Lucky...

I'm not a liar liek so many on the other side. If I don't know, I dunno. As I said, I'm an American, HC is somewhat foreign to me. You make it as a slam to me, but in reality it just exemplifies the garbage I live in that a 47 YO man doesn't know the intricacies of HC. I'm familiar with that plan, just wasn't aware of the name of it. Figure what out; how wonderful the cafeteria plan is? How wonderful is it for homeless? For the piss-poor who can't divert their income? Etc You figure it out. What was used to balance the budget, the tax cut in capital gains? Is that your tired way of saying tax cuts my friends creates more revenue? I think Clinton's entire fiscal plan is what balanced the budget, but I'm entertained by you cherry-picking parts of Clinton's tax policy and making assumptions. I reached into the toilet and found this: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm This is what you're saying. So in 1997, after the economy was well within it's prosperity run, the dot.com boom was driving things as were the 1990 and 1993 tax increases paying the deficit down-surplus up, Clinton signs this rag for minimum wage increase as well as other things. It was a deal with teh devils (Republicans). See, in order for your boased, flawed argument to work, you would have to explain away the amazing fiscal reform from Reagan's mess to this tax change - WELL INTO THE CLINTON SUCCESS PERIOD. Youc an't, it was all tax increases in 1990 and 1993. Nice try tho, I was waiting for that in the many fiscal threads I wrote. While you're at it, explain GWB's tax cuts and tehir enormous success. And if you still have the energy, tell us all about fascist Ronnie and his lovely tax cuts and their resulting success. I basically agree with that. BTW, those horrible, scrubby, low-life, scurge of the earth garbage of America low income earners are the ones making the rich, rich. So the idea is that money is taxed, not people. Don't like taxes, make very little or nothing - the tax man won't be knocking. Let's not make this about me. Provide a hypothetical person if you like, I'll play along. Your president did, they call it the Iraq/AFG Wars. Let me see how it worked out..... the world hated us, we lost almost 5k great people, killed probably 100's of thousands o inncient civilians over there, and teh grubby American corps made off massively. So yes we can, you just don't like it like you enjoy your mess; OUR TURN. And I don't. What part of, 'Let's be normal and guarantee every American HC' don't you get? You have to have a solution other than FUCK THE POOR - I DON'T GIVE A GOOD GOD DAMNED ABOUT PEOPLE; IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY. You and your's time appears to be up, this will change America.

So then what is your fix? I agree, I don't like the req to pay for ins unless there are STRICT controls, cost and otherwise. I mean, this lays the foundation for catastrophe if some redneck POS Republican gets in there and leaves the req to pay and tweeks the corporate -love; it really has catastrophic potential. This is why I'm for Canadian-style HC that also allows teh rich to buy their own. If demand goes up, supply will follow; the interim should have price controls. Furthermore, the public option will be cheaper and demand the corporate options fall or fall out. The forced participation, I believe, is in reaction to the right for claiming, whining, being dicks about people getting things for free. The left would like to have a single-payer option like Canada. but the right won't budge, so teh best the left can do is a paid public option. If people hate this, rememeber, this is the bastard child of the concerned left meets the grubby, greedy right, so it may have red hair, be fat and smoke. If there is forced participation, there better be strict controls and a fat indigent area on teh bottom for exclusion, while still getting benefit. It's amazing to watch America kicking and screaming to become normal. All the while, the resistant right cries foul as we try to become normal, they claim it will cost too much, while they virtually own the 12T debt and they claim Capitalism is the best system for all when we are teh largest debtor nation in the world ever, a Communist nation the greatest creditor. I totally agree. Leave the private alone, that is what I dislike about Canada's system, the rich can't go buy their own so tehy come here for specialized care or for expediant care. I don't want everyone on the same plane, just a reasonable baseline of care for all. Again, this mess they are creating is a result of the grubbies vs the honorable left trying ot get all HC. The right haven't come up with anything other than buying accross state lines, IOW's, more interaction with corporations or nothing. We are such a divided nation that we will never have a reasonable resolve with our so-called best system in the world.

I'm guessing you're not a millionaire - you won't be paying for anyone; quit pseudo whining, victim. Quit whining about taxes....or leave ....sound famil;iar? Imagine how great the US was and we weren't run / owned by corporations. Imagine if we were normal and had all people with some sort of HC.

Or post bitching about it, more usually. Balance mikee... in all things If you want to post lame ass shit like this go for it.. it just looks realllllly pathetic for you guys. Yeah, Jeannie, you're absolutely right - it looks really lame when a conservative starts a thread saying the President looks tired and that he hopes he's ok. How can I argue with that?

