Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times

[Polk]

17. Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about not letting a crises go to waste?

What legislation has been rushed? The stimulus was passed quickly for obvious reason, but beyond that, what's been rushed?

 

[Polk]

13. If the ‘public option’ health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

So you guys think that individuals should have choice, unless those individuals are in public office. Interesting...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

ACORN didn't receive any stimulus money.

I take it on faith that the rest of your points are also lies.

There is billions set aside for groups like ACORN the failure of transparency has made the allocation of the funds unclear but the money is there have they received it? WHo knows will they probably ,
Will you say something about the source being fox?
Of course
Why not answer who wrote the stimulus package?
Republicans Object to Stimulus Dollars for ACORN
Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that ACORN, the low-income advocacy group under investigation for voter registration fraud, could be eligible for billions in aid from the economic stimulus proposal working its way through the House.

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., told FOX News Tuesday that the money could be seen as "payoff" for groups’ political activities in the last election…

But he said the funding is just one example of frivolous spending items in the $825 billion package.

"It’s just a long list of spending items. Not a real economic stimulus job creation bill," Vitter said. "It’s line after line after line of favorite liberal spending programs, and it amounts to a big government bill — not a job creation bill."
Republicans Object to Stimulus Dollars for ACORN - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

1. Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

Oh really? Where'd you get that figure, a comic book?

Come back when you have a closer figure.

Hint: that's the GDP for the entire planet.

Social Security versus Medicare. Politi cians and the media focus on Social Security's financial health, but Medicare's future liabilities are far more ominous, at more than $89 trillion. Medicare's total unfunded liability is more than five times larger than that of Social Security. In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2006 (Part D) alone adds some $17 trillion to the projected Medicare shortfall - an amount greater than all of Social Security's unfunded obligations.

Social Security and Medicare Projections:*2009 - Brief Analysis #662

I see you are a little confused over the terms .No biggy.
The unfunded debt is debts that are promised in the future that have no funding in the budget, The will be paid by fiat money , borrowed fiat money that will further increase the national debt.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
Updated 5/29/2007 8:33 AM
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion - USATODAY.com[/url

 

[elvis]

1. Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

Oh really? Where'd you get that figure, a comic book?

Come back when you have a closer figure.

Hint: that's the GDP for the entire planet.

Social Security versus Medicare. Politi cians and the media focus on Social Security's financial health, but Medicare's future liabilities are far more ominous, at more than $89 trillion. Medicare's total unfunded liability is more than five times larger than that of Social Security. In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2006 (Part D) alone adds some $17 trillion to the projected Medicare shortfall - an amount greater than all of Social Security's unfunded obligations.

Social Security and Medicare Projections:*2009 - Brief Analysis #662

I see you are a little confused over the terms .No biggy.
The unfunded debt is debts that are promised in the future that have no funding in the budget, The will be paid by fiat money , borrowed fiat money that will further increase the national debt.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
Updated 5/29/2007 8:33 AM
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion - USATODAY.com[/url

No. the ossiah would never do such a thing.

 

[elvis]

And of course the old saying is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the current health care bill is a case in point.

Ever heard of the phrase "pre-existing conditions?"

ever heard of a lobotomy?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

1. Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

Oh really? Where'd you get that figure, a comic book?

Come back when you have a closer figure.

Hint: that's the GDP for the entire planet.

oops, I missed the part where it was Glenn Beck that posed these questions.

I thought these were your own questions Avatar and written on the fly and no edit........

eek, Glenn Beck is more of a lazy hack than even previously thought.......

At any rate, 100T is just about the GDP for the entire planet and would fund medicare for the next 100 years and cover everybody in the US and everybody's pets in perpetuity and pay for a college education for everybody as well. Our present GDP is hovering near 14T and China is poised to nose us out very shortly as they chug along, but they have at least a billion more people than we do. We are at something like 300M+ and they have 1.3B+.

That's a lot of peeps.

