The conundrum

[MaggieMae]

I think that the Democrat approach was pointless and completely lacking results.

The republican approach given the same circumstance would have been to simply cut taxes. The result of this would have been pointless and completely lacking results.

My idea is one that would act as a multiplier of the government outlay. 787 billion or a Trillion; it doesn't matter. the dems would burn it and the Reps would throw it away.

Under my plan, the effect would be immediate, direct, positive and forceful.

No money would go to a landlord or a corporation. All of it would go to individuals who have a primary residence whether it is owned or rented. The law could be printed on one side of an 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper. Spend money to improve your primary residence. Save the recipts. Add the recipts together. Multiply by .25. Reduce your tax liability by that amount.

If your tax is $10,000, you could potentially do $40,000 worth of improvements and get it written off partially written off. Obviously, it is self regulating because you can only credit as much as you would have paid. Do Allot? You have to hire someone to help. Everyone does allot? Lots of folks get hired. Those folks pay taxes.

The moral of the story is that the Dems did it wrong, cost us plenty and produced no results. The Reps didn't do it, but if they had, they too would have done it wrong, cost us plenty and produced no results.

Aren't we all just a little sick of getting screwed and getting nothing that we've been promised?

In other words a cash stimulus to every American? Do you have any idea how many really really stupid people there are in this country who would NOT use that money for its stated purpose? Also, how would that help the people already unemployed, since they are paying no taxes? And do we just leave out the new homeless middle class families living with friends, shelters, or sometimes in their cars because they no longer own their property and can't afford to rent?

 

[code1211]

In other words a cash stimulus to every American? Do you have any idea how many really really stupid people there are in this country who would NOT use that money for its stated purpose? Also, how would that help the people already unemployed, since they are paying no taxes? And do we just leave out the new homeless middle class families living with friends, shelters, or sometimes in their cars because they no longer own their property and can't afford to rent?

Try to stay with me on this. The GDP of the USA is about 13 Trillion Dollars. If this Dollars for Domiciles was enacted the GDP would be 18 Trillion. The economy is heated up only by people spending money.

This is why the Big 0's stimulus did not work. There was no incentive to spend. In truth, the fear factor was so great that those who had the cash to spend held on to it because they were afraid of tomorrow. The worst economy since the Great Depression is, as I recall, the battle cry of inspiration that the Big 0 used.

Simply enacting a tax cut would have had the same effect. Those that got money back would have reduced debt or saved it.

By incenting people to spend money and lots of it, there would be plenty of jobs because THERE WOULD BE LOTS OF WORK TO DO. Employers hire employees to do work. When the GDP increases by 38%, work to support this increase will increase by 38% and payrolls will increase by 38% and personal income will increase by 38%.

The increase in personal income would be taxed at the rate of about 10%, the materials would be taxed at sales levels and the licensing fees would be collected and labor would also be taxed at the sales level. 20% of the outlays would be from tax dollars and those outlays would be returned in increased tax revenue. The approach taken by the Big 0 was one that rose from the belief that the problem could not be solved and the suffering needed to be reduced.

This was both fearful and pessimistic. No audacious hope in anything but his words.

The people you are talking about who do not have domiciles now would have had them or retained them before losing them except that our leaders are idiots.

It's the difference between burning a series of matches to try to warm a room or using one match to light a log. In one example, you end up with a cold room and no matches and in the other, you end up with a warm room and a book of matches left to use.

The Big 0 has given us a cold room and used all the matches. Now what?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Big 0 has given us a cold room and used all the matches. Now what?

Well no, they haven't used all the matches yet. But they intend to and there is little hope that room will get any warmer.

And the incompetence continues to escalate. So far the Federal government has spent about 1/3rd of the stimulus package and most of that did not provide any kind of stimulus. So what are the leftwing 'experts' and some in Congress saying? The stimulus package was too small. We need another bigger and better one.

Giving the government license to use a gazillion more matches? What kind of insanity is that?

