E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Senate Democrats sought today to highlight divisions in the Republican party over extending the payroll tax cut holiday. Republicans, in turn, acknowledged there are differences of opinion among them.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reminded the press this Tuesday afternoon that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell managed only 20 of 47 GOP votes on a Republican proposal to extend the payroll tax holiday.
"We saw what happened on the Senate floor last week. The proposal that they made didn't even get a majority of the Republicans," Reid said, "Unless something changes quickly, it doesn't seem the Republicans are going to follow their own leadership."
He added, "Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner -- both said they support extending the payroll tax cut, I repeat, funny way of showing it they way they've been legislating or non-legislating."
Reid accused House Republicans of throwing in the towel this week because they have delayed unveiling their bill that would extend the payroll tax cut.
"They have been totally silent, as you learned probably earlier today. The House isn't even going to try to do anything this week. They've given up. That's not a good sign," he said.
But, House GOP aides dispute that, saying House leadership will unveil their version of the payroll tax cut extenstion combined with other measures like extension of unemployment benefits by the end of the week.
In a sign that Republicans were not eager to talk payroll tax cuts today after their weekly lunch, they trained their their fire on the White House for pushing the nomination of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
McConnell was asked by a reporter whether he supported a proposal by one of his Republican colleagues, Sen. Susan Collins, who, along with Sen. Claire McCaskill, has proposed extending and expanding the payroll tax cut and paying for it with a surtax on millionaires that would carve out an exception for small business owners.
McConnell acknowledged the divide in his party and said he would not support a plan that taxed millionaires, even with the small business exception.
"Let me just speak for myself," he said chuckling, "because as you know from last week there are differences of opinion in my conference about this so I'll speak for myself. I am not in favor of raising taxes on working people. I do favor extending the payroll tax holiday for another year in conjunction with job creating proposals"
He added, "I think most Americans, most Republicans are very reluctant to raise taxes on anyone during this economic crisis that we find ourselves in but there may be others who have a different point of view."
Leave a Comment:
Being in the position of pinning your chances of electoral success on the continued bad fortune of your opponents leaves you at the mercy of circumstances that you can't possibly hope to control...
Social security is insolvent, and is horrible shape going forward [I know, kinda redundant, but what you gonna do?].
So why are we jacking around with it? Surely there are other ways they can let us keep a little more of our money.
Ways that won't cause the further decline of a bad situation.
On the plus side I presume all of you are now experiencing the joy of hitting the SS cap and getting more money? Ah, those were the good old days.
True enough df.
These are the same Democrats who couldn't pass a budget if their life depended on it. These are the same Democrats that spent nearly $5 trillion dollars in deficit spending in 3 years. These are the same Democrats that worship Social Security, but now want to defund it. These are the same Democrats that are prancing around like they've hit on something that they think will get them elected next year. Fat chance.
What this is really all about is getting some GOPers on-board with raising taxes. You can bet that the Democrats pigs will roll in that mud pit and point out that the GOP raised taxes after they promised not to, just like with Bush I. You want this spending program Dems, pay for it with cuts. Democrats can't cut $200 billion from the $1.5 trillion in deficit spending? You won't see that plan anytime soon. Shame on them.
Now is the time to everything in our power to create jobs and grow the economy. Europe is flailing in the global waters and so we must keep our country as strong as we can.
Last week a Senate majority voted to extend the middle-class tax break. But GOP/Koch continues to block any kind of security for the American people. Rather than ask 300,000 milionaires and billionaires to pay a little more, GOP Senators blocked it.
(Their Idol and Savior ) Grover Norquist announced that raising taxes on the middle class is not, in fact, a tax increase.
Perhaps Norquist and those who follow Him do not the 99% as belonging to the same human family as the elites for whom he speaks.
A few extra tax dollars from 300,000 people isn't enough to pay for an hour of operation in the halls of the government, nor will it pay for the billions of dollars spent on the payroll tax cut.
Most people who actually have paychecks realize about $12 a week from the tax cut.
Backhouse --- are you seriously advocating placating the President by pushing this cut through while pretending to believe that struggling families will benefit from an extra $2.25 a day? Seriously?
Two dollars a day? At an expense of billions of dollars?
Surely, you think more of your fellow human being and think that $2.25 a day is like throwing a junk yard dog a discarded bone.
The payroll tax cut benefits those who are actually working but does nothing for the 12 million still unemployed. At the same time, it threatens to take money from Social Security and threatens to deprive the elderly of needed benefits.
Is this what you're for? Throw workers a pittance. Deprive seniors of benefits. A pitiful bribe to the working. Forget the unemployed.
And you say conservatives have no compassion. Very sad. Very misguided.
Candice, i'm sorry, but you are about the dumbest broad about. From what I've read and understand, the trickle down effect (which there is none) has been desimating the middle class through stagnating wages while prices of goods go up. Trickle down is a proponent of the starve the beast mentality from Reagan. Now, conservatives DO NOT have compassion. Why? Because they believe in supply side BS economic. Why have a surplus of products and services if the very people who are the cash flow of the economy, the middle class, have been and are still going through a gradual dismantling? Invest in the people who buy the very goods that keep the economy running, not beef up the surplus of those very goods... impoverished middle class citizens won't be able to buy them... So, now after having YOUR rant, you never proposed anything to help the fellow citizenry. What would you do?
Hello, King.
What would I do? Well, first I would overlook the chauvinistic term and somewhat rude "dumbest broad" phrase you used in responding to my post.
You say we should "invest" in the people who buy the very goods that keep the economy running. Okay. How do we "invest" in those people? Do we give them an extra -- let's say --- $12 a month to spend on goods and services? Do we hand them unemployment checks that barely keep the lights on, the furnace going and the landlord off their backs, leaving them with no disposal income whatsoever? How about, instead, we create an environment where businesses can thrive and we give them jobs?
This administration and a payroll tax cut will not (as is has already shown) create jobs.
I understand your skepticism about "trickle down." But when you look at it this way, it might make more sense. Those with businesses and lots of cash invest and innovate and create a product that people want. There's a demand for that product - or it's perceived that there's a demand for the product. (For example: the I-Phone, Tablet computers, the cell phone). The business hires people and ramps up production to manufacture the product. People are put to work. They have more security and certainty. They have money and they spend that money --- buying that new and cool product.
The "trickle down" comes from an idea or innovation - that "trickles down" to investing capital --- and that "trickles down" to hiring people and buying materials (which employs people) - and opening facilities (which employs people) ---- and that "trickles down" to those people who are now employed -- spending money and circulating wealth in the economy.
We don't need to hand out money in the form of tax cuts, stimulus checks, grants, or special interest loans. We need --- as a country or people or individual to invent and invest in the next "need to have" thing.
I believe (since you asked me...) that the solution to many of our domestic problems is the lack of innovation. The lack of new technology or the lack of a new idea or two. A new idea will put people to work, lift the mood of the country, generate tax revenue, reduce our deficits and put us back on the road to a strong, happy nation.
Perhaps your source did not tell you that GOP/Koch/Norquist party voted against 2 jobs bills earlier this year.
And that they gallantly voted against 2 million jobs in the President's American Jobs Act. They did it very recently 3 times and stopped it from coming up for debate each time.
The President made the AJA very simple and straight forward, but GOP leaders said 'No' and we all heard it. That 'no' was heard around the world, btw.
However, these Norquist followers - almost all GOP congressionals - are fighting to the back teeth to protect 300,000 Americans from paying a tiny percentage more in taxes.
GOP/Koch is doing this when polls show that over 60% of millionaires would like to contribute more in taxes for the revenue pot.
So Candice, there is no question AT ALL of who exactly is being 'placated'.
Don't talk to me about compassion. Instead, maybe write it out a few thousand times in your best handwriting.
Hello, Backhouse.
Perhaps your source neglected to remind you of the 17 or so Jobs bills passed by the House, sitting in Senator Reid's drawer. He tabled them. He didn't even bring them up for a vote. He must not care about the unemployed Americans, huh?
Yes, they did vote gallantly against the President's Jobs Act and first Stimulus. Sadly, that passed anyway. And as it turns out...........lots of money spent......12 million people still unemployed.......still pushing for extended unemployment benefits.......for those 12 million unemployed.....
You know, Backhouse, I've read your posts. I understand that you're really mad at the GOP/Koch/Norquist/whoever and those who don't agree with the President. I believe, and many others do too, that the reason the GOP voted "No" against these bills, taxes and spending is that they really, really, don't believe that the bills, taxes and spending will create jobs.
You, on the other hand, (I don't mean to presume, but....) seem to find more satisfaction in getting those 300,000 to ante up 3% more of the money they earn than finding a way to help the average family. Exactly how much of that 3% more from the 300,000 will pay the mortgage, feed the children, and heat the homes of 12 million people? Will the 3% do that? Or will it just make you feel better?
I know you've heard this before but the millionaires can contribute any time they want! I, however, might advise them to, rather than hand over money to the Government, hand over money directly to a needy family, a kid who needs a home, a family who needs to refinance, a father who needs healthcare. Wouldn't that do more good than handing money to the government. Or better yet - those millionaires could hire a couple of people. Wouldn't that be a good idea?
No, Backhouse. I will talk to you about compassion. Is it compassionate to give money to Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Or is it compassionate to save people from the wasteful spending, gigantic debt, failing safety nets and misdirected projects Congress is in charge of?
Tell me, Backhouse, -- if you were a millionaire or billionaire - what would you do with your money? Would you give it to Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Or would you hire someone, educate someone, or house someone? Would you take the easy way out and simply write a check and let someone else decide who is in need?
Oh, and handing out homework assignments is so pretentious. Why do you guys do that?
"Millionaires can contribute anytime they want". You wrote this.
No, we don't throw in a few bucks here or there to build roads and railways, bridges and airports for everyone to use, rich or no.
We ALL pay into taxes and create revenues so we can pool our resources to create the things everyone needs, including businesses, Rove and Norquist included. You?
And these should be equal effective taxes. If we are rich, we shouldn't pay less taxes than folks who teach our children. So yes, along with Buffet I would want to do that, in answer to your question.
And that includes payroll tax breaks and unemployment benefits. If folks don't have that to spend, they won't be able to buy the products that keep up demand and keep the business and the affluent you are so worried about, in clover. If you are wealthy and have never experienced being out of work with a family, you may not be able to relate or realize it.
Polls show that the majority of millionaires say they want to contribute and pay more in taxes.
I know you don't like this - THEY DON'T NEED YOU TO DEFEND THEM.
GOP Senate blocked the small business jobs bills in 2010 three or four times. They did anything to prevent job creation and bragged about it. Proud to block and prevent economic recovery with the goal of blaming the President down the road. (Such patriotism can make your nose bleed.)
This Republican Senate has filibustered at 3 times the pace ever seen before in American history. They don't govern. You cannot trust them to keep their agreements. They have not tried to create anything. They HAVE held us all hostage to a government shutdown 3 times, to push measures through they would not be able to under normal conditions.
And that is all that needs to be said about GOP and 'placation'.
The House works about 9 days a month for $174,000. And not one job created since GOP took the House.
As for compassion, it has to be practiced to be realized.
As I keep pointing out, Supply Side economics dictates that tax cuts for the RICH create economic growth...in the view of radical Conservatives everyone else is just a "leech".
I think we should pay for the cuts by raising the ceiling. Move the ceiling from $106k to $1m, or remove the ceiling entirely and include capital gains for stock sales (thereby putting the hit on hedgefund managers and day traders).
Backhouse,
WOW. Your post contains massive amounts of disinformation. For starters, THE SENATE IS RUN BY DEMOCRATS, as they have a majority. You stated, mulitple times, that the GOP-led Senate did this and did that... It is hard to take seriously anyone who is trying to argue points but doesn't realize that our Senate has been run by Democrats for the LAST 3 YEARS!
WE DO NOT ALL PAY TAXES, Please read and learn before posting. ONLY 53% of Americans actually pay taxes, the rest DO NOT! The top 1% already pay over 50% of their total income to taxes. How much more of their money do you deserve??? Half the nation DOES NOT pay taxes, and you are bitching that the people who contribute nearly 50% of their income to taxes...should pay MORE?!?! That is crazy, unfair, and is just liberal Robin Hood economics. It has never worked. Our country has been its most economically sound with lower taxes and a free market economy...
Stop lying when it comes to the Repubs in Congress stopping job growth. OVER 22 JOBS BILLS have passed the House with BIPARTISAN support, and support from 132 independent economists from the most prestigious universities in America, and the Dems in the Senate have refused to even look at these bills. So, whose party is stunting growth??? You also have a selective memory it seems. THE DEMOCRATS HAD A FILIBUSTER-PROOF SUPERMAJORITY FOR TWO years, and they NEVER ONCE passed a single budget!!! LOL!!! That is crazy!! Stop blaming Repubs!!
If millionaires want to give more of their money to the government, THEN DO IT!!! It should be a choice!! Warren Buffet CHOOSES NOT to give himself a salary, which would be taxed at 38%, meaning this is millions of tax dollars that he CHOOSES not partake in giving to the government by not giving himself a salary. Buffets income is from dividends, which are only taxed at 15%. If he doesnt want a salary, than he should still give himself a salary SO THE GOVERNMENT CAN ACQUIRE THE TAX revenue from it, and then he can give the rest to charity!!! BUFFET and people like him are HYPOCRITES.