And you are an ignorant hack

Social Security versus Medicare. Politi cians and the media focus on Social Security's financial health, but Medicare's future liabilities are far more ominous, at more than $89 trillion. Medicare's total unfunded liability is more than five times larger than that of Social Security. In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2006 (Part D) alone adds some $17 trillion to the projected Medicare shortfall - an amount greater than all of Social Security's unfunded obligations.

Social Security and Medicare Projections:*2009 - Brief Analysis #662

I see you are a little confused over the terms .No biggy.
The unfunded debt is debts that are promised in the future that have no funding in the budget, The will be paid by fiat money , borrowed fiat money that will further increase the national debt.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
Updated 5/29/2007 8:33 AM
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion - USATODAY.com

 

[PixieStix]

If the American people fail to ask questions of their government, it is the American people who will fail



Soros?
Podesta?
Apollo Alliance?
Tides Foundation?
Ameri Corp?
SEIU?

Now, if you look at the complex web used to hide ACORN’s finances, you can also see why Obama has created such intricate, confusing organizational structures for his stimulus bills, bailouts and the healthcare takeover. And like ACORN, it certainly isn’t to make the process more efficient.

Obama's Czars: Shadow Government or ACORN Clone

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ACORN didn't receive any stimulus money.

I take it on faith that the rest of your points are also lies.

you can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Willow... Allow me to rephrase the query...

What ravi has stated here is that "ACORN" which is one acronym, used to identify one element of a host of little known groups which are rooted from the same stem; that "ACORN" hasn't received ANY money... Now this is an assertion of FACT!

What this implies is that Ravi is 100% certain that NO Group which is tied to, intrinsic or part and parcel of... originated by the same people as and/or otherwise so affiliated with ACORN has received NO MONEY from the US Federal Gov't! Ravi is stating in this bald assertion that she knows for a FACT the circumstances that surround ACORN; she understands its founding, its roots, who operates it, the scope of that operation, who the players are, how they're funded and SHE KNOWS THAT THAT GROUP has received absolutely NO FEDERAL FUNDING.

Sadly down the thread here, where Ravi was asked to prove her assertion, she slyly tried to flip it back and presented the board with a negative... Projecting that Sarah Palin had engaged in some ficticious illicit activity... she feels that this is a negative assertion, thus where the respondent denies the assertion, she can then demand that they prove their assertion and that they will inevitably fail to do so... thus proving her point.

When in truth her assertion is not difficult to disprove at all...

Its merely a function of posing a direct and unambiguous challenge to her, to substantiate her assertion and PRESTO... when she fails to do so... the assertion is discredited; through the established certainty that she made the assertion upon absolutely nothing beyond, what ever it is she offers... when what she offers as evidence is reasonably shown to be nonsense, the assertion suffers the same unenviable identity.

Such as is the case here...

Now Ravi has made the tactical error of responding to an assertion with another countering assertion and now stands: SO CHALLENGED:

Ravi prove Palin engaged in the illicit activity you alleged or concede by default that your assertion was an empty pant load common to the addled mind set of the irrational female; aka: The Leftist.

Now Beck has charted the ACORN Cabal many times... He has demonstrated the voluminous facets of ACORN, represented by all of the various groups from which all stem off of the ACORN stalk.

If Ravi would like to place her personal credibility on the line here... if she would take the time to simply state that SHE 'KNOWS FOR A FACT that ACORN is NOT a cabal of numerous shell groups and other such entities... and that none of those groups have in ANY WAY received funding from the US Federal Gov't and that their members are NOT in high positions of influence throughout the Federal Govt; in particularly the Hussein Regime..'

Then I'd be happy to counter that argument...

Of course Ravi will not take that position; and this because Ravi's a coward; a person fo low moral character; an irrational female who's prone to run off at her fat mouth and make EMPHATIC STATEMENTS which have absolutely NO BASIS IN ANYTHING except her feelings that 'we should trust these people...'

So where Ravi says that 'Acorn has received NO FUNDING from the US Gov't'; this is a statement which falls to trust. Ya see, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc... haven't reported that such is the case and in so doing have not informed her that such is BAD... so she trust that it hasn't happened.