Glenn Beck's theory is beginning to look more and more plausible. So far it has been the blue states and unions that have benefitted most from what stimulus monies have been spent. What if the intent was never to stimulate the economy but to shore up the sagging Democratic base and buy enough votes to keep the Democrats in power in 2010 and 2012?

Is there any other reason that an emergency stimulus bill that couldn't wait but was essential to get people back to work and the economy moving again has not been used for that purpose? And AFTER the fact we were told that most of it wouldn't be spent until much later on?

What idiots they really do believe us to be.

 

[MaggieMae]

Try to stay with me on this. The GDP of the USA is about 13 Trillion Dollars. If this Dollars for Domiciles was enacted the GDP would be 18 Trillion. The economy is heated up only by people spending money.

This is why the Big 0's stimulus did not work. There was no incentive to spend. In truth, the fear factor was so great that those who had the cash to spend held on to it because they were afraid of tomorrow. The worst economy since the Great Depression is, as I recall, the battle cry of inspiration that the Big 0 used.

Simply enacting a tax cut would have had the same effect. Those that got money back would have reduced debt or saved it.

By incenting people to spend money and lots of it, there would be plenty of jobs because THERE WOULD BE LOTS OF WORK TO DO. Employers hire employees to do work. When the GDP increases by 38%, work to support this increase will increase by 38% and payrolls will increase by 38% and personal income will increase by 38%.

The increase in personal income would be taxed at the rate of about 10%, the materials would be taxed at sales levels and the licensing fees would be collected and labor would also be taxed at the sales level. 20% of the outlays would be from tax dollars and those outlays would be returned in increased tax revenue. The approach taken by the Big 0 was one that rose from the belief that the problem could not be solved and the suffering needed to be reduced.

This was both fearful and pessimistic. No audacious hope in anything but his words.

The people you are talking about who do not have domiciles now would have had them or retained them before losing them except that our leaders are idiots.

It's the difference between burning a series of matches to try to warm a room or using one match to light a log. In one example, you end up with a cold room and no matches and in the other, you end up with a warm room and a book of matches left to use.

The Big 0 has given us a cold room and used all the matches. Now what?

While I agree that a massive tax cut would get people spending more, such a proposition would not have helped the immediate situation for people no longer on someone's payroll, which was my point. It would not have helped the States who were about to go bankrupt by the enormous number of people suddenly added to their own "welfare" programs. It would not have helped municipalities who would have had to lay off teachers, firefighters, sewer repair guys, etc.

As I've already said, the stimulus bill has NOT done everything it hoped for, but I also maintain that it HAS served as a safety net to a large degree. We simply do not know for sure how things would have turned out had it not been enacted.

 

[Vanquish]

We're all in a strange conundrum, that's true.

Dems are looking for waaay too many government fixes.
Republicans believe naively that Big Businesses are altruistic - passing government help down to the common man.

Both are completely wrong.

What's killing me about politics over the past 9 years is that it's gotten waaaay more vitriolic than it needs to be. I can't say "worse than it's ever been before" because that's hyperbolic. I've only been in the political scene for 23 years (I'm 38, started working campaigns at 15) so I can't make such a sweeping allegation. Time magazine had a piece on how politics has always been this bad...but I totally disagree.

What kills me about Republicans...and I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible....is that you wont compromise even a little to work towards something together. What kills me about Democrats is that you can't make a decision and stick with it. Basically Dems need a little more Republican and Republicans need a little more Democrat.

Maybe a national campaign of sex with your opposite would help? LOL

 

[MaggieMae]

We're all in a strange conundrum, that's true.

Dems are looking for waaay too many government fixes.
Republicans believe naively that Big Businesses are altruistic - passing government help down to the common man.

Both are completely wrong.

What's killing me about politics over the past 9 years is that it's gotten waaaay more vitriolic than it needs to be. I can't say "worse than it's ever been before" because that's hyperbolic. I've only been in the political scene for 23 years (I'm 38, started working campaigns at 15) so I can't make such a sweeping allegation. Time magazine had a piece on how politics has always been this bad...but I totally disagree.