And speaking of leaders who dont govern, just look at ya boy Obama, telling Congress that they shouldnt go home for the holidays until they pass his jobs bill. Yet, Obama, OUR LEADER, is GOING ON A 17 DAY VACATION TO HAWAII (2.5 WEEKS!!!!). TALK ABOUT A LACK OF LEADERSHIP. Instead of staying in Washington and working with Congress on this jobs bill, he excoriates them and tells them they should get no holiday until his bill is signed, but all the while he will be wakeboarding and playing golf in HAWAII. PATHETIC. HOW HYPOCRITICAL. And all of this comes at a time when he has spent 45 days away from Washington on TAXPAYER FUNDED campaign bus tours across the country!!! You, Obama, and dems' hypocrisy knows NO BOUNDS. It is sad and pathetic...
Return *WOW* on your whopper scale.
1. Senate controls every single vote with a 60-vote filibuster. Yes or NO?
2. McConnel vowed to do anything and everything to block the President. Yes or NO?
3. House is controlled by GOP. Yes or NO?
4. Nancy Pelosi put through 400 bills that were blocked by the Senate. Yes or NO?
Despite that:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says President Obama's 2009 stimulus package continues to benefit the struggling economy...
By CBO's numbers, the $800 billion stimulus added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011. As the effects of the stimulus wind down, Obama has been pushing Congress to enact a $447 billion jobs bill that includes infrastructure spending and tax cuts."
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/195181-cbo-says-obama-stimulus-still-helps-economy
Go talk to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Backhouse,
Again, WOW. You completely fail. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A MAJORITY IN THE SENATE!! What dont you get about that?? FOR TWO YEARS IT WAS FILIBUSTER-PROOF!!! Scott Brown(R) broke the filibuster-proof margin when he won Ted the murderer kennedy's seat.
Show me proof that Queen Pelosi put 400 bills that were blocked...BY HER OWN DEMOCRATIC, FILIBUSTER-PROOF Senate!?!?! REALLY?!?! When did that happen?? Why did her own party block her own bills then, when she was a speaker??? LOL!! Study up!!
And by your's and the wonderful, never wrong CBO's analysis, OBAMA has created nearly 6 million jobs in just 2 years!?!?! Wow, that is amazing!! I wonder why Obama and the Dems don't even brag about this??? Its BECAUSE IT ISNT TRUE!! LOL!!! If he had created 6 million jobs in 2 years, OUR UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER WOULD NOT STILL BE ABOVE 8% (like it has been for 32 straight months, the longest streak since WWII). study up, big guy, stop falling for everything your liberal party spoon-feeds you...
(Shove it up your liberal coke-snorting left nostril LOL!!)
Reposted from Cynthia last night. Thanks Cyn. As follows:
"Apparently, there is an epidemic of selective amnesia concerning the 2009 and 2010 Senate "Super Majority".
For those who persist in the Senate Super majority lie of the 111th Congress and the continuing obstruction of the 112th Congress. So,how did anything get passed?( ie. Healthcare Reform, unemployment benefit extensions, payroll tax cuts) Ah, that dirty word -compromise. Even then and today, every bill needed votes from the Independents, Blue dog Dems and Republicans.
No matter how many times you repeat that Super Majority lie it is still a lie. Did everyone forget the Blue Dog Dems (ie. Evan Bayh, and others?) In fact, they never had a Democratic super majority because of Leiberman(I. Conn), just another pissed off Independent that consistently votes with the Republicans even though he will caucus with the Dems. He backed McCain, didn't he?
There was never a "Senate Super Majority" for any length of time. The GOP/TP has set a historical record for the number of filibusters in this administration and it still continues to obstruct any bills to move us forward.
The Senate Super majority myth:
January 3, 2009 - 111th Congress sworn in. 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.
January 15, 2009 - Roland Burris sworn in to Barack Obama's seat. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.
April 30, 2009 – Arlen Specter changes parties. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.
July 7, 2009 – Al Franken seated. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A
60-VOTE MAJORITY AND STILL NEEDED BOTH INDEPENDENTS.
August 25, 2009 – Teddy Kennedy dies. Kennedy had missed 97% of the votes in 2009 and over 90% in the last half of 2008. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.
September 25, 2009 – Paul Kirk appointed to Teddy Kennedy's seat. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents.
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A 60-VOTE MAJORITY AND STILL NEEDED THE INDEPENDENTS.
February 4, 2010 – Scott Brown sworn in to replace Paul Kirk. 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents.
June 28, 2010 – Robert Byrd dies. Byrd had missed over 90% of the votes in 2010 and almost 50% in 2009 due to illness. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.
November 29, 2010 - Mark Kirk sworn in to replace Roland Burris. 56 Democrats, 42 Republicans, 2 Independents.
Super-majority? It never really existed because during
two periods when Teddy Kennedy and/or Robert Byrd were unable to vote they still needed to get the votes of every Democrat plus BOTH independents.
FACT: The "Democrat supermajority" is a G.O.P. lie.
FACT: The GOP used every roadblock, filibuster, and secret hold they could think of so that EVERY bill had to have a 60-vote margin to pass."
.........................................
(Cheeky bugger aren't ye? Have never done "coke" or anything else. You seem unhappy with this blog....not good for your health to get that overthetop ....maybe shop around for a different venue?)
What are you, a limey gap-toothed Brit (cheeky bugger, really?) LOL!!!
How did Obamacare pass WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE THEN?? Just a GOP lie right?? Not one member of the GOP voted FOR Obamacare and yet it passed. Dont try and play semantics, the DEMS had a supermajority, which means THEY DID NOT NEED ANY REPUBLICAN SUPPORT TO PASS LEGISLATION. So, take that lie elsewhere...you obviously dont know what you are talking about. Heck, Obama couldnt even get the DEMs on board, he had to offer the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, and do backroom shady deals with the Sestak 7, all the while shutting the GOP out of the process...Good stuff Brit, certainly Hope and Change, and NOT business as usual, right?? LOL.
I love the names you brought up too. Roland Burriss...Hmm..what happened to him? LOL!!! Ted Kennedy, he killed a woman and got away with it...Robert Byrd...he was in the KKK for years, yet democrats elected him for decades LOL!!... Good stuff, Brit, good stuff.
Please keep posting, this is fun!
More lies from the Parrot Roanoke1,
How long did the democrats
hold a supermajority?
I was under the impression it
was for about 6 months. From when Franken was sworn in until Brown was sworn in.
If anyone'd care to enlighten me.
Additional
Details
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken
In 2008, Franken
narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman, by 312 votes, after
a mandatory statewide manual recount. Coleman contested the outcome in court,[2]
but the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously upheld Franken's victory on June 30,
2009.[3] Franken was sworn in to the Senate on July 7, 2009.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Brown
Brown was sworn
in to office on February 4, 2010, by Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity
as President of the Senate, on the floor of the Senate.[53] As a Class I
Senator, his term will last until January 3, 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajori…
Even after he has been corrected numerous times, he still spins the same wrong story. To much Faux News, Parrot? So sad to see someone stoop so low for the conservatives.
Believe you just won a Major Name-calling Award.
Again, I LOVE how you debate ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than the length of time the Dems had a supermajority, even after I brought a litany of issues that touch base on many different things. Yet you get stuck on the simple length of the supermajority. What a tool. What a small thing to get stuck on! Did they or did the not have a supermajority? THEY DID. DID THEY USE THIS SUPERMAJORITY TO PASS OBAMACARE?? THEY MOST CERTAINLY DID, and they also used budget reconciliation in its final stages to pass Obamacare, which was even more pathetic on the Dems part. Hope and Change, right Boobie? Nope, you just got washington business as usual. Keep failing, big guy...
Its pretty enlightening to see you tools debating NOTHING but the length of time the DEMS had a supermajority. You ignorant trolls might want to study up before posting next time. You are making fools of yourselves... But please, carry on, this is fun!
You can get back in the refrigerator now genius.
Good one Backhouse,
Like your arguments, your insults could really use a lot of work....LOL!!!
Carry on with your liberal tripe...
And don't trip over your re-reg on the way out.
And don't choke on the tongue you use to tell half-truths with...
Carry on, back to your parents' basement now...
Bring on the next op.
Yep, better competition next time, hopefully. (doubt it)
Let's see.......
Your kids doing OK these days, everyone doing fine?
Sure sure,
and your family, doing well?
Yes thanks....
Indeed.
Just so.
Touche.
Gee Roanoke, you seem pretty upset that Backhouse managed (easily) to prove that the Senate is really run by tyranny of the minority as opposed to the Conservative myth of a veto-proof majority.
You have nothing else you'd like to debate?
Btw, the Affordable Care Act became law because Republican Olympia Snowe voted "yes" on cloture to allow that bill to move from committee to the Senate floor. In other words the bill COULD NOT HAVE PASSED without at least one Republican breaking ranks with his or her party.
Care to go for best of 5?
JOHN,
it is obvious that YOU have nothing to debate. I listed NUMEROUS different points, I notice how your ignorance has led you to simply cherry pick a a point or two and run with it. But here, on the one point you attempt to debate, through your ignorance, let me show you how you fail (as usual).
Snowe only voted for the healthcare bill when she was on the Senate Finance Committee, and it passed 14-9, they didnt need her vote, liar. THE BILL DID PASS IN THE SENATE WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE. STOP PLAYING SEMANTICS and word games like most liberals. THE BILL DID PASS WITH NO REPUBLICAN BREAKING RANKS, liar parrot. Snowe only voted to allow the bill to proceed in hopes that they could work on it and create a bipartisan bill. Note her comments below, liberal parrot.
"Having been fully immersed in this issue for this entire year and as the only Republican to vote for health reform in the Finance Committee, I deeply regret that I cannot support the pending Senate legislation as it currently stands, given my continued concerns with the measure and an artificial and arbitrary deadline of completing the bill before Christmas that is shortchanging the process on this monumental and trans-generational effort."
"Two months ago, when I voted for the Finance Committee bill, I said that the process moving forward shouldn’t be about vote counting, but rather crafting the right policy and that the credibility of the process would determine the credibility of the outcome. So I was troubled that when the Finance bill was melded with the measure reported by the Senate HELP committee it was without the more inclusive, collaborative process I’d participated in up to that point and instead it was done in the shadows, without transparency, just to garner the necessary 60 votes and nothing more."
And, according to your buddy Paul Krugman: "You don’t need Snowe to pass health care. But getting her vote in committee will probably lead to a worse bill. And getting her vote and then losing it later is pretty much the only way health care reform dies this year. So I was rooting for a “no vote” from Snowe today."
Anthing else to debate?
Care for me to dismantle any more of your lies John B, or have you had enough? LOL!!!
So don't think rudeness fools anyone about your weak argument, Roanoke.
As Backhouse pointed out WAY up the thread the filibuster allows Republicans to block ANY action of the Senate (and therefore Congress) with only 40% of the vote. Snowe broke ranks and failed to prevent the cloture vote from succeeding, and you've admitted that. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
When Democrats were in the minority they used the filibuster much less than Republicans have in either this Congress or the last, yet the GOP insisted LOUDLY that each and every one of their initiatives was "entitled to an up or down vote." It would seem Conservatives are masters of situational ethics since their position on the filibuster is now exactly opposite what it was when they were in the majority.
Since you're intent on talking about the Affordable Care Act, perhaps you'd like to let us know which features of the bill you'd like to repeal;
Elimination of pre-existing conditions clauses?
Elimination of the Medicare donut hole?
Dependent coverage up to age 26?
Limiting medical loss ratios (gross profit margins) of insurers to "only" 20%?
Pilot programs to combat abuse of malpractice suits?
Pool groups to allow individuals to buy coverage more affordably?
Fraud and abuse prevention?
Medicaid coverage for preventative services?
Elimination of annual caps on coverage?
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx
John,
I am sorry to have to continue to point out your ignorance, semantics, pseudo-intellectualism, and counter-intuitive arguments. I encounter liberals like yourself constantly, and you are full of half-truths, and when you disseminate your half-truths to the public, you damage the collective intelligence of everyone.
To answer your question as to which part of the bill I would like to repeal?? Hmmm...this is a tough one John. Have you not been following this issue for the past year?!?!? What is the main, overwhelming, and central argument conservatives have challenged when in regards to Obamacare?? THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE THAT FORCES CITIZENS TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE AGAINST THEIR WILL... I see you selectively didn't mention, in all of your examples, the MAIN PROBLEM with Obamacare in which 26 states have brought lawsuits against the federal government in regards to Obamacare... How can one take you seriously when 1) you truly don't know this(which calls into question your knowledge on the subject, or 2) you DO know this, but you intentionally left it out, to trump up your argument...
I have stated several times in my posts (and I NEVER admitted that I was wrong), that THE ACTUAL VOTE that put Obamcare into law, was the vote in the SENATE. THAT IS HOW ANY BILL BECOMES LAW, what happens BEFORE that is immaterial if we are talking about the ACTUAL PASSAGE of the bill. The vote that signed Obamacare INTO FEDERAL LAW (besides the final forgone conclusion of Obama signing it) involved NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE. And, its so very interesting to see you mention the tactics and style of Republicans, when Obama, who promised transparency, openness, hopey changey, had to resort to shady backroom deals to GET HIS OWN PARTY TO VOTE FOR THE BILL. Hmm...do the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker kickback, or Sestak 7 ring a bell to you, John?? Yeah, right, Obama had to BUY votes from his OWN party to pass this monstrosity of a bill. So much for hope, change, transparency, and NOT business as usual eh?
