dsandreas

Quote Your posts are ridiculously long and you continue to attribute things to me that I have never said. Not wasting anymore of my time...I will let you continue to debate yourself. In other words, you are asking for short, simple statements that are easily understood by the average ten year old. Sorry, this isn't Faux News. If you want to debate with grownups, your intellect and reading skills should be up to the task. If they aren't, perhaps you could find another way to spend your time... ______________________________________________ Actually...I can put up with the drivel and imagination this lemming has. What I don't like is his arguing against statements he attributes to me that I never said. I made a comment that Clinton reluctantly signed welfare reform and he responds regarding me "decrying Clinton." I said nothing negative about Clinton...only made the observation that he signed it after vetoing it twice. I think this hardly qualifies as decrying him.

Your posts are ridiculously long and you continue to attribute things to me that I have never said. Not wasting anymore of my time...I will let you continue to debate yourself.

Quote Clinton was forced into supporting things such as welfare reform (which reduced spending). However, that welfare reform was just gutted by the stimulus bill (which will increase spending). Was he also forced to sign NAFTA or the Marriage Defense Act? I don't think he was forced into anything. _________________________________________________ I feel like I am explaining physics to a 3 year old. - The Presidents you mention do not control the spending alone. The government has been shut down in the past over Presidents refusing to sign bills they don't agree with. - I have never said anything in support of any President. I think both Bush Presidencies were terrible. I am against big government regardless of the party, who is in the White House or what they think they are fixing (inevitably they make it worse). - Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice and only signed it when poll numbers showed broad support. Maybe since he vetoed it twice its logical to think he wasn't a proponent. It certainly wasn't his agenda item...it came from the House. Step 4. stop attributing things to me I don't believe and have never written. Step 5. read a little history.

Quote But in a way, he does initiate legislation in 1 aspect, the very aspect we are talking about. The Federal US budget initiates from the president, that's the bill where the president proposes to COngress what he wants so as to not waste time. So once again, what we're talking about here, the president initiates annual spending bills, they go to the House, Senate and then back to the president for sign or veto. And you say the president has nothing to do with spending..... _________________________________________________ Step 2: improve reading comprehension. I NEVER said the President has nothing to do with spending. Step 3: read how government works. Start with Article 1 Section 7.

Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? During Clinton's time defense spending was cut significantly and there was a bit of spending restraint in Congress. Clinton was forced into supporting things such as welfare reform (which reduced spending). However, that welfare reform was just gutted by the stimulus bill (which will increase spending). Step 1: remove head from sand.

What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates the bills that result in spending. To chalk up revenue or spending as only a function of the President at the time shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of how the U.S. government operates. I guess the education system isn't what it used to be....

QuoteIn order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion. Thanks be to the GOP. ______________________________________________ Federal spending growth ALWAYS exceeds inflation and population growth. Who can honestly believe the deficit is related to not enough taxes....ridiculous. The deficit growth is due to TOO MUCH SPENDING. The bank bailout, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus bill are four great recent examples.

In Reply To You are missing the entire point. Without a way to monitor whether someone is legal (there is no provision that requires proof of being here legally in this legislation) and associated penalties (there are none here) its meaningless drivel. If speeding is illegal but the authorities have no tools to monitor speed and there is no fine for speeding....how much speeding will be prevented? You are quite naive to think these few words would prevent illegal immigrants being covered...it's a completely meaningless provision as it currently stands. I thought that righties were supposed to be all about minimal government. Why all of a sudden are you all in favor af having to show your National ID card when conducting transactions for goods and services? Where are your papers? You must have your papers in order. Why the support for a huge expansion of government intrusion into personal privacy? Just to save a few dollars? That is pathetic. The stench continues to be overwhelming.... reply_____________________________________ You have somehow made the leap that I am for something I am not. I am not in favor of the federal government taking over healthcare...nor the need for an identity card. I am just pointing out the fact that illegals can get coverage/benefits the way the House Bill is written today. I am all for 1) tort reform, 2) elimination of state barriers and mandates, 3) tax credits for health insurance, and 4) reducing waste and fraud in the current programs and using the savings to expand Medicaid coverage for those that are truly needy and here legally. Next time...don't make up my side of the argument. I can do it fine.