What kills me about Republicans...and I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible....is that you wont compromise even a little to work towards something together. What kills me about Democrats is that you can't make a decision and stick with it. Basically Dems need a little more Republican and Republicans need a little more Democrat.

Maybe a national campaign of sex with your opposite would help? LOL

Everyone from both "sides" would agree with that analysis, but actually doing something about it is another story and therefore the battles continue to be waged. I think they should open up the smoking and drinking lounges in both chambers, which is where all the lawmakers would gather and air out their personal shit at the end of the day. I also think it's been a big mistake to have gavel-to-gavel coverage by C-Span (although the intent was noble). We see way too much grandstanding instead of rational debate.

 

[Foxfyre]

We're all in a strange conundrum, that's true.

Dems are looking for waaay too many government fixes.
Republicans believe naively that Big Businesses are altruistic - passing government help down to the common man.

Both are completely wrong.

What's killing me about politics over the past 9 years is that it's gotten waaaay more vitriolic than it needs to be. I can't say "worse than it's ever been before" because that's hyperbolic. I've only been in the political scene for 23 years (I'm 38, started working campaigns at 15) so I can't make such a sweeping allegation. Time magazine had a piece on how politics has always been this bad...but I totally disagree.

What kills me about Republicans...and I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible....is that you wont compromise even a little to work towards something together. What kills me about Democrats is that you can't make a decision and stick with it. Basically Dems need a little more Republican and Republicans need a little more Democrat.

Maybe a national campaign of sex with your opposite would help? LOL

You would be wrong about the Republicans. They have offered suggestion, remedy, and proposal after proposal. They have been ignored and rebuffed at every turn and there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that they can be faulted for opposing what they believe to be wrong or ill advised policy, especially when they are denied a place at the table for any kind of compromise. When you can show me a good bill proposed by the Democrats that the GOP failed to support, then I'll join you in your criticism of the GOP on that score.

(I'm in no way suggesting that there is no room to criticize the GOP. There are certainly issues for which they should be hung, but I'm sorta weird that I don't like to see anybody hung for the wrong crime.)

And you would be wrong about the Democrats not being able to stick with a decision. Their problem is that they can't arrive at a decision that will please enough people to get a bill passed. President Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are all so firm in their decision to force unwanted policy upon the American people and unwilling to compromise that they don't see or hear the people's objections to that. And they can't rally enough of their respective troops to agree with each other.

 

[MaggieMae]

We're all in a strange conundrum, that's true.

Dems are looking for waaay too many government fixes.
Republicans believe naively that Big Businesses are altruistic - passing government help down to the common man.

Both are completely wrong.

What's killing me about politics over the past 9 years is that it's gotten waaaay more vitriolic than it needs to be. I can't say "worse than it's ever been before" because that's hyperbolic. I've only been in the political scene for 23 years (I'm 38, started working campaigns at 15) so I can't make such a sweeping allegation. Time magazine had a piece on how politics has always been this bad...but I totally disagree.

What kills me about Republicans...and I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible....is that you wont compromise even a little to work towards something together. What kills me about Democrats is that you can't make a decision and stick with it. Basically Dems need a little more Republican and Republicans need a little more Democrat.

Maybe a national campaign of sex with your opposite would help? LOL

You would be wrong about the Republicans. They have offered suggestion, remedy, and proposal after proposal. They have been ignored and rebuffed at every turn and there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that they can be faulted for opposing what they believe to be wrong or ill advised policy, especially when they are denied a place at the table for any kind of compromise. When you can show me a good bill proposed by the Democrats that the GOP failed to support, then I'll join you in your criticism of the GOP on that score.

(I'm in no way suggesting that there is no room to criticize the GOP. There are certainly issues for which they should be hung, but I'm sorta weird that I don't like to see anybody hung for the wrong crime.)

And you would be wrong about the Democrats not being able to stick with a decision. Their problem is that they can't arrive at a decision that will please enough people to get a bill passed. President Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are all so firm in their decision to force unwanted policy upon the American people and unwilling to compromise that they don't see or hear the people's objections to that. And they can't rally enough of their respective troops to agree with each other.