You claim I am "intent" on only talking about Obamacare...No John, I have mentioned a litany of other topics in my posts. Maybe you selectively failed to see those too, or you are just blinded by your own ideology. What would you like to talk about? Deficits: Historical. Unemployment: still about 8%, projected to stay there for two more years, the longest streak since WWII. Job creation? Not existent, as proven by the unemployment rate. Libya? Obama sent air force troops to commit acts of war on another country WITHOUT even going to Congress first, without even getting approval from our representatives. Say what you will about Bush, but he at least gave CONGRESS the vote on Iraq, heck EVEN HILLARY CLINTON VOTED TO GO TO IRAQ. The DOMA? Obama promised to uphold the DOMA(passed by Democrat Bill Clinton) when he was campaigning, thus garnering lots of moderate votes. Now, he flip-flops, and has told the DOJ to no longer worry about DOMA cases. The promise to close gitmo? Still open, and he re-allowed military tribunals to be held there. The promise to bring the country together? Nope, he has only ushered in the most polarized USA there has been in decades. His presidency has also given rise to two seperate movements, the Tea Party and OWS. Good stuff. So, those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head, since I am so INTENT on sticking with Obamacare...
You need to study a little more, it would seem...
So, let's explore where the ONLY thing unpopular about the Affordable Care Act originated...
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
Newt Gingrich, leader of the Republican presidential field, was even forced to admit in a debate that he is on record as favoring the individual mandate. The evidence is clear. THE Conservative solution to health care reform...the Individual Mandate, first formulated by the Heritage Foundation as the Conservative answer to "Hillarycare", is suddenly "a Socialist takeover of 1/6 of the economy" AFTER Congress adopted the idea in a vain attempt to tempt obstructionist Republicans into a bipartisan solution.
http://schealthcarevoices.org/2011/12/08/the-individual-mandates-shameless-flip-floppers/
So pretending the Individual Mandate was Barack Obama's idea is yet more Conservative hypocrisy. Ironically, even this blatant and morally bankrupt flip flop is going wrong for the Right;
Your plane to Beckistan is on final call. You'd better get going...
John,
Notice how the vast quantity of your argument is deflective in nature. You go through lengths dicussing the origins of the individual mandate, which is you deflecting. It is not 20 years ago, alot has changed, including politicians, our economy, and we could debate back and forth about the actual origins, and I could provide you biased polls as well, that show a majority being AGAINST an individual mandate...So, lets stay on topic, and in the hear and now...but nice typical liberal-try on steering the issue sideways...
It is the republican constituency that is against being forced to purchase a product against their will, regardless of what some Republican politicians might have said 20 years ago...
I also find it highly ironic that you accused me of sticking to one topic, so I supply you with several, and then you go back to discussing just one topic, all the while selectively ignoring the litany of issues I brought up. LOL!!! Hypocrisy is strong with this one!
Independent analysis from economists to the Speaker:
"This report details the economic and fiscal consequences of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA,) signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Several rationales were offered in support of this legislation, including that it would lead to the creation of jobs and the reduction of the federal budget deficit. This report shows that the health care law will achieve neither effect.
Economic Consequences. Consistent with respected economists‟ forecasts, the health care law contains a number of provisions that will eliminate jobs, reduce hours and wages, and limit future job creation. Specifically, the law:
Penalizes employers for failing to offer coverage deemed acceptable by the government; Imposes burdensome mandates on small businesses, including new paperwork requirements; and Compounds the uncertainty employers and entrepreneurs are facing amid a challenging economic climate.
Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the "amount of labor used in the economy by …roughly half a percent...," an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.
i A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation‟ largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.ii By comparison, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that "in its life," the health care law would "create 4 million jobs – 400,000 jobs almost immediately."iii
Fiscal Consequences.
Studies of the health care law reveal that it will cost taxpayers more than originally estimated, and may exacerbate the nation‟ dire fiscal condition. Specifically, the law: Relies on accounting gimmicks that mask its true cost to taxpayers;Double-counts savings from Medicare that are widely viewed as unsustainable; and Requires additional government spending to direct its implementation.
According to an analysis by House Budget Committee, the health care law will cost the nation $2.6 trillion when fully implemented, and add $701 billion to the deficit in its first ten years.
iv By comparison, President Obama stated during a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009 that he would not sign health care reform that "adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future."v Recommendations. The evidence is overwhelming: Immediate steps should be taken to repeal the health care law and replace it with common-sense reforms to lower costs and protect jobs. Such measures would ease uncertainty for employers and entrepreneurs, and give Congress an opportunity to take the necessary measures to address the nation‟ fiscal challenges. "
Your piece of sidewalk in the middle of an OWS park is just waiting for you to go poop and urinate on...
More Faux News for the parrot.
LOL!! Your concession is noted. Carry on...
Do you concede , on the " FOR TWO YEARS IT WAS FILIBUSTER-PROOF!!!" if not why continue? Why is it when you are given facts that refute your parrot talk, you conclude " Notice how the vast quantity of your argument is deflective in nature."
"Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the "amount of labor used in the economy by …roughly half a percent...," an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.", instead of pasting please give the CBO report, otherwise this is misleading.
"A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation‟ largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.ii By comparison, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that "in its life," the health care law would "create 4 million jobs – 400,000 jobs almost immediately."iii", the source is not non-partisian, and you have not provided any source for their findings.
"Studies of the health care law reveal that it will cost taxpayers more than originally estimated, and may exacerbate the nation‟ dire fiscal condition. Specifically, the law: Relies on accounting gimmicks that mask its true cost to taxpayers;Double-counts savings from Medicare that are widely viewed as unsustainable; and Requires additional government spending to direct its implementation", rhetoric with no substantiation, please include data.
"According to an analysis by House Budget Committee, the health care law will cost the nation $2.6 trillion when fully implemented, and add $701 billion to the deficit in its first ten years", the chair of the commitee is Paul Ryan (R) and the majority of those sitting on the commitee are (R). This could be politically motivated.
Will the parrot need a cracker, now.
Here parrot, this is how you copy and paste, www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/pdf/health_care_jobs.pdf
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/whom-does-the-nfib-represent-besides-its-members/
Parrot, this is how you copy the WHOLE referance, not just your take.
How do you debate a parrot.
here parrot this link is to the C.B.O. report on their findings if the H.R.1, was passed. As you know it passed the House,with full Repuglican support, but failed to pass the Dem. majority Senate. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12198
Here is the summary paragraph for you:
"
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have previously estimated the effects of legislation that would temporarily prevent the use of appropriated funds to implement PPACA and the Reconciliation Act. Specifically, earlier this year, CBO and JCT estimated the budgetary effects of enacting section 4017 of H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Resolution Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on February 19, 2011. That provision would have prevented the use of funds appropriated in H.R. 1—that is, any funding for fiscal year 2011—to implement PPACA and the Reconciliation Act.2 CBO and JCT found that such a temporary prohibition, extending through the remainder of fiscal year 2011, would reduce the budget deficit by about $1.4 billion in 2011 but would increase deficits by almost $6 billion over the 2011-2021 period".
Again, this is directly from the Congressional Budget Office website, not a parrot organization, or political hack commitee.
Remember, HR1 was the first bill introduced and passed by the fiscally conservative Republican, House of Representatives.
Is this current enough for your parrot brain?
Parrot, here is recent article from A.B.C., with remarks from the Repugs, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/speaker-boehner-dismisses-cbos-report-health-care-repeal-increases-deficit/
Evidently the Repugs can't trust the Congressional Budget Office anymore, and have to find their own vindication for their political agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office, here is the link to the scope and purpose of the C.B.O., apparently the Repugs will have to clean up this agency next, right after the E.P.A., Dept of Education, etc. etc. etc. etc., now you be a good parrot and step in line with the rest.
Here parrot another C.B.O. report on the affordability of the new health care, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12374,
Parrot needs another cracker, this one is from 3/11/2011, from the C.B.O, given to the House commitee, this is the latest report I could find on the reduction of the deficit, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12119
"The legislation will have a number of effects on the federal budget—including added
spending to subsidize the purchase of health insurance and increased outlays for Medicaid,
as well as reductions in outlays for Medicare and added revenues from taxes,
fees, and penalties. On net, CBO and JCT’s latest comprehensive estimate is that the
effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will
reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period (see Table 1)."
and,
"
CBO and JCT estimate that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will increase the
number of nonelderly Americans with health insurance by about 32 million in 2016
and about 34 million in 2021.
1 About 95 percent of legal nonelderly residents will
have insurance coverage in 2021, compared with a projected share of about 82 percent
in the absence of that legislation (and an estimated 83 percent currently). In
2021, approximately 24 million people will purchase their own coverage through
insurance exchanges, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program
(CHIP) will have roughly 17 million additional enrollees, CBO and JCT estimate.
Compared with the number projected under prior law, about 6 million fewer people
will purchase individual coverage directly from insurers, and about 1 million fewer
people will obtain coverage through their employer. About 23 million nonelderly residents
will remain uninsured: About one-third of that group will be unauthorized
immigrants, who are not eligible to participate in Medicaid or the insurance
exchanges; another quarter will be eligible for Medicaid but are not expected to enroll;".
I know it is hard for a parrot head to understand, so be it.
You see, I stand by my government, and protect the Constitution. Parrots want a cracker.
Parrot, check this one out..........http://moneyland.time.com/2011/11/21/how-health-care-reform-can-create-jobs-and-cut-costs/ shame on the libby's for giving our money to non-profit organizations, we all know "free enterprise for profit " solves all our economic problems. LOL.
Bob, I can cut and paste numerous arguments from other articles that support my opinion as well.
You seem, again, to want to partake in a game of semantics, while my posts of been consistent. Yours have deviated all over the place in your desperate attempt to rationalize your position...
Please, do not quote the NYTIMES and ABC, as credible sources for anything, this only proves your biased, partisan argument is just that...biased and partisan.
Same with the CBO. It has been proven that the CBO is not non-partisan, as it is a governmental entity, thus it can be affected by politics as well...you don't get that??? Plus, the CBO only crunches data that is put into it, there are a multitude of variables it does not take into account. Thus, fantasy in, fantasy out. LOL!!
I usually only use CBO numbers when arguing with libs, because they somehow feel that it truly is non-partisan. I am not sure how the following statement is misleading, from the CBO: "Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the "amount of labor used in the economy by …roughly half a percent...," an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost." Regardless of what follows, this fact remains, so I am not cherry picking in an attempt to mislead, as you so erroneously accuse. If Obamacare is great, why are insurance prices going higher for seniors? Why are businesses STILL NOT HIRING? Why is our debt continuing to skyrocket?
Dept of Energy, EPA? Dept of Education? LOL!!!!! These are two of the most duplicitous and wasteful governmental agencies in America!!! Hmmm, we have thrown trillions of dollars into education over the past 30 years, and hmmmm, no uptick in grad rates OR test scores. So, your liberal solution of throwing money at the problem obviously has not worked, it never has... Energy or Green Jobs? How about Solyndra? LOL! Either way, our country has always flourished when the market has been free. Your silly Keynesian economics do not work.
You claim to be for constitution, yet you are for citizens being forced to purchase a product against their will. LOL!! How contradictory and hypocritical of you!! Forcing citizens to buy something they do not want, OR BE FINED, and yet you are FOR the constitution!?!?! You drank lots of crazy lib-juice today huh? Wow, just wow mouthpiece. Go poop in a park and bitch about what you dont have while assaulting cops and raping women okay...
Parrot, you may post "numerous arguments from other articles that support my opinion as well", and do so. You have to realise that those you post are politically motivated, and are not non-biased, or at least you must attempt to read between the lines of rhetoric.
"Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the "amount of labor used in the economy by …roughly half a percent...," an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost", please post the direct link to this paragraph, until than it is just hearsay, and not relevant. I doubt the C.B.O., would use the term "Independent analyses" as their scope of work will not include outside analyses, but you can prove me wrong.
"Same with the CBO. It has been proven that the CBO is not non-partisan, as it is a governmental entity, thus it can be affected by politics as well...you don't get that???", the C.B.O. is a non-partisan government agency, if you do not agree with them that is your matter of affairs, and if you do not accept their findings, than their is no debate on the subject, you brought them into the discussion....parrot talking, spin baby,spin.
"why are insurance prices going higher for seniors? Why are businesses STILL NOT HIRING? Why is our debt continuing to skyrocket"? You are asking to much from one piece of legislation, and there are many private and government issues that are involved.. The C.B.O. has reports on the continued economic outlook of the country. www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_fy2011outlook.
"Please, do not quote the NYTIMES and ABC, as credible sources for anything, this only proves your biased, partisan argument is just that...biased and partisan", actually it shows your bias, as I watch and read many sources, including Faux News. The reference to Bonner's remarks on the C.B.O. could be found in many reputable news sources, or the Congressional Record, but I did use the one that was listed here. Why is parrot on MSN, if parrot will not accept " biased and partisan".?
If and when the current Health care law is found constitutional, it will continue to be the law of the land, and deemed appropriate. It will be up to you, parrot to use your constitutional rights to amend or repeal it. Will that be better than a cracker?
"your liberal solution of throwing money at the problem obviously has not worked, it never has...", wow, some opinion. Parrot, while we are here today together, after all this liberal b.s.
