Obamacare causes prices to skyrocket

[P@triot]

Government dependence.. That's what this is about.

They want us government dependent and are calling on many fronts. What I find striking is we have one of the biggest government programs in that of Social Security failing right before our eyes. All managed by our competent folks in the government. But things in SS are not fairing so well. The halls are ringing with calls to privatize SS due to mismanagement by the government. And so to goes Obamacare. I find it hard to understand how anyone could possibly believe that after seeing the demise of SS, and the calls to privatize, that Obamacare somehow will come out different

Really?

-Geaux

Actually, I can. Liberalism is the complete and total absence of intellectualism. It is entirely based on feelings. And so the liberal ignores facts and data for what feels good to them. They won't feed the hungry or pay for the health insurance policy of someone else with their money (oh no, no, no - they are greedy hoarding capitalists when it comes to that) but they will pull a lever for communism because that makes them feel good. In their mind, they "cared" and "did" something for the less fortunate (even though what they did was put more people out of work, created a worse economy, and destroyed rights, freedoms, and the Constitution).

That's the far left.

Liberals are great thinkers.

Obama isn't a liberal....he's the far left.

Your overgeneralization shows how little you value true education.

The fact that you don't even understand the political scale today shows how much you value true education.

The Democrat Party is entirely made up of marxists/socialists/communists today. Barack Obama admitted to being a marxist in his autobiography. Bernie Sanders is running as an admitted socialist. And both Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not articulate any difference between "being a democrat and being a socialist" when asked on national television. Both panicked and tried to change the subject.

The Republican Party is entirely made up of liberals. Kennedy-era liberals. George W. Bush greatly expanded the federal government with the Department of Homeland Security (Kennedy-era liberalism). George W. Bush greatly increased the federal debt from $6 trillion to $10 trillion (Kennedy-era liberalism). George W. Bush ignored the U.S. Constitution and the limitations of power when he pushed through the Patriot Act (Kennedy-era liberalism).

The only conservatives are the Tea Party. They advocate for Constitutional government. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[P@triot]

Are legislators "leaders"? Not.....at....all. They are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution (if we're talking federal), state constitutions, etc. as to what they can have their hands in and what they can't. The U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government with 18 enumerated powers and healthcare and/or health insurance is not one of them.

With that in mind, why in the world would the GOP waste their time addressing something that they are not legally permitted to be involved with while on the job? It doens't make any sense. They are not our "leaders" - they are our elected representatives.

The view of our government by today's Americans is downright bone-chilling frightening. Countries like North Korea refer to their "leaders". We have elected representatives. It's so tragic that we continue to hand over to them powers and titles which they shouldn't have and never did.

I can't think of anything more silly than this.

Elected representatives....high visiblity people who have access to information on issues.....can't comment or lead a discussion on health care.

That's just funny.

Yeah....how silly that elected representatives should be legally bound to the law and have their powers restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

Please show me that I ever argued against that.

You are the one who is arguing they can't behave like citizens and lead a "conversation" on a topic.

The NRC was totally absent from the conversation as was just about every other conservative or establishment group.

NO LEADERSHIP.

That's what both parties have....nothing.

Read above...where you said over and over that they should "lead" a conversation about an issue in which they have absolutely zero authority to be involved. It's as absurd as stating that a Microsoft employee on the clock should "lead" discussions about diversity at Google. That is not their job and their employer would be pretty pissed off that they were wasting company time on something they were not hired to do. The American tax payer (those of us informed anyway - which apparently excludes you since I had to explain the powers and responsibilities of the federal government) are furious when the people we pay to do a job decide to do whatever they want on "company time".

Yes, there is nothing that says they could not lead a discussio non it.

You are pretty dense...you don't need authority to take the bully pulpit and hold a discussion.

Or maybe I should explain....leading a discussion does not mean legislating it.

They are citizens....they have as much right to lead on an issue as anyone else.

Your analogy is worthless.

Companies always value employees who go above and beyond. They were hired to legislate. In the case of conservatives, the idea is to avoid legislating things. You are the poor uninformed moron who does not realize that there are people like Rahm Emmanual out there who will use crisis' to push an agenda.