Anytime you're ready Ravi...

(Now for the record, what this fat Critical, Unfit, Neg-reppin' Thug will do is, most likely, ignore the challange, thus conceding by default that she's full of shit... and send yet another 150 point Ned rep against my humble rep-means...

Its what idiots do when they've simply no other means to express themselves with any discernible credibility...)

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

ACORN didn't receive any stimulus money.

I take it on faith that the rest of your points are also lies.

How the hell did you get 290 rep points?

 

[Zoom-boing]

ACORN didn't receive any stimulus money.

I take it on faith that the rest of your points are also lies.

How the hell did you get 290 rep points?

Life is full of mysteries.

 

[garyd]

Preexisting conditions? YOu mean that excuse for not insuring some one's ailments that has already been outlawed by most state governments and state insurance regulators. Sorry Chrissie the Feds don't need to do anything aobut that one. It's already been taken care of.

 

[Polk]

Preexisting conditions? YOu mean that excuse for not insuring some one's ailments that has already been outlawed by most state governments and state insurance regulators. Sorry Chrissie the Feds don't need to do anything aobut that one. It's already been taken care of.

Five out of fifty is most?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Preexisting conditions? YOu mean that excuse for not insuring some one's ailments that has already been outlawed by most state governments and state insurance regulators. Sorry Chrissie the Feds don't need to do anything aobut that one. It's already been taken care of.

LOL... Yeah I LOVE THAT ONE, Gayrd!

It is hilarious! It's as if ignorance is a virtue to these people...

They claim that it is INEXCUSABLE for an insurance company to not accept a contract with a person who is presenting a condition that is KNOWN to exist... thus the liability is a certainty... thus the purpose of insurance... to offset the potential for unforseen financial LOSSES is not an appropriate solution...

BUT! They're ALL FOR crippling the system which IS AN APPROPRIATE SOLUTION for EVERY ONE ELSE... and replacing it with a system; the architects of which FREELY ADMIT will not provide treatment to those with PRECISELY THE SAME CONDITIONS, but will provide counseling that helps them adjust to their respective, unenviable reality...

Which amounts to little more than 'Counseling' which the SAME PEOPLE will explain is 'perfectly reasonable'... and which is readily available to those who can't use insurance to INSURE AGAINST ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN LOSSES...

So to recap: It's NOT reasonable that insurance companies do not accept people who present certain, imminent losses to the pools which they will join; Losses which will undermine the viability of those pools, and cripple the means of those pooled funds to treat those who properly used the system...

But it is PERFECTLY reasonable for the Government to cripple that system, replace it with a vastly less efficient system; and then reject the same people... for the same reasons.

Therein demonstrating the fatal flaw in the idiocy that IS Socialized healthcare; and the deceptive, foolish advocacy for same by the ideological left.

You see kids... If the certainty is that one is liable for imminent losses... the simple fact is that one is liable for those losses. You can't go to a viable financial institution and ask them to give you a million dollars, for which you're willing to pay $500 a month... or even a week. Do the math... The same is true, without regard to WHO you go to... as what you're asking for is CHARITY.

Now there is a place for charity... but what the left wants to do is to replace CHARITY with ENTITLEMENT... and the simple fact is that YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHARITY...

If someone wants to give you a Million dollars... GREAT! If thousands of someones are willing to part with $50, towards helping you aquire the million you need for an organ transplant... GREAT!

But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you entitled to take the million from one someone... or the fifty bucks from thousands of someones... All you're entitled to do is ASK...

Got that...?

This is not a complex issue... its just an issue wherein most of the answers are not what ya want to hear. And despite what you've been told...

YOUR NEED DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO SOMEONE ELSES MEANS!​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lol... no snappy comebacks?

Go figure...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ACORN didn't receive any stimulus money.

I take it on faith that the rest of your points are also lies.

you can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Willow... Allow me to rephrase the query...