Boobie Obama-Zombie, basically I dismiss everything you said with a wave of my hand, we have been saying the same thing over and over here. I am comfortable knowing what I know, and you are more than welcome living in pseudo-reality liberal-land (along with your racism). But, one final point, on a point you mentioned: Obamacare going to the Supreme Court. Indeed, I do look forward to when the Supreme Court rules Obamcare as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy will swing his vote right along with the 4 conservatives, as he usually does, Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional and struck down in it's entirety, and right before the election. LOL!! Should be fun. Can't wait.
Bob, nice job getting the facts out there in front of everyone.
Back to Roanoke's last comment to me, Republicans were in favor of an individual mandate in 2009, not 20 years ago. It isn't a deflection, it's an accurate portrayal of the hypocrisy Republican Conservatives practice every day.
Incidentally, there's a reason Roanoke quoted extensively from a report he found "somewhere" but didn't actually link us to the report. It isn't actually a nonpartisan report as he'd wish us to believe, but actually a strictly partisan hatchet job directly from the offices of the Speaker of the House and other GOPTP obstructionists. http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/ObamaCareReport.pdf
John, your desperation is showing. I strictly used the words "independent analysis from economists to the Speaker." Scroll up, you will see that exact quote. Nice try there, not so quick on the ol' uptake though, huh John? And just because a report comes from the Speaker does not disqualify it. Independent analyses were used to conduct the report. That was all I stated. that was what the report stated. Thats what I told you. Please take your false drivel elsewhere. Thats like me being able to disqualify every report Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi ever put forth, using independent analyses, because they are Democrats. So stop being a hypocrite.
As for your other comment, please show me the Republican constituency that is clamoring or did clamor for an individual mandate in 2009. Where is that? Nothing? Show me the Republicans in CONGRESS, the Republicans' representatives, PLEASE SHOW ME THE REPUBS THAT VOTED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. None? Right, because NOT ONE REPUB IN THE SENATE VOTED FOR IT, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY WERE AGAINST the constitutional issues with the individual mandate. So, please read a book and attempt to learn something, at least make a relevant argument. Sheesh. And, in closing, bad politicians, like Obama, do not necessarily mean the ideology is bad, I even give my liberal friends that...
And there's an important point there...just because you SAID "independent analysis from economists to the Speaker" doesn't make it so. Where's your proof? WHO are these economists? You haven't presented information, you've presented an opinion. Period. It's a faulty argument because the intent is for the reader to neither be able to confirm or deny. That's WHY you attacked Bob for "cut and paste", because you wish to discredit the very CONCEPT of sound argument, replacing it with a world in which the facts are whatever YOU state them to be.
"You havent presented information, you have presented an opinion. Period."
That's essentially what I TOLD YOU, John. Go read, learn a bit first, then come back with a legitimate argument. Reading: a group of words makes a sentence, a group of sentences makes a paragraph, top to bottom, left to right, and take midol for any cramps...
Thanks for admitting that you've presented an opinion unsupported by facts.
That's quite a contrast to Bob's approach. He presented a huge assortment of facts and links to support his positions. The point of that, as with any legitimate argument, is to increase credibility through supporting information. You chose to respond with bullying and name calling.
Thanks for playing. Bye.
Your park is waiting to be pooped in, bye. LOL!!
John B, I have another very informed reply to the parrot.
http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/
Again it is a non-partisan site, who go to great lengths to prove or disprove. The "independent analysis" Roanoke1 and the Repugs refer to was done on a healthcare proposal back in 2008, and was not based on the law passed. How convenient, for parrots. Parrots only like sunflower seeds.
Also the C.B.O. reports the real cause of less people seeking employment, not less jobs in the future.
F
When asked if the "independent " would do another report based on the passed law, the response was obvious, we do not plan to now or in the future. So what is wrong with citing the most current info available, parrot? It is all there, at http://factcheck.org/2011/a-job-killinglaw\. Thanks.
Parrot, her is another link for you to pick apart, http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/
Great information, Bob. This passage goes to the very heart of Roanoke's unsupported arguments;
Ahhh, more fuzzy math, no cites from John, just more opinion, and more blatant lies. Here guys, since you parrots are just cherry-picking and can't think for yourselves without being spoonfed, here is some nice info you might find helpful...(lol)
Among the signers of a letter asking to REPEAL OBAMACARE are former CBO directors June O'Neill and Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Edward Prescott, a Nobel laureate and Federal Reserve economist. LOL!!!
An excerpt of the letter:
The letter from economists said the law is “fiscally dangerous at a moment when the United States is already facing a sea of red ink.”
“It creates a massive new entitlement at a time when the budget is already buckling under the weight of existing entitlements. At a minimum, it will add $1 trillion to government spending over the next decade,” the letter stated. “Assertions that these costs are paid for are based on omitted costs, budgetary gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements, and unsustainable spending cuts and revenue increases.
“A more comprehensive and realistic projection suggests that the Affordable Care Act could potentially raise the federal budget deficit by more than $500 billion during the first ten years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade,” it added.
The letter also said the mandates and regulations will harm the economy.
“The mandates will compete for the scarce business resources used for hiring and firm expansion,” the letter said. “The law also levies roughly $500 billion in new taxes that will enter the supply chain for medical services, raising the cost of medical services. At the same time that businesses juggle the potential for higher interest rates or higher taxes, these medical costs will translate to higher insurance premiums, further increasing the cost of operating a business in the United States.”
Guess what you pseudo-intellectuals? This letter was signed by 200 economists and PhD economic professors from Harvard (Obama's Harvard) Columbia (Obama's Columbia), Emory University, University of Virginia, Cornell, Stanford, University of Florida, University of Georgia, Florida State, Clemson, Vanderbilt, Ohio St, Washington University in St. Louis, University of Southern Cal, Cal Poly, Georgetown, Michigan St, Miami, University of Chicago, and MANY MANY MORE. Not to mention, two former DIRECTORS OF THE CBO and well as two former ASSISTANT DIRECTORS of THE CBO, ALL SIGNED THIS LETTER urging Congress to repeal Obamacare.
I'm sorry guys, but do either of you mouthpieces have a list of over 200 economists that vouch for Obamacare??? Yeah, I didnt think so... Keep failing guys. I realize you guys are BOTH more intelligent when it comes to these 200 economist, you certainly know better because factcheck.org told you so. LOL!!!! Wow. You guys are amazing. Keep that goose-stepping up and continue to be ignorant and blind....
This is fun...you make it SO EASY!!
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/01/sensible-economists-letter-on-the-affordable-care-act.html
Btw, you do realize that using the material of others without proper link and citations is a violation of the Newsvine COH, right? I realize you don't wish to have your work critically examined, but it's also an important point of copyright law.
First, let me address your implied plagiarism comments. How typically liberal of you. When you have been backed into a corner with fact, you feel the need to lash out with false accusations. I very clearly stated where the report came from, named universities affiliated with the report, and used block quotations and quotes when the work was not mine. And you are going to whine simply because I did not post a link? I did everything necessary to make sure it was known where the work came from and when the work was not mine. YOU, on the other hand, do not even make an argument in your post. You copy and paste an entire argument from another source, never implemented your own angle on things, and then provide a link at the bottom, as if this exonerates the fact that YOU did NO work whatsoever. How hypocritical, but typical of your ilk...
Next. Easy? Really? I made it too easy for you? Is that all you have? So you did find a report with lots of signatures from universities attached to it. I guess I should have seen that one a'comin. LOL. Still, my favorite line from your report, and it speaks volumes, is "a tiny number of non-economists ended up on there for various random reasons." LOL!!! A "tiny" number, eh?? for "various" and "random" reasons?? I wonder how many? I wonder why there was a need to include a "tiny" number of non-economists for "various" and "random" reasons on an economic review report. LOL! Gotta love it. You tricky Dems. I also like how your report cites one, single, former CBO director, while mine cites TWO former CBO directors and TWO former CBO Assistant Directors. Interesting, yes? LOL. And finally, I love this line from your report "we can honestly say that economic and clinical claims made on behalf of the repeal effort are generally viewed as non-substantive within the health policy community." Really??? So, all the economists from UVA, Columbia, Stanford, Cornell, Harvard, Duke, and every other Ivy League School that signed the repeal effort, plus two former CBO directors and two CBO Assistant directors...are just viewed as "non-substantive with the health policy community??" Really??? LOL!!! Wow, the hypocrisy on the left truly knows no bounds. Your "report" makes me laugh.
Either way, lets look at the hard data; where are all the jobs? This is a big job creator right? So, where are they? Why is unemployment still near 9%? Why are underemployment numbers still high? Why are jobless claims still high? Why are businesses continuing not to hire? Maybe because of the uncertainty about future insurance rates?? LOL. Why are seniors healthcare premiums rising? I read letters to the editor everyday here in my local paper; letters from seniors who are complaining about their rising healthcare costs? Why is this happening? I thought Obamacare was going to take care of all of that?? LOL.
In closing, YOU make this too easy. At least attempt to form your OWN argument next time...
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12119
this is dated 3/11/2001, and addresses all your concerns from the letter dated 1/26/2011.
http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/,will the parrot continue to comment with old material, I thought parrot was up to date, as parrot stated.
parrot read the attachments, they address your response better and more timely than your parrot response.
also, interesting John, the letter and the report that parrot plagiarised, yes parrot is in direct violation, of the Newsvine code which parrot agreed to, are dated the same day in Jan.. You and I have more recent info, yet parrot says "So, lets stay on topic, and in the hear and now."
ilchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/.../HC-Conference-5-9-11.pdf.
The above letter is interesting, as the head of the Ill. Chamber of Commerce admits that the obstructionism of the Repugs, will delay the enactment of the bill, and probable add to the costs in my opinion. He states that he has directed his underling to study and issue more recommendations for their members to help them comprehend the bill. That seems to be what they should have been doing from the start, instead of parrot talk. Obstruct, obstruct, like Tim Pawlenty and the executive orders, http://minnesotaindependent.com/64443/pawlenty-executive-order-aims-to-keep-obamacare-out-of-minnesota, and others. It seems apparent the Repugs will try to de-fund the law. That will take some time and be very expensive to both States and the Feds, all in the name of bi-partisanship. LOL.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1104806,this site gives a broad outline of the conservative political view today. I believe the right is resigned to the fact that more government involvement in health care is needed, quite contrary to their far-right constituents.
I also believe that the cost to private insurance will in latter years be prohibitive to profit, and we will have a single-payer system, similar to Medicare and Medicaid. With a 25% overhead, including agent fees, there won't be the profit motive for private investors. Similar to most modern country's today. If I were conservative, I would be fighting for agents to be considered independent so their salary's won't take a dent, and they are a large segment in our general voting public.
Bob, again, you merely post opinionated partisan drivel. Just because you post a link to your partisan site does not make your post accurate or more objective.
I used a letter that is less than 1 year old...so continue living in pseudo-reality, I guess. You keep citing the CBO, yet we have already discussed the nature of the CBO and the fact that what the CBO reports is not always accurate. In fact, one can find numerous reports on the inaccuracy of the CBO over the years. Also, I find it quite interesting that you continue to quote the CBO, yet dismiss the fact that on the letter I CITED, there are signatures of two former CBO directors and two former CBO Assistant directors. But, I guess the CBO only works when it proves what you want it to say. Bob, you are a typical, hypocritical and counter-intuitive liberal. I also enjoy your continued referencing of factcheck.org, as if this cite is considered the source of all truth. LOL.
I also enjoy how you pathetic mouthpieces continue to accuse me of plagiarism when it is clear that I violated no rules. Again, Bob, do you know how to read? Do you know what block quotes and quotation marks are? Do you understand when I said "Among the signers of a letter asking to REPEAL OBAMACARE are former CBO directors June O'Neill and Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Edward Prescott, a Nobel laureate and Federal Reserve economist. An excerpt of the letter:"????? And then everything that followed was either in block quotes or direct quotations. Again, Bob, PLEASE READ before posting your pathetic and false accusations. Bob, you represent the typical liberal left of the Democrat party, who, when put into a corner by facts, must lash out with wild and incoherent accusations. You represent what is wrong with this country. Please show me how I plagiarised ANYTHING. You can't because I did no such thing. Bob, you are of small mind, and probably small everything else...
Bob you talk about studying and having people understand the healthcare bill (from the Ill. Chamber of Commerce, LOL!!!!)? How dense are you? YOUR OWN PARTY DID NOT EVEN READ OR STUDY THE BILL. Remember "we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it."? YOUR own party passed this bill with NO ONE reading the bill OR understanding it. Your argument is silly and hypocritical. You are pathetic. Oh, and speaking of your sarcastic comments concerning bi-partisanship...how was Obamacare passed?? LOL!!! Not only did Obama have to buy votes from his own party (Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Sestak 7) in backroom shady deals, he had to pass it through BUDGET RECONCILIATION (with no Repub votes). LOL!!! So much for bi-partisanship. Wow, you really do take the hypocritical cake, buddy.
As for our country's healthcare eventually being "similar to most modern country's today", again, another "wow" comment from the liberal peanut gallery. No, while our system certainly needs work, I'd rather not have the socialism that exists in these 'modern' countries today. How has that worked for Europe? Yeahh..... Sure Bob, go to Canada and partake in their socialized medicine and wait 27 days before being seen by a doctor. No, America still has the best health care in THE WORLD. You want European socialized medicine, then go move to Europe and enjoy what they are currently going through today.
No one said that conservative constituents do not want health care reform. They just dont want to be forced to buy a product, against their will, or be fined. That is why the Supreme Court will most likely rule Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The court is politically aligned 4-4, with Kennedy being the swing vote who almost always sides with the conservative Justices. Can't wait! LOL!!
