Conservative Senators: Defund Obamacare or Shut Down Governmen

[NightFox]

.but yet all you dumbasses keep on voting for them....again and again.....

You have to admit though the choices are somewhat limited by the fact that candidates from the major parties are pretty much "pre chosen" by politically connected and/or monied interests well before the general public gets a say so in the matter. Thus the voter is most likely to be faced with a "lesser of two evils" decision.

In this day and age it's very rare any candidate can have a realistic shot at a nomination without the blessing of the power brokers so we've essentially come to the point where we have two elections (one where the power brokers pick the field and one where the voters get to choose from the field). There are exceptions of course but those seem to be far and few in between, sadly the days of a candidate STANDING for office based upon his/her own merits are long gone, a victim of our nefarious duopoly.

"However (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion" -- George Washington

 

[dblack]

Will the pubs stand their ground?

Not a chance. The authoritarian core of the party leadership will stand with their corporatist brethren on the 'other side' - just as they did on the NSA amendment vote. When push comes to shove Pelosi and Boehner are two peas in a pod.

Wrong. The NSA amendment was an amendment against liberty. You are confused by the media. Read the amendment yourself. It was an amendment to expand, forgive, permit, and make it easier to fund the NSA spying program. It even went so far as to take out the requirement for warrants. The people who put it together are swindlers.

Hmm... interesting. Can you point me to more info along those lines? I scanned the amendment, didn't notice anything untoward, but I don't always grock legalese 100% on first pass. It certainly seemed better than rubber stamping the status-quo.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not a chance. The authoritarian core of the party leadership will stand with their corporatist brethren on the 'other side' - just as they did on the NSA amendment vote. When push comes to shove Pelosi and Boehner are two peas in a pod.

Wrong. The NSA amendment was an amendment against liberty. You are confused by the media. Read the amendment yourself. It was an amendment to expand, forgive, permit, and make it easier to fund the NSA spying program. It even went so far as to take out the requirement for warrants. The people who put it together are swindlers.

Hmm... interesting. Can you point me to more info along those lines? I scanned the amendment, didn't notice anything untoward, but I don't always grock legalese 100% on first pass. It certainly seemed better than rubber stamping the status-quo.

http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml2718131717181718.pdf

The amendment basically says they can't use these particular funds unless they add a sentence to the FISA court order that says the snooping has to be limited to people who are subject to investigation." The people subject to investigation is everyone that knows someone that knows someone that knows someone that called someone that had some relationship with someone that is islamic. IOW everyone is subject to investigation so the bill means nothing. Worse the amendment appears to make it ok to continue the practice. As long as they add a stupid meaningless sentence to the court orders.

 

[Pete7469]

Who pays the most?

Those who have the most wealth and the most reported income

Would you have it any other way?

Yes, it should be a flat tax.

As it is, since the rich pay the most they have greater influence over government.

That's the way fascists like it.

Furthermore, the people who pay NOTHING use most of the governemnts resources.

Since no flat tax has ever been proposed that does not raise taxes over the poor while cutting it for the wealthy........sounds like a dumb idea

That's because you're a brainwashed fascist.

We have the fattest "poor" people in the world. People should have to pay for the services they consume. When they have no skin in the game, they continue to demand more, because it costs them nothing.

If the "poor" paid for their own demands at an equal rate as the rich, they'd take more responsibility for their own lives. They would demand more efficiency, and there wouldn't be an army of buearucrat regulators undermining every enterprise and increasing the cost of every product we buy in order to justify their salaries. You seem to prefer mindless consumers. The rest of us prefer people who are consciously involved.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Senator Burr from NC says that "I think it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of," Burr said. "Listen, as long as Barack Obama is president, the Affordable Care Act is going to be law."

The North Carolina senator pointed out that he was around when Republicans were held accountable for shutting down the government in 1995. "I think some of these guys need to understand that if you shut down the federal government, you better have a specific reason to do it that's achievable," he said. "Defunding the Affordable Care Act is not achievable through shutting down the federal government. At some point you're going to open the federal government back up, and Barack Obama's going to be president, and he won't have signed this illusion of the Affordable Care Act."

Republican Fight Brewing Over Threatened Government Shutdown)

 

[007]

Republicans threaten to shut down government if they don't get their way

What else is new?

Democrats shutting down government because they don't get their way...

updated 2/18/2011 8:12:11 AM ET

MADISON, Wis. — Faced with a near-certain Republican victory that would end a half-century of collective bargaining for public workers, Wisconsin Democrats retaliated with the only weapon they had left: They fled.

No Wis. union vote as Democrats leave state - US news - Life | NBC News

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, it should be a flat tax.