I would appreciate seeing some links to your analysis that the Republicans have offered so many counter proposals. In the final health bill that came out of the Senate, I believe the number was 111 Republican amendments that were included. On jobs, they come up with the same old solution: Lowering taxes. A fine idea, if that didn't simply ADD TO the deficit problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would appreciate seeing some links to your analysis that the Republicans have offered so many counter proposals. In the final health bill that came out of the Senate, I believe the number was 111 Republican amendments that were included. On jobs, they come up with the same old solution: Lowering taxes. A fine idea, if that didn't simply ADD TO the deficit problem.

Maggie, dozens of us now have posted link after link after link on thread after thread after thread. It gets tiresome having such links blown off or ignored altogether, so please understand how I will respectfully opt to not waste my time further reposting those links.

If you wish to post links from a reliable source--I won't accept leftwing hate sites--that actually support your perception, I promise I will neither blow them off nor ignore them.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wowzers!...People want everything but want everyone else to pay for it.

Stop the presses!

That is why I say we don't have a health care crisis. Not even a health insurance crisis.

We have a DEADBEAT Crisis.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wowzers!...People want everything but want everyone else to pay for it.

Stop the presses!

That is why I say we don't have a health care crisis. Not even a health insurance crisis.

We have a DEADBEAT Crisis.

And also an entitlement mentality crisis with politicians and bureaucrats in Washington exploiting that to advance their own quest for fame, power, and personal fortune.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I am totally opposed to just doing something, anything in the face of crisis. You think first, then act. You analyze the problem (Bad loans by banks, panic on the part of investors, bad loans being foisted on banks by regulators) and you fix the causes.

Stimulus is just a way to rip off the taxpayer for the benefit of the connected folks. It has no relation to the problem at hand, except we have a lot of unemployment.

Stupid acts done in the face of panic are twice as stupid, as they compound the problem and make it worse.

To put it differently
Order
Counter-Order
Disorder.

 

[MaggieMae]

I would appreciate seeing some links to your analysis that the Republicans have offered so many counter proposals. In the final health bill that came out of the Senate, I believe the number was 111 Republican amendments that were included. On jobs, they come up with the same old solution: Lowering taxes. A fine idea, if that didn't simply ADD TO the deficit problem.

Maggie, dozens of us now have posted link after link after link on thread after thread after thread. It gets tiresome having such links blown off or ignored altogether, so please understand how I will respectfully opt to not waste my time further reposting those links.

If you wish to post links from a reliable source--I won't accept leftwing hate sites--that actually support your perception, I promise I will neither blow them off nor ignore them.

Well we can't all read all posts, can we. And I rarely see links posted by "the other side" unless they ARE from right wing sites. Maybe you do but they must be posted in threads I haven't visited. I keep separate files on links I know I will use more than once as "proof" of where I stand, or "proof" of truth based on the source, not an analysis of the source. Oddly enough I've been accused of posting too many links and not enough personal opinion; when I post a person opinion, I'm often asked for the link (happily provided). I'm also accused of being a HuffPo addict, when I think I've looked at that site maybe a half-dozen times, and that was only on redirect from somewhere else. My daily online reading consists only of the Washington Post and Politico, which often references Drudge and then I'll go there. Any more, and the information just gets cluttered. I subscribe to Newsweek, The Week and National Review, but I'm usually a couple of weeks behind actually reading those.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wowzers!...People want everything but want everyone else to pay for it.

Stop the presses!

That is why I say we don't have a health care crisis. Not even a health insurance crisis.

We have a DEADBEAT Crisis.

That's just plain ignorant. Ask the guy suffering from diabetes who got laid off and lost his employee insurance how he's getting along. He might just stick a knife in your chest if you called him a deadbeat to his face. Then there are those who never had health insurance because it was not affordable, so he treats heart disease with OTC medications and prays a lot.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would appreciate seeing some links to your analysis that the Republicans have offered so many counter proposals. In the final health bill that came out of the Senate, I believe the number was 111 Republican amendments that were included. On jobs, they come up with the same old solution: Lowering taxes. A fine idea, if that didn't simply ADD TO the deficit problem.