Bob, you should join the 'movement' buddy. Isn't there a park or a port out there just waiting for you to occupy? Isn't there some fresh area of green grass in the middle of your local park that needs to be pooped on? Aren't there local cops in your area that need to be assaulted because you are upset that you dont have the things in this life that you want? Don't you have a park to go destroy with tons of trash? Don't you have a bunch of sex and drugs to partake in while living in a tent and making incoherent demands about not having the things you want in this, and how this is the fault of everyone buy yourself? Shouldn't you be playing the drums, affecting local businesses, and singing "peace train" while complaining that you dont have a job??? LOL!!!! Yeah, it puts all things in perspective when I realize the type of people I am sitting here arguing with...LOL!!
Just an article by Geore Allen, former Gov. of VA, that was in my local paper today. This is simply a perspective on Obamacare from a state-level. Please note the quotations that run from the beginning of the article until the end, just so you nutjobs don't get any ideas regarding more false accusations. The source of the article has been named, and the author has been given credit. It has been pasted in it's entirety. You want to read it from the original site, then you look it up yourself and read it. Now that we have your deflecting out of the way, I urge you to show me how Allen is wrong...
"Obamacare has been in place for a little more than 20 months, and the picture is finally becoming clear. What we now know is that Obamacare is destroying jobs and opportunity.
At the time it was being debated, Mr. Kaine said this government-run health care legislation is “good news for the health of our economy,” but since its passage we have seen 20 months of unemployment topping 8 percent.
The reasons can be found in Obamacare’s thousands of pages of legislation and regulations.
For example, Obamacare imposes a $2,000 per worker penalty on any company with 50 or more workers that, in the opinion of some government bureaucrat, isn’t providing “adequate” health insurance for its employees. This provision means companies either have to provide government-approved insurance or pay a steep fine.
It also discourages entrepreneurs from growing their small businesses into mid-sized ones because the Obamacare mandate kicks in when the 50th employee is hired. That’s right - a company with 49 employees faces no penalty, but must fork over $40,000 once the 50-employee threshold is reached. And the penalty goes up still further for every additional employee the company hires. Not surprisingly, seven out of 10 small-business owners reported in a recent survey that they have put new hiring on hold.
Small business has always been the engine that has driven America’s economy. Under Obamacare, however, that engine has now been stalled.
In my travels throughout Virginia, I have heard from so many people that Obamacare is adversely affecting small-business owners forced to deal with the new mandates and regulations as many struggle to stay in business. Whether it’s small-business leaders at the Emporia-Greensville Chamber of Commerce meeting or restaurant owners in Prince William and Fairfax counties, they all say the uncertainty and costs associated with Obamacare’s regulations and mandates are hampering or will impede their ability to hire and expand their businesses.
An example of Obamacare’s job-crushing provisions is the new tax on manufacturers of medical devices. Already burdened by America’s anti-competitive tax code, these companies are forced by Obamacare to pay the federal government an additional 2.3 percent tax on their sales to the federal government. Worse still, this tax must be paid even if a company has lost money for the year, as many start-ups do, or is engaged in vital but expensive research and development. At the time President Obama signed Obamacare into law, medical-device companies employed nearly half a million Americans - and now job cuts are being announced.
Other Virginia companies and workers face tough times under Obamacare, too. For example, Norfolk Southern Railway announced in the first quarter of last year it would have to pay a $27 million charge for new health care costs. And Brinks, a Richmond-based security firm with worldwide reach, paid an additional $14 million in taxes because of Obamacare. Even though Mr. Kaine proclaimed this legislative “reform will control costs and lower costs for middle-class families,” it is now clear that the opposite is true. In fact, new data reveal that the cost of health insurance will increase nearly fourtimes as a result of Obamacare than would have been the case had it not passed."
Nothing? Yep, that's what I thought....LOL!!!
For whatever reason, apparently, it cut off the rest of the article, so, here is the rest:
"The Office of the Actuary in the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced health insurance costs will rise by nearly 14 percent in 2014 instead of 3.5 percent, as would have been the case had Democrats not pushed through the legislation on a party-line vote.
Simply put, Obamacare is harming our job creators and destroying jobs through taxes and penalties.
We know that this is not the health care reform Americans want or deserve.
Instead of a government takeover, Americans want common-sense solutions that reduce costs, increase access to quality care, and put patients and doctors - not bureaucrats - in control.
When I was governor, working with a Democratic Party majority in the legislature, we overhauled Virginia’s welfare system so it would provide a hand up to those temporarily in need. As a result, Virginia’s welfare rolls shrunk by nearly 50 percent, families regained their economic independence, and taxpayers saved hundreds of millions of dollars. We proved that historic reforms and achievements can be accomplished if leaders are willing to work together as we did in Virginia.
It is crucial that a Congress be elected that will repeal Obamacare and replace it with more personal, quality, cost-effective reforms that make health care more accessible, including options for personalized Health Savings Accounts, and for businesses to obtain lower-cost coverage by joining together with other small businesses to form large insurance risk pools.
Mr. Kaine praised what he considered “strong leadership” when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rammed Obamacare through Congress. But in light of the evidence of Obamacare’s harm, it’s time for us to put Virginia ahead of the harmful polices of Mr. Obama.
Virginia has shown there is a right way to make historic reforms that will help Virginia families and small businesses - not harm them with increased taxes and less-reliable care. We need leadership in Washington that will teach those lessons, not work against the Virginia families and small businesses they are there to serve."
Again, I urge you to disprove Allen's letter....if you can...
"Bob, again, you merely post opinionated partisan drivel. Just because you post a link to your partisan site does not make your post accurate or more objective." So, the Chamber of Commerce, C.B.O., FactCheck.org, New England Journal of Medicine, do not compare or are not worth your reply? Again, your past posts have been shown to be outdated and biased, because their is no substance, just opinion, and analysis that I have shown to be flawed. Can you refer us all to the most current Repug. analysis of the Law, or effect, other than one dated in Jan., right after the Repug. House took control of House Committee's, and their findings were rebuffed by the government agency,(C.B.O.) that is legally bound to un-biasedly report to those committee's and Congress?
Your subject sentence,(usually the first sentence of your response) always rejects completely my response, showing no debatable action. Parrot is talking just like it's master, and follows the masters line of seed.
Again the Journal of New England Medicine gives a current comparison of the two most popular Repug. responses to HealthCare issue's, and the meaning to us if those forms of law were in effect.
You do not wish to discuss apples and apples, law to proposed law, but rather innuendo, and politically slanted rhetoric. You are being a obstructionist, as many on the Repug. bandwagon are, not with a clear choose for the voter, but a sanctimonious stand against the law passed.
To deny the implementation of a law, which is the course of the conservative, as stated by the Chamber of Commerce and many elected politicians, is abhorrent in my eyes, and will add to the costs of the reform, and delay the benefits.
You are the one who stated repeal of the whole law is right, yet you offer no concrete alternative.
You are the one who gives opinion on one aspect of the law, yet find no merit in any of the law, and want it All struck down.
If you want to micro-manage the law,"It also discourages entrepreneurs from growing their small businesses into mid-sized ones because the Obamacare mandate kicks in when the 50th employee is hired. That’s right - a company with 49 employees faces no penalty, but must fork over $40,000 once the 50-employee threshold is reached. And the penalty goes up still further for every additional employee the company hires. Not surprisingly, seven out of 10 small-business owners reported in a recent survey that they have put new hiring on hold.", go back to the C.B.O. current report, which states that the tier of 50 employee's will not effect growth as those company's will hire part-time employee's to fill their needs until the profitability of the employer is enough to hire full time, with employer health care benefits. This is as it is done now in our economy, and is not a radical change in the employer/employee relationship.
More, later parrot, enjoy your reading.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/13/obamacare-stalls-american-economic-engine/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
here is the link to your plagerized comment above.
If you want to debate, give the source for your your comment, it is in the code of behavior for Newsvine, which you agreed to when you signed up to use this site.
It will also make it easier for those, in the know, who want to read and understand. Apparently Repug./ Conservatives do not want the info out here, for full discussion, as you have proven from the start.
Wow Bob,
again, lots of loony stuff going on here. Again, you are stuck on the CBO and factcheck.org as entities of complete truth and objectivity. YOU and I both know that this is not the case. Like I have said, SEVERAL times before, the CBO ONLY crunches numbers that are put into it...thus fantasy in, fantasy out. What dont you get about that? You still bitch and moan about my using a source from January, and you still quote the CBO, well I QUOTED TWO FORMER CBOs and Assistant CBOs in the letter from Jan. THEIR OPINIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED! Just because that letter is from January does NOT mean that the information or opinions of economists contained within are now defunct. What an asinine argument by you....
You CLAIM to make an objective analysis, but all you have done is post links to partisan, biased sites. How does that make your argument any better? I provided a list of hundreds of economists and former CBO directors stating that they were FOR REPEAL. What do you NOT get about that?
I never stated that I had all the answers, I merely stated that I was against forcing citizens to purchase a product against their will or be fined. Again, what do you NOT get about that?? I am all for health care reform, just not the monstrosity, job killing, socialized form that was rammed through by a partisan Congress with shady bought votes and no one actually reading the bill! Again, what do you NOT get about that?
"To deny the implementation of a law...is abhorrent in my eyes." How typically liberal of you. The government is always right, and all laws passed by our government are always for the better of the people, right? LOL!!! I guess you are cool with Jim Crow laws(ya know, when a large portion of Dems were in the KKK), the Korematsu Case of WWII, and Bush v. Gore right??? LOL!!! What a hypocrite. What a mighty federalist you are.
No, what is abhorrent is creating a 2,000 page bill that no one has ever read, using faulty numbers from economists who have been proven wrong (8% unemployment lies) to garner favor of the bill, purchasing votes from your own party members who were against it, and ramming it through on strictly party lines while you had a supermajority (after promises of hope, change, and doing things differently). LOL!!! THAT is abhorrent. Now, we have found that a large portion of the promises from Obamacare have not come true, as evidenced by the data supplied from Gov. Allen (as well as many others) LOL!! Plus, you must not understand laws of severability when it comes to bills/laws and our judicial system. I never asked for all of Obamacare to be struck down. I take great issue with the mandate. Our judicial system cannot just strike down portions of a law, certain bits of it cannot simply be taken away while leaving the law intact. Your constitutional law professor Obama should have realized this when he passed Obamacare. Maybe instead of rushing and ramming it down our throats, he would have realized this, and taken out the mandate, therefore there would be nothing for conservatives to challenge when it comes to the constitutionality of Obamacare. It seems that Obama has cut off his nose to spite his face when it comes to this, and his marquee legislation will probably get voted down in it's entirety by the SC. All he had to do was merely not include the mandate...but NOOOO, he had to have it...and it looks like it will be the mandate that is the downfall of this bill. LOL.
Also, I am not sure you even know what plagiarism is, but it makes sense that you are so pathetic as to attempt to discuss something you know nothing about. You see, Obama-zombie, plagiarism is the intentional theft or usage of someone else's work without giving credit to the original writer. I have NOT done that once. Yet, you continue with your false and pathetic accusations, which truly show your amazing ignorance. I always explained WHERE the work came from, I ALWAYS used block quotes and full quotations when the work was not mine. I ALWAYS cited. That is all that safeguarding oneself from plagiarism requires. Merely posting a link (like you or John) does not exonerate one from plagiarism, which shows your ignorance and counter-intuitive arguments. LOL!!! With the George Allen piece, I EXPLAINED that it was from Allen, that it was in the local paper, and then I used quotations and italics to show the work was not mine. It is painfully obvious that this was NOT plagiarism, yet you pathetically, and blindly, continue to accuse me of plagiarism. I have never experienced such a dense failure of a person before. Please learn before you make wild accusations that end up making you look like a fool.
Oh, and it looks like you struggled disproving Allen's piece huh? Just one measly paragraph in which you supply a couple sentences of your opinion(and again using the CBO), but that's it eh? I guess I can't blame you.... you had nothing to work with. LOL!!!
Zucotti Park=Bathroom. LOL!!
Again, consider the source of info. If you insist that the C.B.O., a government non- biased agency, Fact check.org, whose replies both dismiss Dem. and Repug. policy or agenda statements, and give specific referances and footnotes to verify their findings, and The New England Journal of Medicine,along with the Civil Rights Commision, whose current administration has more members appointed by Republicans, and who found no justification to further investigate the "BlackPanther intimidation" Repug/FauxNews agenda, than you are right, their is no consensus between me and the parrot. Spin baby,spin.
"I always explained WHERE the work came from, I ALWAYS used block quotes and full quotations when the work was not mine. I ALWAYS cited. ", your quote. Look again,parrot.
Ok, now you are just rambling and incoherent. Just the phrase "a GOVERNMENT non-biased agency" screams of hypocrisy. You could not utter a more contradictory statement. There is NOTHING non-biased about our government. The CBO will reflect whatever the party in power will want it to reflect. Again, the CBO crunches data that is put into it, while leaving out many other variables.
I see we are back to the black panthers again, huh? Like I said. I watched the video. I saw King Samirpacing in front of the voter polling station with a billy-club. That is all I need to see. You can try to spin it any way you want, but it is not like repubs forced Samir to pace in front of a voter station, in black panther gear, with a weapon. I was then further convinced after hearing him espouse the values of killing white people and their babies. Good stuff, Bob, I had almost forgotten that you are racist. Oh, and by the way, the Civil Rights Commission has 4 Democrats, 2 Repubs, and 2 Independents right now. Any more lies you want me to debunk?? LOL!!