As it is, since the rich pay the most they have greater influence over government.

That's the way fascists like it.

Furthermore, the people who pay NOTHING use most of the governemnts resources.

Since no flat tax has ever been proposed that does not raise taxes over the poor while cutting it for the wealthy........sounds like a dumb idea

That's because you're a brainwashed fascist.

We have the fattest "poor" people in the world. People should have to pay for the services they consume. When they have no skin in the game, they continue to demand more, because it costs them nothing.

If the "poor" paid for their own demands at an equal rate as the rich, they'd take more responsibility for their own lives. They would demand more efficiency, and there wouldn't be an army of buearucrat regulators undermining every enterprise and increasing the cost of every product we buy in order to justify their salaries. You seem to prefer mindless consumers. The rest of us prefer people who are consciously involved.

Which slice of the pie chart should we concentrate raising tax revenue from? The slice that has .2% of the wealth or the other 99.8%??

Why do conservatives continue to blame the 40% of Americans who only have two tenths of a percent of our wealth?

 

[007]

IRS employee union: We don’t want Obamacare!​

IRS employee union: We don?t want Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[DiamondDave]

Who pays the most?

Those who have the most wealth and the most reported income

Would you have it any other way?

Yes, it should be a flat tax.

As it is, since the rich pay the most they have greater influence over government.

That's the way fascists like it.

Furthermore, the people who pay NOTHING use most of the governemnts resources.

Since no flat tax has ever been proposed that does not raise taxes over the poor while cutting it for the wealthy........sounds like a dumb idea

Jesus Christ you are a dumb ass...

It is because more and more have been paying that zero amount...

DON'T cut it for the wealthy.. keep it at 30% for a flat tax then... maybe then you will have the ones currently voting for the idiots who keep spending more and more thinking twice, because they will finally feel something as a result of their dumb ass voting actions

This is the very trick you guys wanted all along... get more and more off of taxes while giving them trinket amounts in handouts, enough to keep them just poor enough to keep voting for more punishments of the 'evil rich' thru more promises of free shit

Well... it cannot be left to continue...

It is like going to the grocery store for 3 years and getting charged nothing for milk... Some others were still paying, but not you and not about 45% of the other customers.... but when the CORRECTION is made, you start complaining that your price was raised when the 'other' people did not get a raise in price... EVEN THOUGH YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GETTING OFF FOR PAYING IN THE FIRST PLACE

 

[DiamondDave]

Since no flat tax has ever been proposed that does not raise taxes over the poor while cutting it for the wealthy........sounds like a dumb idea

That's because you're a brainwashed fascist.

We have the fattest "poor" people in the world. People should have to pay for the services they consume. When they have no skin in the game, they continue to demand more, because it costs them nothing.

If the "poor" paid for their own demands at an equal rate as the rich, they'd take more responsibility for their own lives. They would demand more efficiency, and there wouldn't be an army of buearucrat regulators undermining every enterprise and increasing the cost of every product we buy in order to justify their salaries. You seem to prefer mindless consumers. The rest of us prefer people who are consciously involved.

Which slice of the pie chart should we concentrate raising tax revenue from? The slice that has .2% of the wealth or the other 99.8%??

Why do conservatives continue to blame the 40% of Americans who only have two tenths of a percent of our wealth?

We don't and should not tax wealth

We also should not redistribute or limit wealth....

But nice try, wrongwinger

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wealth, of course, should be taxed, and appropriately.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wealth, of course, should be taxed, and appropriately.

Yes.. God forbid in a free society that you accumulate anything

I know... you have $2mil in assets, including an 800K house you have paid off.. you get taxed on in this year for say 20%... takes you down to $1.6MIL... you don't have a good year and you lose $100K in investment wealth and bills... you're down to $1.5MIL... next year comes around and you're taxed at 20% again.. taking you down to $1.2MIL... you break even the next year, but here comes that 20% tax again and you're now down to $960K.... you do OK and amass an extra 40K the next year, but here comes the 20% tax again, and everything but your house must now be taken away because you are down to 800K in wealth... and keep playing that scenario out...

IDIOTIC

 

[Synthaholic]

*snip*


Yet even as Republican politicians seem ready to go on the offensive, there’s a palpable sense of anxiety, even despair, among conservative pundits and analysts. Better-informed people on the right seem, finally, to be facing up to a horrible truth: Health care reform, President Obama’s signature policy achievement, is probably going to work.


And the good news about Obamacare is, I’d argue, what’s driving the Republican Party’s intensified extremism. Successful health reform wouldn’t just be a victory for a president conservatives loathe, it would be an object demonstration of the falseness of right-wing ideology. So Republicans are being driven into a last, desperate effort to head this thing off at the pass.