Had the GOP been out in front with discussions on non governmental solutions (or in this case an effort stop propping up the insurance industry), they would have a avoided this.

Obamacare caught the GOP flatfooted, still recovering from a couple of stupid wars.

They are as guilty as Obama.

Sorry to ruin your hero worship.

And stop with your stupid talking points.

I cite Federalist 45 more than anyone around here in defense of a limited federal government. You, just can't wait to jizz your drawers posting your little self-righteous lectures.

I'm enjoying watching you trying like hell to back track from your previous statements like a politician after you were proven wrong. You know damn well you believed that they should lead a national discussion on it in Congress. Now you're trying to pretend like you meant on their own time in their personal lives. Well, if that's the case, why are you bashing them? You can have lead that discussion. So could 300 million other American's. Furthermore, you have no idea what these people do in their private time, so how do you now they didn't do that?

Thanks for playing chief - but you've been exposed on this one. Would have been much classier to just admit you were wrong rather than trying to prevend you meant something else after I explained the Constitution to you.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Government dependence.. That's what this is about.

They want us government dependent and are calling on many fronts. What I find striking is we have one of the biggest government programs in that of Social Security failing right before our eyes. All managed by our competent folks in the government. But things in SS are not fairing so well. The halls are ringing with calls to privatize SS due to mismanagement by the government. And so to goes Obamacare. I find it hard to understand how anyone could possibly believe that after seeing the demise of SS, and the calls to privatize, that Obamacare somehow will come out different

Really?

-Geaux

Actually, I can. Liberalism is the complete and total absence of intellectualism. It is entirely based on feelings. And so the liberal ignores facts and data for what feels good to them. They won't feed the hungry or pay for the health insurance policy of someone else with their money (oh no, no, no - they are greedy hoarding capitalists when it comes to that) but they will pull a lever for communism because that makes them feel good. In their mind, they "cared" and "did" something for the less fortunate (even though what they did was put more people out of work, created a worse economy, and destroyed rights, freedoms, and the Constitution).

That's the far left.

Liberals are great thinkers.

Obama isn't a liberal....he's the far left.

Your overgeneralization shows how little you value true education.

The fact that you don't even understand the political scale today shows how much you value true education.

The Democrat Party is entirely made up of marxists/socialists/communists today. Barack Obama admitted to being a marxist in his autobiography. Bernie Sanders is running as an admitted socialist. And both Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not articulate any difference between "being a democrat and being a socialist" when asked on national television. Both panicked and tried to change the subject.

The Republican Party is entirely made up of liberals. Kennedy-era liberals. George W. Bush greatly expanded the federal government with the Department of Homeland Security (Kennedy-era liberalism). George W. Bush greatly increased the federal debt from $6 trillion to $10 trillion (Kennedy-era liberalism). George W. Bush ignored the U.S. Constitution and the limitations of power when he pushed through the Patriot Act (Kennedy-era liberalism).

The only conservatives are the Tea Party. They advocate for Constitutional government. Nothing more. Nothing less.

How does this relate, at all, to my post ?

I find nothing to argue against in what you posted with regard to the democrats and republicans (except the use of the term liberal and I find that in most cases...it is more a matter of definition....I think I know what you are saying and I agree).

I am totally disgusted with the GOP. It has sold out big time.

I do disagree with your characterization of the Tea Party. But, then again, it depends on which Tea Party you are referencing.

I tend to lean more libertarian.

When it comes to health care, Obamacare is a "solution" to a "problem" that nobody ever defined.

This was the first failure of the GOP and the Tea Party hasn't been very visible either (and saying....well the the federal government can't do that.......does not work. Guess what.....they did it (and as I said, I don't agree that they did....Madison was all to clear in Federalist 45.....the powers delegated to the constitution government are few and defined)....but right now Madison does not matter.......

And very few talk about the 10th amendment any more.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I can't think of anything more silly than this.

Elected representatives....high visiblity people who have access to information on issues.....can't comment or lead a discussion on health care.

That's just funny.

Yeah....how silly that elected representatives should be legally bound to the law and have their powers restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

Please show me that I ever argued against that.

You are the one who is arguing they can't behave like citizens and lead a "conversation" on a topic.

The NRC was totally absent from the conversation as was just about every other conservative or establishment group.