Oh, and please, show me where I plagiarized. I noticed you simply just make claims, but no actual proof of anything, because you know this to be a pathetic, weak, and deflective tactic due to your ignorance. Carry on, Boobie...
Your, plagiarised comment, "
Independent analysis from economists to the Speaker:
"This report details the economic and fiscal consequences of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA,) signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Several rationales were offered in support of this legislation, including that it would lead to the creation of jobs and the reduction of the federal budget deficit. This report shows that the health care law will achieve neither effect.
Economic Consequences. Consistent with respected economists‟ forecasts, the health care law contains a number of provisions that will eliminate jobs, reduce hours and wages, and limit future job creation. Specifically, the law:
Penalizes employers for failing to offer coverage deemed acceptable by the government; Imposes burdensome mandates on small businesses, including new paperwork requirements; and Compounds the uncertainty employers and entrepreneurs are facing amid a challenging economic climate.
Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the "amount of labor used in the economy by …roughly half a percent...," an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.
i A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation‟ largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.ii By comparison, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that "in its life," the health care law would "create 4 million jobs – 400,000 jobs almost immediately."iii
Fiscal Consequences.
Studies of the health care law reveal that it will cost taxpayers more than originally estimated, and may exacerbate the nation‟ dire fiscal condition. Specifically, the law: Relies on accounting gimmicks that mask its true cost to taxpayers;Double-counts savings from Medicare that are widely viewed as unsustainable; and Requires additional government spending to direct its implementation."
And you supplied no referance to that direct quote from the letter submitted by the Repug. commitee, be that symantics or not, people will not debate with you if you do not include your source, when parrot is talking some one else's point. At least I won't, and it appears not many will.
"I do look forward to when the Supreme Court rules Obamcare as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy will swing his vote right along with the 4 conservatives, as he usually does, Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional and struck down in it's entirety, and right before the election." and your quote, " I never asked for all of Obamacare to be struck down", now which will it be, or is it just semantics,parrot.
If you want to discuss the ethical or constitutionality of a law that is fine, but why add all the dribble from the conservatives? Make your statement. Where have all the good conservatives gone, no more Paul Harvey, William Buckley. Now the best we have is Regis and Kathy, and Regis has called in sick.LOl.
here is a link to a substantial analysis of the members of the civil rights commision, including the dissenting opinion of one of the Republicans, again there are multiple links that cooberate the issue, and resolution. Again the full commitee report was given to you above, but you refuse to admit their decision..http://mediamatters.org/research/201007090045
Again Bob, even after I have shown you the definition of plagiarism, you STILL make a desperate argument to attach this label to me. Notice, in the quote you paste, I start with the line "Independent analysis from economists to the Speaker:" NOTICE, THAT LINE IS ME STATING THAT WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT MY WORK. I THEN USE A COLON TO SHOW THAT THE FOLLOWING WORK IS NOT MINE. I THEN USE QUOTATION MARKS TO SHOW THAT THE WORK IS NOT MINE. What don't you get about that? THAT is NOT plagiarism. If you want to google the actual source, that is up to you. I am not going to do your work for you. Again, you only show your ignorance by making completely erroneous accusations, and then you look even MORE foolish after your accusations have been proven unfounded, yet you still persist... You libs are amazing. LOL!!!
Your other example of me playing "semantics" also shows your desperation. Lets look at the line you pasted, allegedly showing my semantics. ""I do look forward to when the Supreme Court rules Obamcare as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy will swing his vote right along with the 4 conservatives, as he usually does, Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional and struck down in it's entirety, and right before the election." You follow with pasting another line of mine "I never asked for all of Obamacare to be struck down", and you end this with your own line "now which will it be, or is it just semantics,parrot."
Do you not see how convoluted your argument is? I am merely advocating that the mandate is unconstitutional and that the SC will strike down Obamacare, more than likely. Due to rules of severability, the court cannot strike down only certain parts of the bill. If one part is found to be unconstitutional, then the entire bill must be struck down. I know this, you apparently do not. I believe there are good parts to Obamacare, I just want it to be done right. I want a fundamental change to our system to be debated and pored over and rationalized and researched. Not the monstrosity that was rushed through purchased votes without being read and contains a mandate or fine. No semantics, Boobie, just the facts.
And where oh where have all the good liberals gone? I guess the good liberals died with Teddy, eh? Oh wait,..no....nope...he killed a woman and got away with it. I guess even the "lion" of your party was never a good guy after all, eh? LOL!
But you gave no credit to who actually authored the quote. Yes you said from independent analyst to the Speaker, but no referance to who wrote the entire piece you plagerised. You took a direct quote from the report issued by the Repug. chaired commitee, and gave them no credit. You need to do your homework.
And you do not admit to your misrepresentation, as in"from the CBO: "Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the "amount of labor used in the economy by …roughly half a percent...," an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost." Regardless of what follows, this fact remains, so". In this statement you picked your choice from a report and conveniently said"Regardless of what follows, this fact remains, so"., is that not convoluted? Parrot ready for a cracker? The entire report shows you are misquoting, and plagiarising.
I must be crazy. Lol. I AM crazy. I am sitting here being accused of plagiarism by a person who can't even spell the word "plagiarism" correctly... Gotta love libs. And then tells ME I need to do homework. LOL!
"I must be crazy." You said it.Parrot only likes sunflower seeds.
Very impressive, Bob. Thanks for your efforts to compile this information which combines to refute the Conservative position on health care while building a strong case for the Affordable Care Act.
So bereft of facts and logic is the Conservative position that Roanoke can't come up with any sources other than opinion pieces from GOP politicians, pundits, and transparently partisan sources like the Washington Times, owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. It's ironic that Conservatives, people who constantly wail about America as a "Christian nation" us the patriarch of the Moonies as a primary source of information. Without linking to the information of course, as required by Newsvine COH and standard legal practice for usage of someone else's work on the internet.
Conservatives can't have anyone looking critically at what they say, after all. The thin tissue of lies and distortions just doesn't hold up in the cold light of day.
Bob, yes, crazy is me arguing with a fool who can't even spell the word that he accuses others of. On my part, that is crazy. I have only killed brain cells while debating with you. Only a liberal would accuse someone of something they can't even spell. Your ignorance is astounding. (oh, and I suggest a middle-school level spelling course. You really seem to struggle with words that most 13 yr olds can spell). LOL!
John, you merely placate Bob, thus perpetuating your own stink. Impressive?? Really??? Notice how I destroyed your silly little report by going through it and pointing out all the silly, pathetic, and intentional literary gimmicks democrats use to attempt to spin their argument concerning Obamamcare. Like I said when I trashed your piece, the obvious games that are present in your post and your report are typical of the liberal position when it comes to legislation. I used, as a primary source, a report that was signed by over 200 economists, two former CBO Directors, and two former Assistant Directors. Your silly report did not contain anywhere near the same amount of credibility when compared to those who signed mine. Your report was just a 'thin tissue of lies and distortions.' LOL! (ya know, with your 'tiny' bit of non-economists that were included, and comments about fellow economists not being credible....from other fellow economists). LOL! How pathetic. How desperate. YOUR information was and is still, lacking. You are also an idiot, it appears, who merely swallows what MSNDC spoon-feeds you.
And no, citing a source in any paper one turns in, one does NOT post a link to the site, fool. One tells the source and who wrote it, and then uses quotation marks. You are completely ignorant if you do not know this. In the case of my report, there was not a single author, as it was signed by hundreds of people, so my telling where the report came from, using block quotes, and using quotation marks are all that are needed. One does not post a link on a hardcopy, fool. One cites the source like I did and gives credit to the source, like I did. And if all that I have done is plagiarism, and I have broken so many rules, then hmmmmm....why has Newsvine not suspended me or written to me with complaints? See John, they have not, because I have broken no rules. You are just desperate to argue something other than the Act, because I provided statistics, reports from economists, and reports using statistics from a former governor, which I noticed, neither of you two ever really disputed. Just because a politician writes a piece does not mean the statistics used in said piece are automatically wrong. But, I can see why you would deflect in this manner. LOL! You just make blanket claims, use false logic, and then lash out with false accusations. Do you libs do ANYTHING right? LOL.
No strong case for Obamacare was made. No conservative positions were actually refuted. Just blanket assessments, pseudo-intellectualism, and counter-intuitive arguments, which is normal for you libs. If the case for Obamacare is so strong, why is the feeling amongst the general public that it will shot down by the SC? LOL!!! I cant wait to revisit this issue after the Court has ruled it unconstitutional. I have saved these comments, and look forward to finding you guys again, once the Court throws out this gross overreach of federal power, just so I can laugh at your blind ignorance (plus, I am sure unemployment will still be above 8% at that point, and I'm sure Obama's approval numbers will still be in the tank). LOL!!
This has been fun. Now, back to your Saul Alinksy and your basement, I am off to work, so you Dems can spend more of my tax dollars on useless legislation...
Annnnndddd.....
Roanoke finishes with more ad hominem attacks and argument by dismissal, deflection, ambiguous assertions, appeals to false authority, straw men, begging the question...just about every form of fallacious argument known to man, in fact.
As for the Supreme Court, we could open a whole new argument around the legalized bribery of Citizens United and the clearly corrupt, Conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
No, no...John,
I finished with pointing out your pathetic, pseudo-intellectual, counter-intuitive, deflective, erroneous, juvenile, intentionally misleading, false, contradictory, hypocritical, uninformed, statements. It was fun. I enjoy mocking the ignorance of bleeding heart failures.
As for the corruption of the Supreme Court...Hmmmmm....So, Elena Kagan defended Obamacare as Obama's Solicitor General, but NOW she will be RULINGon Obamacare as Justice. No corruption there, eh? No conflict of interest at all. LOL!!! You libs make this fun!
If you want to talk simple corruption, lets talk Solyndra. Lets talk Obama's buddy Jeff Corzine from MF Global. Let's talk Obama's old Senate seat that was for sale and the 14 years his buddy Blago got in prison. Let's talk Tony Rezko, Obama's buddy who just got 10 years in prison. More? Its only been three years, but I can pile it on when it comes to Obama and corruption. Theres alot of info out there.
Racist Bob, this one is for you: From the Washington Times, and former Justice Department Attorney J. Christian Adams, who destoys your liberal lies and propaganda, Bob: Read it and weep. Again, I guess you are cool with KKK members in full garb standing in front of voter polling stations threatening voters. Typcial liberal, eh? After all, you guys did start and maintain the KKK for decades and you Democrats did actively fight against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. I digress, Bob, here goes:
"On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.
Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ’s skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the “facts and law” did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let’s all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaumadmitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates’ responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.
Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal “Rule 11” required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered the dismissal.
Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indicati
And here is the rest from Adams:
"We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.
Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt. (Bob, remember, this essentially was the pathetic argument that you made)
Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it “payback time.” Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.
Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed."
J. Christian Adams is a lawyer based in Virginia who served as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department until this month.
OWNED. LOL!!!
Ad hominem
Straw man
Deflection
Immaterial after Nixon's Southern Strategy, Reagan's Welfare Queens, HW Bush's Willie Horton, and a host of modern Republican racist attacks on virtually every minority group from gays to Latinos to blacks to Mulims
Yet another deflection. The phony Black Panther story was determined by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION to have no "there" there
Btw, I notice you failed to respond to my note elsewhere that the Koch brothers are holding the entire nation hostage for their own personal gain. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/keystone-pipeline-emerges-as-main-sticking-point-in-payroll-tax-talks/2011/12/16/gIQAq9afyO_blog.html
I wonder why that is? I await the next dump from the Ministry of Conservative Propaganda.
You mean the post where I showed that you were putting forth lies? The post in which I showed you how much more money Soros uses to influence the outcome of politics when you attempted to lie and say it was only a pittance of that... I must have missed your response. I was actually wondering why you hadn't said anything.
If you would like a response, give me the heading or article title that our post was under, I'll go find it on my newsvine, and I'll give you a response. You can obviously see that I never dodge a post (more lies from you). I have noticed on other occasions that I was not notified of responses, so who knows... Let me know...
That would be the thread where you CLAIMED Soros far outspends Koch...you put up no numbers or any other proof.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread721034/pg1
By the way, repeated dismissal of PILES of evidence contradicting your claims coupled with ad hominem attacks (calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar) IS dodging the post. Facts are facts. You're entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
John, I went and found what I had posted days ago, in response to your lies about Koch/Soros.
"That would be the thread where you CLAIMED Soros far outspends Koch...you put up no numbers or any other proof." --John
I guess you conveniently missed the numbers that I posted, from your own NY TIMES, eh? LOL!!! No facts, eh? LOL!! Let me know when your head stops spinning....LIAR. I guess you will say "abovetopsecret" is a more credibly site than your own TIMES, eh? LOL!! You libs are fun. Here is the nearly the same post, again:
"John, DID YOU NOT SEE HOW I DESTROYED YOUR LIES????
. In just 10 years, Soros has given more than $550 million to liberal organizations in the United States.
That’s just the beginning. That total represents about 27 percent of the $2 billion given out by the American branches of his Open Society Foundations from 2000 to 2009. (2010 forms are unavailable and Open Society staff uncooperative.) Overall, he has given more than $8 billion to those foundations since they first started in 1993, as an outgrowth of his “open society” charity efforts dating back to 1979. His foundations credit him as having given that money “to support human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education in 70 countries.”