Maggie, dozens of us now have posted link after link after link on thread after thread after thread. It gets tiresome having such links blown off or ignored altogether, so please understand how I will respectfully opt to not waste my time further reposting those links.

If you wish to post links from a reliable source--I won't accept leftwing hate sites--that actually support your perception, I promise I will neither blow them off nor ignore them.

Well we can't all read all posts, can we. And I rarely see links posted by "the other side" unless they ARE from right wing sites. Maybe you do but they must be posted in threads I haven't visited. I keep separate files on links I know I will use more than once as "proof" of where I stand, or "proof" of truth based on the source, not an analysis of the source. Oddly enough I've been accused of posting too many links and not enough personal opinion; when I post a person opinion, I'm often asked for the link (happily provided). I'm also accused of being a HuffPo addict, when I think I've looked at that site maybe a half-dozen times, and that was only on redirect from somewhere else. My daily online reading consists only of the Washington Post and Politico, which often references Drudge and then I'll go there. Any more, and the information just gets cluttered. I subscribe to Newsweek, The Week and National Review, but I'm usually a couple of weeks behind actually reading those.

Websites I suggest you visit more often would include:
CATO
Heritage Foundation
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams

Those four at different times will provide a pretty good summary of all the theory, information, and actual proposals put out there by all groups and/or commentary about the current political and economic scene.

Specifically for GOP solutions go to Newsmax or Townhall or Worldnet Daily.

If you want a good cross section of all points of view, visit Real Clear Politics listings of articles each day which are updated in the afternoon and again in the evening. Drudge is a good place to start your day because everybody else (including most television and newpaper coverage) check there regularly. He seems to know what the hot button issues are going to be faster than everybody else. He also offers a very good collection of links to a wide variety of rightwing and leftwing op ed opinion by the nation's best known writers.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie, dozens of us now have posted link after link after link on thread after thread after thread. It gets tiresome having such links blown off or ignored altogether, so please understand how I will respectfully opt to not waste my time further reposting those links.

If you wish to post links from a reliable source--I won't accept leftwing hate sites--that actually support your perception, I promise I will neither blow them off nor ignore them.

Well we can't all read all posts, can we. And I rarely see links posted by "the other side" unless they ARE from right wing sites. Maybe you do but they must be posted in threads I haven't visited. I keep separate files on links I know I will use more than once as "proof" of where I stand, or "proof" of truth based on the source, not an analysis of the source. Oddly enough I've been accused of posting too many links and not enough personal opinion; when I post a person opinion, I'm often asked for the link (happily provided). I'm also accused of being a HuffPo addict, when I think I've looked at that site maybe a half-dozen times, and that was only on redirect from somewhere else. My daily online reading consists only of the Washington Post and Politico, which often references Drudge and then I'll go there. Any more, and the information just gets cluttered. I subscribe to Newsweek, The Week and National Review, but I'm usually a couple of weeks behind actually reading those.

Websites I suggest you visit more often would include:
CATO
Heritage Foundation
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams

Those four at different times will provide a pretty good summary of all the theory, information, and actual proposals put out there by all groups and/or commentary about the current political and economic scene.

Specifically for GOP solutions go to Newsmax or Townhall or Worldnet Daily.

If you want a good cross section of all points of view, visit Real Clear Politics listings of articles each day which are updated in the afternoon and again in the evening. Drudge is a good place to start your day because everybody else (including most television and newpaper coverage) check there regularly. He seems to know what the hot button issues are going to be faster than everybody else. He also offers a very good collection of links to a wide variety of rightwing and leftwing op ed opinion by the nation's best known writers.

