premiums). Back in the day, my parents paid out-of-pocket for normal visits and blood work. They had "major medical" insurance to handle significant costs. Both out-of-pocket costs and the insurance were a lot more affordable back then. The expansion of health insurance, and the attendant administrative costs and profit (low as it is), add to our cost. That's all I'm saying.

Now they have another 30 million to expand with.

 

[DE3]

The inreases where almost all due to mandatory spending. That means by law, whether it be Medicare or SS. Try running against cutting those two and get elected.

Cutting taxes does not increase economic activity enough to offset the oss in revenue. It never has, despite what politicans and many pundits insist.

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

This link shows a detailed study by the Bush treasury Dept. of tax increases and decreases on the impact of revenues. In no instance have tax cuts EVER inreased revenues.

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.



Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME

A good deal of the spending IS discretionary.

Why oh why do we need 1 Census worker per 300 member of the population? How about sunseting programs such as agricultural subisdies which are no longer relevant? How about using the TARP repayments to reduce the deficit instead of (in violation of The Law) recycling them in to expanding government spending?

There is also a great deal that can be done to get entitlement spending under control. SS has been modified to accelerate annual increases beyond standard CPI. We'd save a ton if we just limited increases to CPI. The real solution is to privatize it along the lines of the Chilean model, but the Dems have thwarted every step in that direction.

If you take out Defense spending, Veterens services, Homeland security, and Intel, you are talking about $500 billion in the budget. There is not a lot to cut there.

 

[Meister]

Medicaid is granted based on income levels. Some people who are above those levels (middle class) still cannot get or afford health insurance.

I haven't forgotten the polls, and I haven't forgotten the 20% who aren't happy, or the uncounted people who don't have coverage at all.

If we want to make health CARE (not insurance) affordable for everyone, we need to greatly reduce for-profit insurance companies' participation in the system. Their existence, and the level of control they have over the control of health care, adds quite a bit to the final cost that we pay.

You can change the existing income levels, Kitty. Hell, their changing everything else by more extremes than what it would take with Medicaid.
Please show us the huge profits made by the insurance companies...provide some links that say they are more out of line than with most industries profit margin.
You must not have an idea on how screwed up our government will be in trying to contain the deficit with this bill. Try to understand the massive debt with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Amtrack. Once you can grasp those figures, come back and lets talk about those profit margins for the insurance companies.

We could change existing income levels, and the cost of that would get passed to the taxpayer, too.

I didn't say that insurance companies make huge profits, meister. I said that their participation in health care delivery adds to the cost of our health care (via our premiums). Back in the day, my parents paid out-of-pocket for normal visits and blood work. They had "major medical" insurance to handle significant costs. Both out-of-pocket costs and the insurance were a lot more affordable back then. The expansion of health insurance, and the attendant administrative costs and profit (low as it is), add to our cost. That's all I'm saying.

Understood. With mandates from the government on the companies, plus tort reform, out of state competition, and healthcare saving accounts for starters could help get to where we need to be, and not have an overhaul by our government. Our government can't even keep it's own spending in line, and they want to tackle something like this is just insane.

 

[WillowTree]

You can change the existing income levels, Kitty. Hell, their changing everything else by more extremes than what it would take with Medicaid.
Please show us the huge profits made by the insurance companies...provide some links that say they are more out of line than with most industries profit margin.
You must not have an idea on how screwed up our government will be in trying to contain the deficit with this bill. Try to understand the massive debt with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Amtrack. Once you can grasp those figures, come back and lets talk about those profit margins for the insurance companies.

We could change existing income levels, and the cost of that would get passed to the taxpayer, too.

I didn't say that insurance companies make huge profits, meister. I said that their participation in health care delivery adds to the cost of our health care (via our premiums). Back in the day, my parents paid out-of-pocket for normal visits and blood work. They had "major medical" insurance to handle significant costs. Both out-of-pocket costs and the insurance were a lot more affordable back then. The expansion of health insurance, and the attendant administrative costs and profit (low as it is), add to our cost. That's all I'm saying.

Now they have another 30 million to expand with.

with stolen money from the elderly,, how fucking compassionate of them. no really it izzzzzz so downright dumb.. innit?

 

[DE3]

Like I said run on the SS and Medicare issues in terms of cuts and see where that gets you.

 

[frazzledgear]

Know I called them monkeys, mainly because they do a good job of fling poop and not facts.

That makes you a monkey, v2.

Facts are facts, the Tea Party started during Obama's presidental campaign with their lies about Obama being a Muslim, Socialist, and being born outside the US, hell one old retard even believed he was Arab. They're prime examples of what politicians can do with uneducated, uninformed, ignorant people. They're walking zombies. If Limbaugh, Beck or Palin said Obama was really a Martian from space in disguise Tea partiers would believe it, I'd bet they'd even "find" Martian to back up their statements.

You just proved you are only capable of parroting what your handlers tell you to. If you ever had an independent thought in your head, it escaped years ago.

 

[kitty]

You can change the existing income levels, Kitty. Hell, their changing everything else by more extremes than what it would take with Medicaid.
Please show us the huge profits made by the insurance companies...provide some links that say they are more out of line than with most industries profit margin.
You must not have an idea on how screwed up our government will be in trying to contain the deficit with this bill. Try to understand the massive debt with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Amtrack. Once you can grasp those figures, come back and lets talk about those profit margins for the insurance companies.

We could change existing income levels, and the cost of that would get passed to the taxpayer, too.

I didn't say that insurance companies make huge profits, meister. I said that their participation in health care delivery adds to the cost of our health care (via our premiums). Back in the day, my parents paid out-of-pocket for normal visits and blood work. They had "major medical" insurance to handle significant costs. Both out-of-pocket costs and the insurance were a lot more affordable back then. The expansion of health insurance, and the attendant administrative costs and profit (low as it is), add to our cost. That's all I'm saying.

Now they have another 30 million to expand with.

That's right. And there's no way I can think of to reduce insurance companies' participation, unless we boycott 'em all! LOL. At least the bill requires them to spend 80-85% of the premiums on health care. Someone (can't remember who or where I read it...sorry!) said that currently the percentage is in the 70s.

 

[Xenophon]

Right-wing extremists taint Tea Party protests, hurt conservative cause | The Eagle Online

This was from a conservative on conservatives. The Tea Partiers are sick extremist monkeys with severe mental issues and are in need of help. When you believe lies are the truth and believe it as gospel something is wrong.

Fact is fact Jamaal, you are a racist homophobe.

 

[CMike]

I will never forget all the maggots on the left who attacked Sarah Palin's minor child. These people are the lowest of the low.

However, that is not what was so troubeling. What was really troubeling was how so many liberals defended these scum who attacked Sarah Palin's minor child. These people are scum too. They acted as if Sarah Palin's child deserved it simply because she accompainied her when she was on a stage.

I wonder how you people sleep at night. If you had a conscience, you wouldn't.

SCUM

 

[kitty]

I will never forget all the maggots on the left who attacked Sarah Palin's minor child. These people are the lowest of the low.

However, that is not what was so troubeling. What was really troubeling was how so many liberals defended these scum who attacked Sarah Palin's minor child. These people are scum too. They acted as if Sarah Palin's child deserved it simply because she accompainied her when she was on a stage.

I wonder how you people sleep at night. If you had a conscience, you wouldn't.

SCUM

Somebody attacked her CHILD? How?