NO LEADERSHIP.

That's what both parties have....nothing.

Read above...where you said over and over that they should "lead" a conversation about an issue in which they have absolutely zero authority to be involved. It's as absurd as stating that a Microsoft employee on the clock should "lead" discussions about diversity at Google. That is not their job and their employer would be pretty pissed off that they were wasting company time on something they were not hired to do. The American tax payer (those of us informed anyway - which apparently excludes you since I had to explain the powers and responsibilities of the federal government) are furious when the people we pay to do a job decide to do whatever they want on "company time".

Yes, there is nothing that says they could not lead a discussio non it.

You are pretty dense...you don't need authority to take the bully pulpit and hold a discussion.

Or maybe I should explain....leading a discussion does not mean legislating it.

They are citizens....they have as much right to lead on an issue as anyone else.

Your analogy is worthless.

Companies always value employees who go above and beyond. They were hired to legislate. In the case of conservatives, the idea is to avoid legislating things. You are the poor uninformed moron who does not realize that there are people like Rahm Emmanual out there who will use crisis' to push an agenda.

Had the GOP been out in front with discussions on non governmental solutions (or in this case an effort stop propping up the insurance industry), they would have a avoided this.

Obamacare caught the GOP flatfooted, still recovering from a couple of stupid wars.

They are as guilty as Obama.

Sorry to ruin your hero worship.

And stop with your stupid talking points.

I cite Federalist 45 more than anyone around here in defense of a limited federal government. You, just can't wait to jizz your drawers posting your little self-righteous lectures.

I'm enjoying watching you trying like hell to back track from your previous statements like a politician after you were proven wrong. You know damn well you believed that they should lead a national discussion on it in Congress. Now you're trying to pretend like you meant on their own time in their personal lives. Well, if that's the case, why are you bashing them? You can have lead that discussion. So could 300 million other American's. Furthermore, you have no idea what these people do in their private time, so how do you now they didn't do that?

Thanks for playing chief - but you've been exposed on this one. Would have been much classier to just admit you were wrong rather than trying to prevend you meant something else after I explained the Constitution to you.

You are full of crap.

I said they were citizens. This was in response to your stupid statement about what they can and can't do.

They can do anything any citizen can do. And they can have that discussion congress. They can hold hearings. That is plenty legitimate. Holding a national discussion on health care would be great.

What I never advocated for was legislation on health care.

You clearly don't understand strategy.

If the GOP had gotten in front of the discussion they could have steered away from something like Obamacare.

And BTW: We should first be clear....I believe we do have a tremendous issue with the delivery of health care to the people of the United States. The insurance industry is propped up by our governments and allows them to do bulls**t that is ridiculous.

People say "The free market does not work in health care"

I say "There hasn't been a free market since medicare hit".

Or do you really believe government was not involved in health care prior to Obamacare ?

A congressman with balls would have stood and said....let's look at the barriers to a good delivery system...guess what ?

WE (Congress) created them.

So I really don't care if they hold it in a town hall meeting, on a blog, or in the halls of congress.....they should have done it and kept us away from the crisis driven mess we have now.

But, you'll sit back and say "Well the constitution says they can't......" When they would have tried, I would have been interested (unless it was to get rid of their stupid regulations)....

And you kept us from Obamacare with your strategy....good job.

Oh wait.....I lost my doctor.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well that is interesting. How could the GOP (representatives in government) "address this issue" (direct quote from you) and yet "not" be a "government solution"?

If if the GOP did anything to interfere, then it is in fact a "government solution".

You don't think that the GOP could have called the industry together and said....you figure out how to fix this ?

Yes they could.

You don't think the GOP could have led a discussion on what constitutes "good performance" when it comes to health insurance delivery.

Yes they could.

And had they....we could have avoided these issues.

Or do you think legislators are not leaders too ?

IOW: The GOP could have made good use the "bully pulpit" to lead a good conversation on this topic. Instead, they ignored it and we got Obamacare.

Are legislators "leaders"? Not.....at....all. They are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution (if we're talking federal), state constitutions, etc. as to what they can have their hands in and what they can't. The U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government with 18 enumerated powers and healthcare and/or health insurance is not one of them.