Some background: Although you’d never know it from all the fulminations, with prominent Republicans routinely comparing Obamacare to slavery, the Affordable Care Act is based on three simple ideas. First, all Americans should have access to affordable insurance, even if they have pre-existing medical problems. Second, people should be induced or required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, so that the risk pool remains reasonably favorable. Third, to prevent the insurance “mandate” from being too onerous, there should be subsidies to hold premiums down as a share of income.


Is such a system workable? For a while, Republicans convinced themselves that it was doomed to failure, and that they could profit politically from the inevitable “train wreck.” But a system along exactly these lines has been operating in Massachusetts since 2006, where it was introduced by a Republican governor. What was his name? Mitt Somethingorother? And no trains have been wrecked so far.





*snip*








http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/opinion/krugman-republican-health-care-panic.html?ref=opinion

 

[DiamondDave]

and synth posts an opinion piece as proof.. again... priceless

 

[Pete7469]

Wealth, of course, should be taxed, and appropriately.

Yes.. God forbid in a free society that you accumulate anything

I know... you have $2mil in assets, including an 800K house you have paid off.. you get taxed on in this year for say 20%... takes you down to $1.6MIL... you don't have a good year and you lose $100K in investment wealth and bills... you're down to $1.5MIL... next year comes around and you're taxed at 20% again.. taking you down to $1.2MIL... you break even the next year, but here comes that 20% tax again and you're now down to $960K.... you do OK and amass an extra 40K the next year, but here comes the 20% tax again, and everything but your house must now be taken away because you are down to 800K in wealth... and keep playing that scenario out...

IDIOTIC

I O U +rep for this.

 

[Synthaholic]

and synth posts an opinion piece as proof.. again... priceless

This is an opinion message board.

 

[DiamondDave]

and synth posts an opinion piece as proof.. again... priceless

This is an opinion message board.

Yes... but those who support their opinion with OPINIONS are idiots.. those who back it up with the actual numbers and facts, are generally not... hence why you, as an idiot, get exposed (as in other threads) when the actual facts are posted...

you somehow think an opinion of someone else is proof... laughable

 

[Pete7469]

Why do conservatives continue to blame the 40% of Americans who only have two tenths of a percent of our wealth?

It's been explained to you bed wetter, you refuse to even consider our arguements on even a simple right vs. wrong perspective. You're clinging desperately to your programming, which is based on little more than emotion. Most specifically hatred and envy.

Conservatives want equality. We want all the people engaged in their government. When the few rich at the top, pay to subsidize hordes of ignorant feeders that is WRONG.

Liberal policies that give away other people's money, to those who refuse to do anything for it are intrinsically criminal. They're more detrimental to the "poor" than anything else. It steals the motivation of people to go out and earn something, robs them of any chance at having pride, success and independence. Never mind the simple cash is steals from the tax payers, what you bed wetters are doing is stealing something PRICELESS from the most vulnerable people, their freedom.

We now have how many millions of people dependent on government? Millions of people who aren't even aware of how rewarding life can be, because they're convinced they're owed this pawltry sum that keeps them in poverty, in ghettoes and without purpose.

Amazingly, when some of them escape the confines of poverty on their own merits they're demonized for it. That's why I am convinced that democrook politicians in particular are most likely criminally insane, because they can no longer plead stupidity.

You still have that luxury, I hope you enjoy it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wealth, of course, should be taxed, and appropriately.

Yes.. God forbid in a free society that you accumulate anything

I know... you have $2mil in assets, including an 800K house you have paid off.. you get taxed on in this year for say 20%... takes you down to $1.6MIL... you don't have a good year and you lose $100K in investment wealth and bills... you're down to $1.5MIL... next year comes around and you're taxed at 20% again.. taking you down to $1.2MIL... you break even the next year, but here comes that 20% tax again and you're now down to $960K.... you do OK and amass an extra 40K the next year, but here comes the 20% tax again, and everything but your house must now be taken away because you are down to 800K in wealth... and keep playing that scenario out...

IDIOTIC

I O U +rep for this.

Reactionary opinions, yep, and stupid. This is an opinion board, though, so even stupid is allowed.

 

[Pete7469]

and synth posts an opinion piece as proof.. again... priceless

This is an opinion message board.

Yes... but those who support their opinion with OPINIONS are idiots.. those who back it up with the actual numbers and facts, are generally not... hence why you, as an idiot, get exposed (as in other threads) when the actual facts are posted...

you somehow think an opinion of someone else is proof... laughable

It's really best to ignore that idiot, stupidity that extreme is not only painful to see, but it elevates the blood pressure.