What ravi has stated here is that "ACORN" which is one acronym, used to identify one element of a host of little known groups which are rooted from the same stem; that "ACORN" hasn't received ANY money... Now this is an assertion of FACT!

What this implies is that Ravi is 100% certain that NO Group which is tied to, intrinsic or part and parcel of... originated by the same people as and/or otherwise so affiliated with ACORN has received NO MONEY from the US Federal Gov't! Ravi is stating in this bald assertion that she knows for a FACT the circumstances that surround ACORN; she understands its founding, its roots, who operates it, the scope of that operation, who the players are, how they're funded and SHE KNOWS THAT THAT GROUP has received absolutely NO FEDERAL FUNDING.

Sadly down the thread here, where Ravi was asked to prove her assertion, she slyly tried to flip it back and presented the board with a negative... Projecting that Sarah Palin had engaged in some ficticious illicit activity... she feels that this is a negative assertion, thus where the respondent denies the assertion, she can then demand that they prove their assertion and that they will inevitably fail to do so... thus proving her point.

When in truth her assertion is not difficult to disprove at all...

Its merely a function of posing a direct and unambiguous challenge to her, to substantiate her assertion and PRESTO... when she fails to do so... the assertion is discredited; through the established certainty that she made the assertion upon absolutely nothing beyond, what ever it is she offers... when what she offers as evidence is reasonably shown to be nonsense, the assertion suffers the same unenviable identity.

Such as is the case here...

Now Ravi has made the tactical error of responding to an assertion with another countering assertion and now stands: SO CHALLENGED:

Ravi prove Palin engaged in the illicit activity you alleged or concede by default that your assertion was an empty pant load common to the addled mind set of the irrational female; aka: The Leftist.

Now Beck has charted the ACORN Cabal many times... He has demonstrated the voluminous facets of ACORN, represented by all of the various groups from which all stem off of the ACORN stalk.

If Ravi would like to place her personal credibility on the line here... if she would take the time to simply state that SHE 'KNOWS FOR A FACT that ACORN is NOT a cabal of numerous shell groups and other such entities... and that none of those groups have in ANY WAY received funding from the US Federal Gov't and that their members are NOT in high positions of influence throughout the Federal Govt; in particularly the Hussein Regime..'

Then I'd be happy to counter that argument...

Of course Ravi will not take that position; and this because Ravi's a coward; a person fo low moral character; an irrational female who's prone to run off at her fat mouth and make EMPHATIC STATEMENTS which have absolutely NO BASIS IN ANYTHING except her feelings that 'we should trust these people...'

So where Ravi says that 'Acorn has received NO FUNDING from the US Gov't'; this is a statement which falls to trust. Ya see, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc... haven't reported that such is the case and in so doing have not informed her that such is BAD... so she trust that it hasn't happened.

Anytime you're ready Ravi...

(Now for the record, what this fat Critical, Unfit, Neg-reppin' Thug will do is, most likely, ignore the challange, thus conceding by default that she's full of shit... and send yet another 150 point Ned rep against my humble rep-means...

Its what idiots do when they've simply no other means to express themselves with any discernible credibility...)

Test... test, test...

Ravi... You're asked to come to the podium and defend you long since discredited 'feelings'...

 

[Polk]

Preexisting conditions? YOu mean that excuse for not insuring some one's ailments that has already been outlawed by most state governments and state insurance regulators. Sorry Chrissie the Feds don't need to do anything aobut that one. It's already been taken care of.

LOL... Yeah I LOVE THAT ONE, Gayrd!

It is hilarious! It's as if ignorance is a virtue to these people...

They claim that it is INEXCUSABLE for an insurance company to not accept a contract with a person who is presenting a condition that is KNOWN to exist... thus the liability is a certainty... thus the purpose of insurance... to offset the potential for unforseen financial LOSSES is not an appropriate solution...

You don't know you did it, but you just made one of the strongest arguments possible against health insurance and in favor of a single-payer system.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Preexisting conditions? YOu mean that excuse for not insuring some one's ailments that has already been outlawed by most state governments and state insurance regulators. Sorry Chrissie the Feds don't need to do anything aobut that one. It's already been taken care of.