Nothing relevant to say? Waiting for a non whiny post to respond to. If these guy's bite was equal to their bark we would have millions living in Montana as Freemen. We know it's all whine and cheese. They enjoy the spoils of living in society, just hate to pay for it.

That's a cop out. Here's what I wrote: What? No one is bound to it. It's called an option for that reason. If you are rich, keep paying for your own if you wish. If you have employer-paid coverage and youylike it; keep it. YOUR EXEMPTION STSTEMENT MAKES NO SENSE, THERE IS NO COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION FOR ANYONE. Quit listening to Limbaugh so much Your response, if you were able, would be to establish there is a compulsory obligation for anyone to participate in the HC plan. Since there isn't a compulsory req, you are relegated to the standby, "flawed logic" escape. Have a nice day....and if you find that compulsory participation statute, let us know. NOTE: The context of compulsory participation, as you wrote it, would be that congress people would be required to join the public option and lose their private insurance.

Well falling for a joke and not being able to tell real information from false information is something BOTH people you describe have problems with. What makes yours a simple mistake and theirs something worse? The joke's on you, I stated it was satire, I thought it was a neo-con site satirizing that scene as a joke, but seriously meaning it. Were you not able to read what I wrote. Remember, I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity, so the shit I hear there, anything is possible when you get a few whack-job, homophobe neo-cons together.

Since I'm an American I don't have HC, so I'm not familiar with what a cafeteria plan is. I believe it's where the insured gets to shop around for a doc? Yes/no? This sounds fairly negligible at teh end as far as any increase or loss of deduction leading to a small % tax increase, so is it really a substantial tax increase? Also, Obama is trying to cut taxes slightly for low incomers; < 50k etc. So whatever increase might be seen should be offset by that. Taxes and promises realy aren't an exact science, if the benefit to the people increase drastically and taxes increase slightly then that is an overall gain. We'll have to see how it pans out, but in general, it will be a gain for most < 200k/yr, certainly < 50k/yr. Taxes increased for the MC very slightly under Clinton and the net result was massive gain for most, so I'm not gonna be semantic and split hairs if my taxes increase 3% as long as I see benefit, vs my taxes falling 5% under Bush (or whatever it was) and seeing things go to fuck. These things really aren't an exact science but more of an overall, net gain/loss. I see it being hard to realize a net loss under Obama, things have recovered amazingly fast and promise is > it would be under any other 2008 pres candidate I'm sure.

you are not required to pay taxes for simply existing. That's right, which is why there are provisions for the indigent in there. BTW, I read it was like $95 the first year.

nothing like a little taxation without representation . . . but after all socialism doesn't really have that on their agenda, that whole "representation" bit now do they? The people who drafted this and those who will vote on it are elected representatives of the people. Taxation without representation is not an issue here. It's their catch phrase. Every time they don't like what they see, they use it not knowing what it means.

nothing like a little taxation without representation . . . but after all socialism doesn't really have that on their agenda, that whole "representation" bit now do they? I don't know, I'm betting you know the Constitution or its equivalent of Socialist countries as well as I. Of course you will profess to be an expert. As for representation, how is a tax for people not buying insurance w/o representation? If they enact controls and make it reasonable then it's fair. Otherwise, how is it fair if you don't buy it, have an accident and are wards of the state? Talk about the rest of society not being represented, having to care for a citizen who refused to pay a reasonable premium.

Imported from another thread: The irony is that I'm being made fun of for not knowing the Onion by people who believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist and that death squads are all a part of the HC Bill. Did I just describe you?

Hey that is right out of the neo-con voodoo economy playbook. Lower the taxes for the rich... and give a few hundred dollars to each rube as a feel good measure. Then just for good measure.. lets go start a war or two so we can so all our buddies can profit from the war. And oh, BTW, exempt all cowards like Reagan and GWB from having to fight and die. We'll come up with some BS excuse like eyesight or other duties and if we get caught, just break out the sharpie.

I like this to http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52916 Yes, I'm not surprised you like RW rags.

You're requitred to pay taxes, that's Constitutional. This is basically a tax and in fact, if you don't buy ins the IRS will assess the tax. Sorrry, nice try, if ya don't like it - leave. Isn't that the rhetoric I've been hearing for 8 years?

I like this one: 2001 My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire. Presidential Radio Address (24 February 2001) [4]

GDP: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm Stock Market: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#symbol=%5EDJI;range=2y HC far along. Nothing to show? OK.

Keep dreaming I will take that fringe right website with one fuckup.. and raise you a website with 8 years of stupidity and fuckups as only a Texican could do it. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm 'Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.' 'I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.' 'They misunderestimated me.' 'Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?' "One of the things important about history is to remember the true history." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 6, 2008 Perhaps you should learn something from your Lord and Master. Come on, Bush isn't exemplary of most/all Texans.