With that in mind, why in the world would the GOP waste their time addressing something that they are not legally permitted to be involved with while on the job? It doens't make any sense. They are not our "leaders" - they are our elected representatives.

The view of our government by today's Americans is downright bone-chilling frightening. Countries like North Korea refer to their "leaders". We have elected representatives. It's so tragic that we continue to hand over to them powers and titles which they shouldn't have and never did.

I can't think of anything more silly than this.

Elected representatives....high visiblity people who have access to information on issues.....can't comment or lead a discussion on health care.

That's just funny.

Yeah....how silly that elected representatives should be legally bound to the law and have their powers restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

Please show me that I ever argued against that.

You are the one who is arguing they can't behave like citizens and lead a "conversation" on a topic.

The NRC was totally absent from the conversation as was just about every other conservative or establishment group.

NO LEADERSHIP.

That's what both parties have....nothing.

Dear Sun Devil 92 As even Ted Cruz recognized and state in public:
both parties are FULL of citizens who know what they want and don't want from govt,
but the career politicians in BOTH PARTIES have sold them for what plays in the media and swings elections and votes.
I give him credit for recognizing the Democrats within the party have valid plans, points and principles
but it's the politicized liberal politicians, similar to the party-killers in the GOP, who are holding up the progress.

We might as well be like AFRICA that has vast resources of mineral and natural wealth, diamonds and all kinds
of resources, but their people are STARVING and dying of disease genocide and poverty.

The people are organized by party but we're not tapping that wealth of ideas and people willing to invest in solutions and action.

The partisan campaigning zaps all our energy, focus and worst of all billions of dollars
we could be investing directing in solutions -- ENOUGH TO CREATE JOBS FOR EVERY CANDIDATE
to lead their part of the picture, if we worked as a TEAM and let each one, each leader and party address one program they could succeed in.

I hope this election cycle leads to realization and change.
I will be writing a resolution to my fellow Progressive Greens and Liberals,
fellow Constitutionalists and Christian independents from the prochoice and prolife sides,
and ask to set up better solutions working with both parties and possibly separating the programs and funding to quit fighting
and invest 100% directly into solutions that can be formulated to be uncontested if people ran them through their own parties and not govt.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You don't think that the GOP could have called the industry together and said....you figure out how to fix this ?

Yes they could.

You don't think the GOP could have led a discussion on what constitutes "good performance" when it comes to health insurance delivery.

Yes they could.

And had they....we could have avoided these issues.

Or do you think legislators are not leaders too ?

IOW: The GOP could have made good use the "bully pulpit" to lead a good conversation on this topic. Instead, they ignored it and we got Obamacare.

Are legislators "leaders"? Not.....at....all. They are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution (if we're talking federal), state constitutions, etc. as to what they can have their hands in and what they can't. The U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government with 18 enumerated powers and healthcare and/or health insurance is not one of them.

With that in mind, why in the world would the GOP waste their time addressing something that they are not legally permitted to be involved with while on the job? It doens't make any sense. They are not our "leaders" - they are our elected representatives.

The view of our government by today's Americans is downright bone-chilling frightening. Countries like North Korea refer to their "leaders". We have elected representatives. It's so tragic that we continue to hand over to them powers and titles which they shouldn't have and never did.

I can't think of anything more silly than this.

Elected representatives....high visiblity people who have access to information on issues.....can't comment or lead a discussion on health care.

That's just funny.

Yeah....how silly that elected representatives should be legally bound to the law and have their powers restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

Please show me that I ever argued against that.

You are the one who is arguing they can't behave like citizens and lead a "conversation" on a topic.

The NRC was totally absent from the conversation as was just about every other conservative or establishment group.

NO LEADERSHIP.

That's what both parties have....nothing.

Dear Sun Devil 92 As even Ted Cruz recognized and state in public:
both parties are FULL of citizens who know what they want and don't want from govt,
but the career politicians in BOTH PARTIES have sold them for what plays in the media and swings elections and votes.
I give him credit for recognizing the Democrats within the party have valid plans, points and principles
but it's the politicized liberal politicians, similar to the party-killers in the GOP, who are holding up the progress.