According to The New York Times, the foundation claims “it is on track to give away about $860 million” this year. If things stay true to form for Soros, much of that money will head toward liberal groups in the United States. How that money is allocated takes on a new dimension as Soros just named criminal justice expert Christopher Stone the foundations’ next president, starting in July.
SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT THE KOCH BROTHERS HAVE SPENT 8 BILLION SINCE 1993, LIKE SOROS on political activism. You attempt to cherry pick on little statistic from an uncredible sight, and your statistic is talking about millions. SILLY. SOROS SPENDS BILLIONS. AND THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN LIBERAL NEW YORK TIMES. So, you can't try and call into quesion the source....because THE NY TIMES is the main source for your liberal drivel!!! Talk about lacking intelligence. Talk about lacking facts. John, your argument is sad.
You call Soros's 8 billion a mere drop in the bucket??? Really?? Again, show me. You are simply deflecting. Where are your facts. You are only making claims. I provided fact, you are failing again, as usual John.
Your mention of the Keystone Pipeline (which will create 20,000 new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil) is just you deflecting, AGAIN.
Any more brain-busters, blind John?"
Ouch, eh? LOL!!!! Good try, it looks as is you aren't entitled to your own facts, huh. LOL!!
How could I have "missed" your response when you didn't post it until AFTER I pointed out that you ignored my post elsewhere on the subject?
Individuals are entitled to make political contributions. This is America, where the Conservative majority of the Supreme Court has defined money as "speech", rather than "bribery." Since you clearly disagree with that you must be as incensed as I am that Republicans filibustered the DISCLOSE Act intended to overturn the legalized bribery ensconced into law by the Citizens United decision. The GOP continues to block that in spite of huge majorities who disagree with the court's decision. Thanks for joining that call to reign in the ridiculous flood of money corrupting our political process.
The point you refuse to address is the FACT that Republicans in Congress just held up tax breaks for average Americans to further a specific business project of the Koch brothers...the Keystone pipeline. Can you point to any specific legislation George Soros is getting at this time for his political contributions?
The corrupting influence of the Koch brothers' money is almost legendary, ranging from the founding of most of the largest and best known Conservative think tanks to personally lining the pockets of Supreme Court Justices. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries
By the way, your unidentified cite above is courtesy of Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/14/george-soros-godfather-left-gives-550-million-to-liberal-causes/#ixzz1gjYUwghy
It refers NOT to political contributions by Mr. Soros, but to his Open Society Foundation. The OSF is described as follows;
http://www.soros.org/about
For someone who consistently cites "facts" in ways that are deliberately difficult to independently to verify and constantly calls all who disagree with you "liars" you certainly know a great number of things that aren't so. As such you've done nothing to disprove my point from above, that the Kochs FAR outspend George Soros in terms of political contributions and lobbying...and expect far more for their money. To recap;
Dangerfield - Is that Sun Tzu?Where have I heard that before?
I think it's Yosemite Sam...or I made it up? No, Yosemite Sam...:)
It should have been in quotations if it is a quote. As for the punk and his usual off-topic lies, his post was of No Value, as usual, and reported as such. Back on topic...
The Teapublican Hypocrisy continues as the GOP/TP implodes:
So, then McConnell acknowledges that the small business exception for the true "job creators" is NOT their real concern, but rather protecting the richest 1%, who would NOT be hurt by a small surtax as Boehner also lies about, and that they are doing this at the economic expense of the rest of the 99% of the nation.
And we're still waiting for Teapublicans to explain how the payroll tax cut must be paid for with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget, yet the Bush tax cuts (especially the 2003 tax breaks on capital gains, dividends, etc. that apply only to the rich, and was passed during time of an unfunded war) will somehow pay for themselves.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" -- Sir Walter Scott
I am reposting this:
...because the rest of the first section above should be collapsed.
Aww look at poor old TruePatriot, calling for something to be collapsed.
How very forward thinking of you big guy.
Too bad no one else seems to agree/ you have no control over anything.
Maybe someday bug guy. Keep plugging away.
Give it time troll boy... Post on topic and stop attacking other FR members.
I made it up. It was a joke, but thanks for informing me that quotes should be bracketed by quotation marks. Now if you ever use it, don't forget proper punctuation...and attribution...:)
So True -
(Prunella, maybe grade 2-ish today, admits having "no control over anything.)
Many thanks for the re-post.
This is nothing more than a sidestep attempt to tax the rich by libs. They just can't give that up...
Do you mean like the Republicans haven't given up regarding Bush's Tax Break for the super rich? That was suppose to sunset last year, correct? Funny how they have made sure it was extended and will be extended forever and ever. Like you said....they just can't give that up!!! Now give us a break, OK?
All of "Bush's" tax cuts were supposed to sunset last year. But Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress did not let them. I believe they thought it might be wrong to raise taxes during a recession.
The Obama tax cut extension actually continued more tax breaks for the middle class than for the "super rich." The cuts were extended because it would be wrong to raise taxes during a recession or during a fragile recovery.
The Republicans aren't going to give in on raising taxes now. Regardless of whether you agree with that idea or not --- it's reality. Just as the Democrats aren't going to give in on spending more money. As much I disagree with that --- it's a reality.
So, since everyone is always looking for the "adult in the room," both sides need to simply acknowledge these realities, set them aside, and find another way.
The Republicans did offer to eliminate some provisions of the tax code: subsidies and write offs,. They also offered means testing for the "super rich." These are issues the Democrats generally agree with but for some reason denied. They should have passed what they can agree on, and then continued to work to find common ground in other areas.
So now that Republicans have told us that tax cuts DO need to be paid for, how are they going to pay for the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts?
I guess it is just tax cuts for the rich that don't have to be paid for.
That sums up the problem republicans are going to have from now on with regards to tax cuts, you make an excellent point, they have now boxed themselves in, and I would horrify them with their own words by suggesting defense cuts every time they want to justify continued unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
dangerfield - you're right. There is a saying that goes....when you dig a ditch for someone, dig two. Meaning the other one is yours. The Teapublicans are not leaving anything to chance, hence all the new voting restrictions they have put in place across the whole country. Bush's own commission on voter fraud found 36 attempts out of 300(?) million votes cast. It was said that was a solution in search of a problem. They have spent the last year getting their ducks all in a row. The next year will be like nothing America has ever seen. Tons of money pouring in to our election thanks to Citizens United, voter restrictions. Brewer even tried to fire the head of the redistricting commission because she didn't like how they had divided the districts. All Americans HAVE to take the next year educating themselves. Next year's elections will determine the path America takes for years and years. Educate yourself and vote!
Voter suppression and voter fraud are like soros vs koch bros...it's the boogeymen of the right fringe vs the boogeymen of the left fringe, two sides of the same coin. They are born of the belief that the other side is EVIL, and it isn't true. But if you want money for people with minds that hate...well, y'know...:)
(apologies to Mr. Lennon)
No. Soros is not anything close to the Koch brothers, or Murdoch and Roger Ailes, or Dick Armey, or any of the the Big Oil and Wall Street money and Astro-turf organizations from ALEC to lobbyists like Norquist to Super-pacs run by conservatives. Prove where Soros has influenced American politics on any level close to these examples.
Looks like someone doesn't get your meaning danger.
So amusingly predictable.
Spankster-
Despite our obvious differences of opinion, I do so share your bemusement at the general absurdities one confronts within these confines...
TruePatriot..., they are to the other guys, who would tell you with the same self-righteous fervor you possess.
"You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead..."
From the song, "Revolution"
John Lennon and Paul McCartney
BREAKING NEWS
No boogy man..the real deal.
A REPUBLICAN aide to Marylands Republican govenor found GUILTY by a jury of his peers
no one denies that it EXISTS silly, it is the extent to which it is practiced and the degree of actual influence that is the province of the right and left wing fringes and tv talking heads...like the fact that paranoids can have REAL enemies?
sreeeminglib ---
Found guilty of all four counts? A Republican? Wow.
Hey, have you been following the news in Chicago? Democrat, Rod Blagoyavich's sentencing hearing started today. 42 counts of corruption. The judge doesn't seem to like the Governor so it looks like he might get more than 10 years.
Of course, he'll be joining the last Republican Governor who's still living in prison.
There's corruption on both sides, sreeeming. Sad, but true.
"Truepatriot"
George Soros has been actively influencing American politics, in favor of the Democrat party, FOR DECADES. He openly admits this, which is why he said "I would give up my entire fortune just to see GWB voted out of office." Stop telling lies. He has created countless groups and funds that actively work in elections in getting Democrats into office, and Democrats elected to the presidency. Go read a book please, and learn before posting so you dont end up just being a mouthpiece for liberals...
If I read one of Glenn Beck's books as you obviously have it won't help. And True Patriot is right. Contributions by George Soros don't even compete with what the Koch brothers have spent to influence politics, let alone all the other entities he mentioned.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread721034/pg1
So Roanoke, wanna try for 5 out of 7?
John, this is me destoying your lies,
"It’s easy to see billionaire George Soros’s imprint on most major American left-wing organizations. All you have to do is look at their financial forms. Soros aids hundreds of left-wing groups in America each year under the auspices of his Open Society Foundations. In just 10 years, Soros has given more than $550 million to liberal organizations in the United States.
That’s just the beginning. That total represents about 27 percent of the $2 billion given out by the American branches of his Open Society Foundations from 2000 to 2009. (2010 forms are unavailable and Open Society staff uncooperative.) Overall, he has given more than $8 billion to those foundations since they first started in 1993, as an outgrowth of his “open society” charity efforts dating back to 1979. His foundations credit him as having given that money “to support human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education in 70 countries.”
According to The New York Times, the foundation claims “it is on track to give away about $860 million” this year. If things stay true to form for Soros, much of that money will head toward liberal groups in the United States. How that money is allocated takes on a new dimension as Soros just named criminal justice expert Christopher Stone the foundations’ next president, starting in July.
Stone takes over what The New York Times calls “a sprawling constellation of more than 30 organizations that operate in places as diverse as Baltimore, Jakarta, the Kremlin and Congress.” The Times left out that the Soros network is laughably left-wing: pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, pro-union and pro-government-funded media as well as anti-faith, anti-death penalty and as anti-conservative as they come."
Any more lies for us, blind John??
Read more: #ixzz1gWpmC05q
A mere drop in the bucket compared to the enormous amount of Koch brothers money flooding the political process. Enough, in fact, that at this very moment the entire financial future of the United States of America is being held hostage to a project of the Kochs, the Keystone Pipeline. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/05/koch-keystone-xl-pipeline
John, DID YOU NOT SEE HOW I DESTROYED YOUR LIES????
. In just 10 years, Soros has given more than $550 million to liberal organizations in the United States.
That’s just the beginning. That total represents about 27 percent of the $2 billion given out by the American branches of his Open Society Foundations from 2000 to 2009. (2010 forms are unavailable and Open Society staff uncooperative.) Overall, he has given more than $8 billion to those foundations since they first started in 1993, as an outgrowth of his “open society” charity efforts dating back to 1979. His foundations credit him as having given that money “to support human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education in 70 countries.”
According to The New York Times, the foundation claims “it is on track to give away about $860 million” this year. If things stay true to form for Soros, much of that money will head toward liberal groups in the United States. How that money is allocated takes on a new dimension as Soros just named criminal justice expert Christopher Stone the foundations’ next president, starting in July.
SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT THE KOCH BROTHERS HAVE SPENT 8 BILLION SINCE 1993, LIKE SOROS on political activism. You attempt to cherry pick on little statistic from an uncredible sight, and your statistic is talking about millions. SILLY. SOROS SPENDS BILLIONS. AND THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN LIBERAL NEW YORK TIMES. So, you can't try and call into quesion the source....because THE NY TIMES is the main source for your liberal drivel!!! Talk about lacking intelligence. Talk about lacking facts. John, your argument is sad.
You call Soros's 8 billion a mere drop in the bucket??? Really?? Again, show me. You are simply deflecting. Where are your facts. You are only making claims. I provided fact, you are failing again, as usual John.
Your mention of the Keystone Pipeline (which will create 20,000 new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil) is just you deflecting, AGAIN.
Any more brain-busters, blind John?
Regarding the majority of the drivel posted above, please see 1.93, my response to where you posted it the first time. Cutting and pasting the same misleading information doesn't make it true, btw.
Do you have any proof that Keystone Pipeline will create 20,000 jobs? Will importing oil from Canada REALLY reduce our dependence on foreign oil? (Hint: you might want to look up the definition of "foreign".)
I notice you don't dispute the fact that the Kochs have tied up the entire US Congress as well as useful tax breaks for the American middle class in order to further their own business interests. At least you realize the futility of denying corruption when it's that obvious.
So, let me get this straight-
The fact that at least one political party does not march in lockstep is a bad thing?
In the words of Dickens- "I'll retire to Bedlam".
Marching in lockstep is bad if it's done to suppress dissent and representation in a Republic form of democracy -- It starts out as "group think" with folks wearing flag pins, carrying the Gadsden flag, making pledges to lobbyists like Norquist, kissing the ring of Donald Trump, promoting bigotry against people not like themselves, marching and saluting and... well that's how bad things can happen...
We talk about the 99% and 1% in the same breath - as though they're all in the same boat. Let's get a little perspective - the extension would provide about 2% relief on a $50,000 annual salary...or a couple of tankfuls of gasoline per month to drive to work. Now THAT'S economic crisis! What's the big crisis for the top 1%? Are they going to have to brown-bag it a couple times a week to get by? OUCH!!!