You must be truly nuts. Every single one of those are KNOWN promoters of the right wing agenda, especially the online publications you mention. If those are the sites you visit, then it's no wonder you're such a dedicated idealogue. I would be too if that's ALL I read. The CATO Institute does produce some fair and balanced reports, but their current events contributors are all right wing think tank(ers). Ironically, long before Obama was even a candidate, I subscribed to Human Events online, and used to post comments there. One day I logged on and they had dumped me. No reason given, just that I was no longer a subscriber, and subsequent e-mails to the "contact us" link produced no response. They simply didn't like someone muddying the waters with a few sound counterpoints was the only conclusion I could draw.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well we can't all read all posts, can we. And I rarely see links posted by "the other side" unless they ARE from right wing sites. Maybe you do but they must be posted in threads I haven't visited. I keep separate files on links I know I will use more than once as "proof" of where I stand, or "proof" of truth based on the source, not an analysis of the source. Oddly enough I've been accused of posting too many links and not enough personal opinion; when I post a person opinion, I'm often asked for the link (happily provided). I'm also accused of being a HuffPo addict, when I think I've looked at that site maybe a half-dozen times, and that was only on redirect from somewhere else. My daily online reading consists only of the Washington Post and Politico, which often references Drudge and then I'll go there. Any more, and the information just gets cluttered. I subscribe to Newsweek, The Week and National Review, but I'm usually a couple of weeks behind actually reading those.

Websites I suggest you visit more often would include:
CATO
Heritage Foundation
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams

Those four at different times will provide a pretty good summary of all the theory, information, and actual proposals put out there by all groups and/or commentary about the current political and economic scene.

Specifically for GOP solutions go to Newsmax or Townhall or Worldnet Daily.

If you want a good cross section of all points of view, visit Real Clear Politics listings of articles each day which are updated in the afternoon and again in the evening. Drudge is a good place to start your day because everybody else (including most television and newpaper coverage) check there regularly. He seems to know what the hot button issues are going to be faster than everybody else. He also offers a very good collection of links to a wide variety of rightwing and leftwing op ed opinion by the nation's best known writers.

You must be truly nuts. Every single one of those are KNOWN promoters of the right wing agenda, especially the online publications you mention. If those are the sites you visit, then it's no wonder you're such a dedicated idealogue. I would be too if that's ALL I read. The CATO Institute does produce some fair and balanced reports, but their current events contributors are all right wing think tank(ers). Ironically, long before Obama was even a candidate, I subscribed to Human Events online, and used to post comments there. One day I logged on and they had dumped me. No reason given, just that I was no longer a subscriber, and subsequent e-mails to the "contact us" link produced no response. They simply didn't like someone muddying the waters with a few sound counterpoints was the only conclusion I could draw.

They are all libertarian dear. Every last one of them except for Real Clear Politics which provides a balanced collection of ALL points of view and Drudge which a fairly recent UCLA study rated more left of center in links emphasized than right.

But if you are only willing to look at leftwing sites for your information on what the GOP proposals are, then you don't really want to know what they are, do you?

 

[Big Fitz]

That's just plain ignorant.

Yes... you are.

Ask the guy suffering from diabetes who got laid off and lost his employee insurance how he's getting along.

Oh let's try and find the ultimate hard luck case and treat it as average. How about this. Mr. Diabetes is not provided health care through his employer, has earned an extra 5k a year and was able to purchase a plan that covers his needs on his own. Now all he has to do is get a new job that can cover his premium. And if he goes for Re-Insurance policies to buttress his needs, he can probably drop his costs even further.

But this is a bunch of hyperventilating conjecture based on a strawman argument.

He might just stick a knife in your chest if you called him a deadbeat to his face.

Are you this blitheringly stupid???? Can we argue from logic for a split second here instead of some sort of altered state of emotional retardation? You know what? Feeling callous as I am right now, I hope he fucking does then if he believes he deserves someone else to pay for him. Probably thinks we owe him a car, house lottery winnings and a job sitting on his fat diabetic ass doing nothing till his feet rot off. Fucking please. If we're going to go off the deep end, have some style at least.

hen there are those who never had health insurance because it was not affordable, so he treats heart disease with OTC medications and prays a lot.