Quote And the nuts irony behind all of this is that virtually all of the nation's debt has occurred due to Republicans and they are cringing at spending. reply________________________________________________ I think this is the dumbest thing I have read on this website. Certainly both are culpable. Spending bills originate in Congress...Democrats have had more years of control over the last 50 years than Republicans. Lastly...I am struggling to pay the massive tax burden so that politicians can hand out the money to those that sit on their ass and contribute little or nothing. Almost 50% of the people filing taxes pay zero income tax. Medicaid is for "poor people"...fraud and abuse are estimated at $80 billion plus per year. We don't need another government program....sorry. It will be mismanaged and it will exceed spending estimates just like every other government program. Medicare is basically broke, Medicaid the same...as well as Social Security payouts are not sustainable without more taxes.

In Reply To I think it's absolutely adorable the way the author and some of the posters here include "Unions" into this argument as if they have anywhere near the same financial clout to purchase political ads as corporations do. You don't think unions purchase political ads? Of course they do. However, I don't think they have the money to saturate the marketplace of ideas the way corporations can. They simply do not have that kind of money at their disposal. reply You have got to be joking. The unions spend a fortune on political activism....much of it is not necessarily cash. All the SEIU members showing up at town halls...the unions paid for their food, lodging, the buses, etc. "They simply do not have that kind of money"...get your head out of the sand. "Every day, millions of union members have money taken from their paychecks to support some union presidents' political agenda. In 1996, Rutgers economics professor Leo Troy estimated that union political expenditures totaled about $500 million in each election cycle. More recently, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research estimated that total union political expenditures reached $925 million in the 2004 cycle. Over time, this has added up: According to The Center for Responsive Politics, eight of the top ten all-time political contributors are labor unions." http://www.unionfacts.com/articles/unionPolitics.cfm

Quote "Words have meanings". Right, and HR3200 doesn't provide taxpayer supported "coverage" for illegal aliens. Whether they can buy it independently is another matter completely. reply Words in this regard have no meaning with no enforcement provision and no penalties. Meaningless is what it is.

You are missing the entire point. Without a way to monitor whether someone is legal (there is no provision that requires proof of being here legally in this legislation) and associated penalties (there are none here) its meaningless drivel. If speeding is illegal but the authorities have no tools to monitor speed and there is no fine for speeding....how much speeding will be prevented? You are quite naive to think these few words would prevent illegal immigrants being covered...it's a completely meaningless provision as it currently stands.

Obama's speech refers to himself over 50 times...mostly using the word "I". He refers to the country less than 10 times. But the speech isn't about him.

[quote And if you read my post it was referring to your irrational approach to Obama. This is NOT about his policies (regardless of what the propaganda machine may be saying) so please don't try and redirect the discussion that way. PEOPLE *thought* this was about his policies and turned something that was a positive message into a sandstorm. It's about his speech to US schoolkids - just just happens to have a good (I think) message. Unfortunately so many people have made such a big deal about this that they've painted themselves into a corner and now have to desperately TRY and find something....anything, to hold on to. In this case it's you trying your best to reach at straws regarding the use of the word 'I'. If you want to bring up racism, or any other nonsense - please understand you're the one trying to make it about that. Not "I" True, hate is probably too strong of a word to use, but it's hard not to think that some people hate him when their approach to this topic is so irrational. If you can never find the good in what someone is trying to do, under any circumstance, yeah....it might fall in (or be close to) *hate*. It's ludicrous. Ian After seeing the speech, I don't have a problem with him giving it as long as its optional for kids to see it or not. I think the speech is too long for the audience and I think he has made it about him. I don't see anything ludicrous about this point of view...even if you have a different one. I think he should have posted the speech last week...would have reduced the vitriol I think.

[quote` (v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and `(B) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, Quote It makes no difference how you or I interpret the legalese...it will be interpreted by a bunch of bureaucrats as they see fit. Based upon these clauses they will determine they need whatever they want and will share it with whomever they want.

Agreed. But when people have to find a reason to hate someone, no matter what, they'll reach for any straw. Blues, Ian Quote Find the word hate in any of my posts...or anything close. I don't like his policies...I have a lot of company. Your forgot to call me a racist and whatever other labels you need to put on others who disagree with you since you are not able to argue the merits.