LOL... Yeah I LOVE THAT ONE, Gayrd!

It is hilarious! It's as if ignorance is a virtue to these people...

They claim that it is INEXCUSABLE for an insurance company to not accept a contract with a person who is presenting a condition that is KNOWN to exist... thus the liability is a certainty... thus the purpose of insurance... to offset the potential for unforseen financial LOSSES is not an appropriate solution...

BUT! They're ALL FOR crippling the system which IS AN APPROPRIATE SOLUTION for EVERY ONE ELSE... and replacing it with a system; the architects of which FREELY ADMIT will not provide treatment to those with PRECISELY THE SAME CONDITIONS, but will provide counseling that helps them adjust to their respective, unenviable reality...

Which amounts to little more than 'Counseling' which the SAME PEOPLE will explain is 'perfectly reasonable'... and which is readily available to those who can't use insurance to INSURE AGAINST ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN LOSSES...

So to recap: It's NOT reasonable that insurance companies do not accept people who present certain, imminent losses to the pools which they will join; Losses which will undermine the viability of those pools, and cripple the means of those pooled funds to treat those who properly used the system...

But it is PERFECTLY reasonable for the Government to cripple that system, replace it with a vastly less efficient system; and then reject the same people... for the same reasons.

Therein demonstrating the fatal flaw in the idiocy that IS Socialized healthcare; and the deceptive, foolish advocacy for same by the ideological left.

You see kids... If the certainty is that one is liable for imminent losses... the simple fact is that one is liable for those losses. You can't go to a viable financial institution and ask them to give you a million dollars, for which you're willing to pay $500 a month... or even a week. Do the math... The same is true, without regard to WHO you go to... as what you're asking for is CHARITY.

Now there is a place for charity... but what the left wants to do is to replace CHARITY with ENTITLEMENT... and the simple fact is that YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHARITY...

If someone wants to give you a Million dollars... GREAT! If thousands of someones are willing to part with $50, towards helping you aquire the million you need for an organ transplant... GREAT!

But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you entitled to take the million from one someone... or the fifty bucks from thousands of someones... All you're entitled to do is ASK...

Got that...?

This is not a complex issue... its just an issue wherein most of the answers are not what ya want to hear. And despite what you've been told...

YOUR NEED DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO SOMEONE ELSES MEANS!​

You don't know you did it, but you just made one of the strongest arguments possible against health insurance and in favor of a single-payer system.

And you just identified what I love MOST about the aforementioned Leftist claim...

Ya see, you feel that because there exist a need by some ethereal group... that this is all you need to establish a sound basis for the government to confiscate the earnings of other
people so as to fund some solution to fill that need.

You're simply wrong... and the proof that you're wrong is demonstrated by your decision to cut the bulk of the argument in your response... particularly the incontrovertible principle:

"YOUR NEED DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO SOMEONE ELSES MEANS!"​

Now all I ask is that you demonstrate exactly how it is that you or those who you claim HAVE A MEDICAL NEED are ENTITLED to the labor of others to solve that need OR the product of the labor of others to fund a solution to fill that need.

Be sure to let me know what ya come up with...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And as usual... the conversation dries up when there is nowhere left to go but to ANSWER THIS ONE QUERY....

And therein demonstrates the fatal flaw within the species of reasoning known as LEFT-THINK!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So... A DAY LATER...

No Adovocate of Social Science... No Secular Humanist... No Centrist, No Progressive, NO LIBERAL... and certainly No DEMOCRAT... can even DISCUSS how it is that the American principle:

YOUR NEED DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO SOMEONE ELSES MEANS!​

And this is due to this immutable principle REFUTING everything the Ideological Left stands for...

If you're an American... Memorize this principle and use to beat every leftist you come into contact with, over the head with it... They have no answer it it... At least no answer which in ANY WAY... could possibly be recognized as being in line with being an AMERICAN.