Where exactly does that money come from Ursula? These so called tax cuts reduce the money going into social security by 2%. How are we going to replenish that Ursula?
I watched Boone Pickins on Morning Joe this morning. He stated that he paid $635,000,000.00 in income taxes, but he would not say how much income he had before taxes. If he paid the top rate on his income with out any deductions, he would have a gross income of about $1,770,000,000.00. After paying the top rate for taxes he would have a net income of about $1,134,570,000.00. If my math is correct, I sure wish I had hie problems with income and paying taxes.
Geewhiz JoJo, maybe some cuts in DoD. Can't go there. Need to be able to blow up the world several times over.
Robert J. Samuelson wrote a column recently entitled "Dems and the GOP in Bad Need of Reality Check." (Mr. Samuelson is far, far from conservative. However, he wrote:)
He goes on to explain how both sides are wrong. It's an interesting column. You might look it up.
Just like Boehner, McConnell knees have been cut out from under him by the elitist TEA faction or fringe and nothing will get done yet again! It's high time American's get involved in this fight, and all the Senators and Representatives in Washington, along with their home state office's, should be flooded with phone calls, letters and e-mails lighting a fire under their expanded boutee's! Let's light that fire. I just sent and email to John Cornyn and Kay Hutchinson! Now it's your turn to light the fire!
My mind is clear and I can think freely, there fore I cannot vote for anyone who will prostrate themselves to outside interests like Grover Norquist, Bob Vander Plaats, Edward H Crane and David Keene, or any other puppeteers.
As I remember Shakespeare himself wrote a play about this.
It's called "Much Ado about Nothing."
Honestly to me any of the votes about tax increases/extensions/cuts/etc. are rather meaningless at this point. Neither side is going to compromise enough for the other to claim a true victory and the only people who get hurt will be the voters who will become even more marginalized by both parties.
In fact, I'd argue that people voting for Democrats are actually going to sacrifice more than any GOP voter will. The GOP has some fear that giving too much to Wall Street and Lobbyists just might get them voted out in a primary after the Tea Party revolt in 2009 (which was as much anti-incumbent as anti-democrat and remains strongly against increasing government power.). However, reading the posts here and seeing the continuous defending of congresscritters like Barney Frank makes it clear that there are no longer any liberal voters who actually pay attention to the results of the votes from their representatives and even less to where those representatives obtain their campaign funds and gifts.
In the end, we are going to see massive cuts in Medicare and Social Security occur in the next 4-8 years. They are inevitable simply because there will be no more money to spend and no way to borrow more. At that point the only way out would be to devalue the US currency and inflate the debt away, but all that will do is drive up prices for just about every basic good purchased by the poor. It will hurt the 99% far more than the current situation does. At least for now the government is able to pretend its still functional.
I'd tell people to vote for a third party, but there is no sane party left. The GOP will hold the line against any tax increases, but lacks the courage to stand up to the media and explain why real cuts need to be made to entitlements and regulations now. The Democrat elite honestly believes they can continue to purchase the votes from a credulous public that is inadequately educated and does not understand the real long term economic consequences of the current deficits, even when only a few profesors continue to defend the spending. (Interestingly many are public policy experts rather than pure economics professors = Robert Reich is a professor of public policy rather than economics and Paul Krugman got his Nobel for investgating governmental trade polcies and tariffs, not macroeconomic spending.)
All the GOP wants is cut, cut, cut. How much can be cut before you are out of things to cut?? Besides, if you cut Defense to pay for the Bush tax cuts, are you just putting the money into other program, the money isn't really cut, it is just going into a difference program. What is needed is MORE money.
Democrats are desperately searching for any little wedge issue to bolster their sagging poll numbers.
Soory libbies. People have been hurt all over this country by Obamanomics, and they are not in a forgiving mood.
Watch as those Democrats, who are counting on reelection, try in vain to distance themselves from the Loser in chief. I saw some of this going on prior to the midterm elections, but now it is set to turn epidemic.
If the recall efforts of Walker and the very, very, very low approval ratings of those newly elected Governors in Fla, Wisconsin, and Ohio are any indication of "sagging poll numbers", I hope the Democrats sag some more!!!! You have heard that Obamacare now has a 50% approval rating by people, haven't you? You're whistling in the dark...good try. Obama 2012!!! In any case, Walker might not be around to witness any of it. Those other governors will follow right behind him. There is a very serious case of buyers remorse out there. People voted for Jobs and those Republicans haven't put ONE Job's Bill out there. Making Obama a "one-term President" might just turn out to be a pipe dream. God Bless America. People educate yourself and VOTE!
Biggest difference to me is that the Kochs advocate to benefit their own interests, while Soros advocates against his own interests.
Marv,
You are referring to billionaires.
Makes no real difference what they do or believe. They will never miss a meal. They don't live in the real world.
Who are the Democrats to "seize on GOP rift"? The Dems are a bunch of hypocritical cheats....
First we find out that Blago is selling Obama's senate seat. Then we find out that Rangel (D) and Geitner (D) don't pay their taxes. Then we find out that Maxine Waters (D) funneled tax dollars to her husband's bank. Then, we find out that Weiner (D) is taking pictures of his private parts and sending them all over the country.
If we weren't already sick enough of Democrats, we then find out Pelosi (D) is wheeling and dealing with insider trading . Then we find out Corzine (D) is stealing money from clients at MF Global ( can you imagine what he stole from the N.J. voters?). To top it all off, Obama (D) tells us not to worry that billions were lost in his "green" projects because, in his words ..."you win some and you lose some."
Hey, the real irony is.....all we hear from the Dems is that they stand up for the middle class and "what's right ."
Do Democrats ever tell the truth or look in the mirror??!
I believe Boehner was mentioned right along side Pelosi concerning that inside traders matter, or have you overlooked that little fact? As for Weiner, one Republican was found guilty of paying prostitutes and he got everything but a high five when he returned to the House...forget that? Taxes? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas forgot to put his wife's income on their tax form...a honest oversight..Hah! As for hypocrisy, the party of "morals" and "family values" has a Presidential candidate that's been married THREE times. Who committed adultery because he "loved" his country so much. That joker, Joe Walsh that owes over $170,000 in back child support. As for the truth, most Republicans in office today wouldn't know truth if it bit them in their ass, my friend. Frankly, I don't know how they look themselves in the mirror seeing as how in their agenda to make Obama a one-time President, they have done NOTHING to help this country or Americans. Now, that's irony!
Nobody in congress actually wants anything passed, for this is all campaign issues they are setting up. If Obama and the dems in the senate wanted the payroll tax passed, it would be passed.
They keep refering to the repubs wont give in to agreeing to tax millionaires, however it is not millionaires, but those that make $250,000.00 and above they actually want to tax for this holiday payroll.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/taxation/bush_tax_cuts/index.html
Of course it will not be passed, for they want to tax small bussiness and those struggling to keep their heads above water.$250,000.00 in todays bussiness world is actually nothing. Many of our lead congress prople are paid that in their wages by our tax dollars
If they would tax those that are actually millionaires and above we would all possibly encourage this. However one must also consider that our own 401k's, pensions and such that are supposed to see us through retirement for 20 or 30 years are supposed to be saved up to around 2.7 million for us to be able to retire at around a $40,000 a year income and hopefully cover us as the dollar inflates. (I doubt if many of us ever meet this amount we are supposed to save), however once we cash in our 401k for retirement we need congress to also put in place a law so that a majority of our retirement money that we saved on for 40 plus years does not go up in tax smoke on the year we cash it in.
Last thing we need is to be kicked in the teeth by some millionaire tax when we finally retire at 70 years old.
time to end all these so called middle class tax cuts that dont work and like obama has failed big time, give that money to those at the top by increasing the top bracket cuts of the bush tax cuts and make them permanant, then the economy will boom and it will be paid for by those at the bottom who pay little of anything now.
the new Battle cry...One and Done! spread the word
The GOP/RNC economic concepts of "Tinkle Down Economics" has not worked at all. The idea of cutting taxes on the rich so they will create jobs is a myth. The GOP Lobbyists in Congress have made it clear that they will not raise taxes on the top 1% who have not paid their fair share in taxes since 1981. That is fact! Now the GOP Lobbyists believe the disabled who are unable to work will pay for all tax increases. How are they going to do this? These fellow citizens are very limited in abilites, and maybe they work for very low wages. The GOP Lobbyists want the elderly to pay more in taxes, and give huge tax payer subsidies to big Oil. How are they going to afford higher taxes? Since they are living on a limited income the way it is. Now the "Hoodlum's On The Hill" in the GOP run House voted to destroy Social Security. Extending the "Brainless Bush" tax cuts have created the largest deficits in US History, and then lowering the tax brackets on the rich to all time lows. Where is the revenue coming in to pay for the already economically greedy Bush Tax Plan?? Again! The question is this. Who can afford to pay for the continued tax and financial policies of the "Brainless Bush" Administration?? "Goofy Grover" made it clear to the GOP Loobyists that NO new taxes will ever be put on the top 1% of Americans. What are the top 1% doing with all their extra income?? All indications are that they are not creating new jobs. The unemployment figures indicate that this is fact! The Koch Brothers Agenda is very clear. Destroy all Labor Unions at every level, lower all wages for the Middle Class, and make the Working Poor even poorer. The Middle Class, and the Working Poor are paying the most in taxes in US Hisory, and the very rich are paying less. The large Oil Corporations made out like bandits under the "Brainless Bush" Tax Policies. VP "Chump Change Cheney" made sure that his big Oil Cororation CEO's would get every opportunity to become the richest individuals in US Economic History. Now "Chump Change Cheney" did not stop their America. He made sure that no new financial regulations would ever effect Wall Street Bankers or Investors. Now these Bankers and Investors on Wall Street went on a Ten Year gambling spree. They were acting like drunks at the Craps Tables at a "Trampy Trump" Casino. Then in 2008! The Wall Street Bankers and Inverstors lost all the money they stole from pension funds to sports teams. Read up on the NY Mets situation America. It is just sad! The GOP Congress is very incompetent to keep acting like lobbyists. Now "Mickey Mouse Mitch McConnell" made it very clear. President Obama must be politically destroyed at all costs. The "Brainless Bush" Economic Policies will continue at all costs, and the attacks on all Economic Safety Nets will be cut. These are the cold hard facts America! Getting sick of the GOP Lobbyists yet America??? I hope so!
WRONG. As usual, more liberal lies. The top 1% pay nearly 60% of their total income to taxes. STOP YOU LYING. How much more of their money do you libs deserve? Hmm, a business man just retired, sold everything and when he is all done, he has 1 million left over. Guess what, the corporate tax is 35%, meaning 350,000$ of this man's money goes directly to the government...and he's NOT PAYING ENOUGH?!?!? Plus, that doesnt include other forms of state tax that he will pay. And you WANT MORE OF THIS MAN"S money??? Libs are crazy. Robin Hood economics do not work. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem. Spin it all you like, BUT IT WAS OBAMA WHO SIGNED THE BILL TO ALLOW THE BUSH TAX CUTS TO APPLY TO THE WEALTHY as well!!! OBAMA DID IT. LIAR.
Guess what? Obama took more big bank and wall street money in 2008 than ANY CANDIDATE. Guess what? Obama bailed out the big banks and wall street, and now is FOR the occupy movement. REALLY? How hypocritical. Obummer took MORE big oil money during his campaign too. STOP LYING.
Obama has nearly surpassed GWBs debt in 8 years in only one term...
Obama promised not to have lobbyists, but his administration is FULL OF THEM. LIAR.
Obama promised to uphold the DOMA, thus garnering more votes during 2008, and now he flip-flops and does not recognize the DOMA (even though it was passed under a Democratic president, Bill Clinton).
Obama and the Dems HAD A SUPERMAJORITY FOR TWO YEARS AND NOT ONCE DID THEY THINK IT WAS PERTINENT TO PASS A SINGLE BUDGET!! LOL!!! During a recession!! LOL!!! Pathetic.
Obama vowed that if we passed his $825 billion stimulus, that unemployment would not go over 8%. Yeah, its now been over 8% for 32 months, the longest streak since WWII. The GOP does not control Congress, the Dems have 2/3 (Senate and presidency), so again, stop with the lies that Congress is controlled by the GOP.
The house has passed 22 jobs bills WITH BIPARTISAN support, only to watch Harry Reid kill them in the Senate before they are ever even discussed. BIPARTISAN support, and 132 independent economists from the most prestigious universities in the U.S. have supported the GOP jobs bills over the Dem jobs bill. So, who is refusing to work for America? THE DEMOCRATS, as usual. Take your pseudo-intellectualism elsewhere please...So much for your "cold hard facts." They are more like half-truths and blatant lies...
The 1% does not pay 60% of their total income in taxes. Did you mean to write that they pay 60% of the total amount of federal income taxes paid by everyone?
Any competent tax adviser would help you structure the sale of your business so it would become a capital gain instead of personal income. That means the tax would be 15%, or $150k.
Obama did not bail out the banks and wallstreet. TARP was a GWB program. Obama was responsible for bailing out the car companies and saved about 1 million jobs.
Banks, oil companies, etc throw campaign money at the candidate they think will win. Why throw money at a loser? What good would that do? Is that a smart way to invest your money?
Failed again, Roanoke. Shall we go for double or nothing?