In Reply To 4) I have never filed for government aid...I am one of the taxpayer providing the funds for the government; so they can give to others. Then you shouldn't care about your tax records, as you're not going to be receiving a subsidy. Quote Although idiotic...the "smartest" part of your reply. Of course I care about my tax records...

I said nothing about his policies...although I disagree with most of them. I said he used the word "I" six times in a paragraph. That being said...he is supportive of the unions (including the NEA) that provide him funding and other support. So yes, I expect he will funnel money to schools.

Thats the same thing as evoking ones self when you talk to your kids. If you were to talk to your kids and say, "I support you. Don't let me down. Don't let yourself down. Do well," you expect your kids to hear that from an authority figure, a leader, a parent, the principal, the local policeman, the president, etc. I want to hear those figures say "I expect great things out of you when it comes to school. I expect you to listen to your parents and teachers and excel in your studies." When kids hear things like that from people with authority in powerful positions, I'd hope that they'd listen to message coming straight from their mouths, especially one as powerful as this one pertaining to education and their future. QuoteNot the same...sorry. Maybe its ok for you...that is fine. Not ok for me. He is making it about him as usual..."he is working hard fixing up their classrooms". I am working hard to pay the taxes...he is just giving the money away. Who is working harder?

Don't you have to list all your income, bank accounts and property when applying for governmental aid? This is even more than just IRS filing information. And if you ever applied for a mortgage, they'd have your IRS filing information too - at least for couple of years. My usual question - have you read the bill yourself, or you're quoting propaganda? Then, you're not concerned with your insurance company housing your medical information centrally, where it could be to be breached inappropriately by any number of the people inside the company as well as outside subcontractors, and maybe even stolen and sold for profit. But you're concerned about the government storing the same information, even though the government already stores much more information about you? There are some valid issues with this bill, but most of those which get publicity are truly paranoid. 1) There is a difference between me giving someone information at my election and someone having direct access to my IRS data. Surely you can comprehend that. 2) Fewer people with access the better and less risk. 3) Yes, I trust a private company (that I can sue if it were called for) than the government (who I can not sue). There have been numerous cases of private information being lost/stolen by the federal government (as well as private companies). 4) I have never filed for government aid...I am one of the taxpayer providing the funds for the government; so they can give to others.

"Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it." One paragraph...uses the word "I" six times; but its not about him but your kids. Sure....

You don't have the FREEDOM not to pay income tax either. This is just another right wing scare tactic brought to you by a bunch of proven liars. I posted a direct link to HR 3200, specifically to that point. Read the Bill. FYI...Kallend's response to everything he disagrees with is to call you or others who think like you a "liar." He never deals with the substance by providing a cogent response. Its much easier to claim you are lying and leave it at that.

Nope - to find who qualifies for governmental aid. And - surprise - this is not different from any other governmental aid program. Sorry...not correct. No other government agency has your IRS filing information and interacts as proposed in the House bill. The relationship between the 40 plus agencies/entities created in the House bill and the IRS is frightening. It is also concerning to know the federal government will house my (and yours) medical information centrally... to be breached inappropriately by any number of the people in these new agencies. Now they as they are accessing your confidential medical files they can also sell your financial information to someone desiring to steal your identity. Obamacare is a case where the "medicine" is dramatically worse than the "disease." Other necessary solutions for improvement like tort reform and increasing competition by eliminating interstate barriers are not included. No wonder the majority of the people are against it.

Veterans have earned their government healthcare. I pay for Medicare every month...when I retire I have earned my right to Medicare coverage. Obamacare is asking me (and other taxpayers) to also pay for healthcare for others....completely different situation. "Others" will likely include illegal immigrants (current House Bill does not prevent it). There are plenty of other reasons to object to Obamacare...almost too many to count.

> I dont think it is fair for our government to play robin hood. So are you lobbying to shut down veteran's hospitals? Or are you OK with some Robin Hood causes and not others? < Veterans have paid their dues...as have others who contributed to Medicare every paycheck. Giving free health insurance to 1) people who can afford it and decide not to and 2) illegal immigrants is a ridiculous proposition....no thanks. Your comparison is not a fair one.