If you're so pure, you insure him. Then it's charity and I can respect that. You can't afford to? Fine, find a charity that will. You can't find one? Make one of your own and solicit donations for deadbeats. Just don't sit there telling me that the government gets to stick a gun in MY face to pay for this jackholes insurance when I MYSELF do not have it! And if you don't think a gun isn't being shoved in my face, try not paying your taxes. I AM one of the uninsured because I can't afford it. I WON'T go on a government plan because I won't feed the beast. I WILL be getting catastrophic coverage when I get my finances more stable in the next few months. It's called personal responsibility and integrity. You should try it sometime.

As for the whole "refused/declined/expelled" argument... What good is it for a business if you have no customers? Hmmm? Is the whole industry one giant fraud that will gladly take your money but the first time you need to dip into the pool, you're thrown out? Come on! Who do you PERSONALLY know that has had this happen to them? I doubt sincerely you could name one without lying to yourself, and by extension everyone else.

And you have the audacity to call me ignorant. Take your Thorazine and let the grownups talk. Obviously you are incapable of rational thought, only raving lunatic sound bites.

 

[Neubarth]

Time to pay the piper people

Some people have to pay taxes, but as my hero Leona Helmsley said, "Rich people don't pay taxes. That is for the stupid poor people." I must be very rich because I have not paid taxes for twenty years. Of course, I had a hell of a lot of deductions during that time. This welfare state concept of helping families with kids is a darn good deal. gosh, now that I am in my sixties, what I need to do is sire a few more children at home. I wonder if my wife would object to me having a live in mistress. Naaah, that would cause trouble and my pastor would probably come to the house and try to straighten me out. I guess I could adopt. Hummmmmmmmmm.....

 

[MaggieMae]

That's just plain ignorant.

Yes... you are.

Ask the guy suffering from diabetes who got laid off and lost his employee insurance how he's getting along.

Oh let's try and find the ultimate hard luck case and treat it as average. How about this. Mr. Diabetes is not provided health care through his employer, has earned an extra 5k a year and was able to purchase a plan that covers his needs on his own. Now all he has to do is get a new job that can cover his premium. And if he goes for Re-Insurance policies to buttress his needs, he can probably drop his costs even further.

But this is a bunch of hyperventilating conjecture based on a strawman argument.

He might just stick a knife in your chest if you called him a deadbeat to his face.

Are you this blitheringly stupid???? Can we argue from logic for a split second here instead of some sort of altered state of emotional retardation? You know what? Feeling callous as I am right now, I hope he fucking does then if he believes he deserves someone else to pay for him. Probably thinks we owe him a car, house lottery winnings and a job sitting on his fat diabetic ass doing nothing till his feet rot off. Fucking please. If we're going to go off the deep end, have some style at least.

hen there are those who never had health insurance because it was not affordable, so he treats heart disease with OTC medications and prays a lot.

If you're so pure, you insure him. Then it's charity and I can respect that. You can't afford to? Fine, find a charity that will. You can't find one? Make one of your own and solicit donations for deadbeats. Just don't sit there telling me that the government gets to stick a gun in MY face to pay for this jackholes insurance when I MYSELF do not have it! And if you don't think a gun isn't being shoved in my face, try not paying your taxes. I AM one of the uninsured because I can't afford it. I WON'T go on a government plan because I won't feed the beast. I WILL be getting catastrophic coverage when I get my finances more stable in the next few months. It's called personal responsibility and integrity. You should try it sometime.

As for the whole "refused/declined/expelled" argument... What good is it for a business if you have no customers? Hmmm? Is the whole industry one giant fraud that will gladly take your money but the first time you need to dip into the pool, you're thrown out? Come on! Who do you PERSONALLY know that has had this happen to them? I doubt sincerely you could name one without lying to yourself, and by extension everyone else.

And you have the audacity to call me ignorant. Take your Thorazine and let the grownups talk. Obviously you are incapable of rational thought, only raving lunatic sound bites.

I was responding to your two-liner IGNORANT comments:

That is why I say we don't have a health care crisis. Not even a health insurance crisis.

We have a DEADBEAT Crisis.

But hey, thanks for the rant, which proved nothing.