Dude, it's old and tired. This amounts to masturbation, unless another neo-con jumps in, then it's group masturbation. This is closer to group masturbation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation Problem is, I don't see the correlation between the news story and your connection to this group activity. That's because I was talking in metaphore and neo-cons don't do metaphore.

Says the guy that called the PH attack a 1945 venture. Says the guy that posted a link from the Onion and called it legit and an Republican rag. (Remember that you referred to that Onion video with this: "I think it is real and legit".) Ah yes, more dishonesty from the source of lies; you. See how you have my supposed quote? Of course it's incorrect how you have the period outside the quotation mark, but I think even the most uneducated know what you mean. When you take a partial sentence as a quotation, you need to place, "..." on the front and/or back end if it to show it's a partial quote or it's a blatant lie and misrepresentation. This is the entire quote: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. By that I meant that the feelings were real, but used satire to hide them. I wrote: Being the Onion I can't tell for sure. Is it satire meant to be total sarcatism, but with a flair of real intent? I'm sure the Onion would say it's pure sarcasm, but they really mean it. By 'real' I mean is this a real site espousing their typical racist, homophic BS; you know, good Republican Christian values. The whole thread was started as I was under the impression that the Onion was a RW rag, as I had rarely seen it before and then just glanced at it. I see vile hatred and I think RW rag, my bad. I don't care if you said it was hidden behind a shrub. The point is you said "real and legit". The rest of the sentence is irrelevant. Spin. spin, spin. Yes, I understand. Here, little kid, is your free grammar lesson for the week: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context Fallacy of quoting out of context The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position. That's just taking a complete passsage out of context, let alone not, "..." for teh missing part. I've written several legal docs and if you change anything, whether a peson's assertion or a passage of statute from a book, you must indicate that you emboldened or shortened to focus on whatever you're tyring to exemplify. I don't practice or expect that level of professionalism in a posting board, but basic honesty requires the, "..." I wrote: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. If you're honest, you can't take a part of that, you must represent the entire meaning. Funny how your types usually want English-only, yet you don't practice it yourself.

Anyone who read the Onion before the Obama inauguration knows that your latest excuse for being fooled is no better than the ones before. I've never read the Onion before and never thought it was a crime for not. Guess I learned that. Arguing with neo-cons is a dichotomy: They know things like the Onion, Beavis and Butthead, etc, bot can't comprehend things like the GDP, historical trends and results from tax cuts, etc. Like I've said, neo-cons are somewhere between a sociopath and a teenage boy. As in, w/o a conscience and w/o fear of consequence. History proves it out, at least going back to the early 1920's.

I see you inherited Tommyfitz's 'spin' regurgitation; do you guys dress alike too? I could run this back at you and continue it, but I really like honest discourse with data, to prove it I suggest we quit trashing the forum with our petty bickering, I think everyone would be on-board for that; your call. Try sticking to the topic of the thread and maybe people will drop the "spin" and "strawman" comments. You wanna keep trashing the forum with our BS or drop it? I don't need a directive, it's on you.

True...but I doubt anyone anywhere understands all of this 2,074 page clusterfuck. Davidb does, he says that there is exclusive language exempting congress from participating.

The irony is that I'm being made fun of for not knowing the Onion by people who believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist and that death squads are all a part of the HC Bill.

You're right, drop the military, close teh schools, stop fixing the roads and close the airports and schools; we will have your version of nirvana. Or perhaps we can privatize them, they seem to work real well that way. What? No one is bound to it. It's called an option for that reason. If you are rich, keep paying for your own if you wish. If you have employer-paid coverage and youylike it; keep it. YOUR EXEMPTION STSTEMENT MAKES NO SENSE, THERE IS NO COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION FOR ANYONE. Quit listening to Limbaugh so much Who? What? Nice set of ASSUMPTIONS. Carry on. That's the best you can do? All that material I posted and just a shrug and go? Come on, where is ANYONE compelled to join the HC plan if passed? So your assetion that the Dem congress folks weren't willing to opt in is meaningless. I doubt any millionaires would opt in, I know I wouldn't if I was one. So you have a bunch of millionaires catering to other millionaires on one side, and a bunch of millionaires trying to help the poor and MC on the other; which are the trash? That's rhetorical; hope u can figure it out. My GF is a 29-year county employee. She has Crones and she can't retire due to pre-existing prohibition by your favorite fascist insurers. So is she the lazy types that you think want a free ride? I doubt you have held the same job for 29 years. She has every right to retire but can't thanks to the party with the Swastikas.