We might as well be like AFRICA that has vast resources of mineral and natural wealth, diamonds and all kinds
of resources, but their people are STARVING and dying of disease genocide and poverty.

The people are organized by party but we're not tapping that wealth of ideas and people willing to invest in solutions and action.

The partisan campaigning zaps all our energy, focus and worst of all billions of dollars
we could be investing directing in solutions -- ENOUGH TO CREATE JOBS FOR EVERY CANDIDATE
to lead their part of the picture, if we worked as a TEAM and let each one, each leader and party address one program they could succeed in.

I hope this election cycle leads to realization and change.
I will be writing a resolution to my fellow Progressive Greens and Liberals,
fellow Constitutionalists and Christian independents from the prochoice and prolife sides,
and ask to set up better solutions working with both parties and possibly separating the programs and funding to quit fighting
and invest 100% directly into solutions that can be formulated to be uncontested if people ran them through their own parties and not govt.

emilynghiem,

You'll get the help you work for.

One thing you should realize is that when you say "government" you need to qualify which one you are referencing.

The farther away they are, the more corrupt.

We need to get away from federal crap and get back to the kind of state/county control we should all have in our lives.

When this country was formed, there were roughtly six million people and they didn't want a central government homogonizing them in a single set of legislation.

Now, we have 320 million and we seem to think that homogenization is a better thing.

How do you write a health care law the benefits 320 million people....simply stupid.

 

[Arianrhod]

Are legislators "leaders"? Not.....at....all. They are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution (if we're talking federal), state constitutions, etc. as to what they can have their hands in and what they can't. The U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government with 18 enumerated powers and healthcare and/or health insurance is not one of them.

With that in mind, why in the world would the GOP waste their time addressing something that they are not legally permitted to be involved with while on the job? It doens't make any sense. They are not our "leaders" - they are our elected representatives.

The view of our government by today's Americans is downright bone-chilling frightening. Countries like North Korea refer to their "leaders". We have elected representatives. It's so tragic that we continue to hand over to them powers and titles which they shouldn't have and never did.

I can't think of anything more silly than this.

Elected representatives....high visiblity people who have access to information on issues.....can't comment or lead a discussion on health care.

That's just funny.

Yeah....how silly that elected representatives should be legally bound to the law and have their powers restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

Please show me that I ever argued against that.

You are the one who is arguing they can't behave like citizens and lead a "conversation" on a topic.

The NRC was totally absent from the conversation as was just about every other conservative or establishment group.

NO LEADERSHIP.

That's what both parties have....nothing.

Dear Sun Devil 92 As even Ted Cruz recognized and state in public:
both parties are FULL of citizens who know what they want and don't want from govt,
but the career politicians in BOTH PARTIES have sold them for what plays in the media and swings elections and votes.
I give him credit for recognizing the Democrats within the party have valid plans, points and principles
but it's the politicized liberal politicians, similar to the party-killers in the GOP, who are holding up the progress.

We might as well be like AFRICA that has vast resources of mineral and natural wealth, diamonds and all kinds
of resources, but their people are STARVING and dying of disease genocide and poverty.

The people are organized by party but we're not tapping that wealth of ideas and people willing to invest in solutions and action.

The partisan campaigning zaps all our energy, focus and worst of all billions of dollars
we could be investing directing in solutions -- ENOUGH TO CREATE JOBS FOR EVERY CANDIDATE
to lead their part of the picture, if we worked as a TEAM and let each one, each leader and party address one program they could succeed in.

I hope this election cycle leads to realization and change.
I will be writing a resolution to my fellow Progressive Greens and Liberals,
fellow Constitutionalists and Christian independents from the prochoice and prolife sides,
and ask to set up better solutions working with both parties and possibly separating the programs and funding to quit fighting
and invest 100% directly into solutions that can be formulated to be uncontested if people ran them through their own parties and not govt.

emilynghiem,

You'll get the help you work for.

One thing you should realize is that when you say "government" you need to qualify which one you are referencing.

The farther away they are, the more corrupt.

We need to get away from federal crap and get back to the kind of state/county control we should all have in our lives.

When this country was formed, there were roughtly six million people and they didn't want a central government homogonizing them in a single set of legislation.

Now, we have 320 million and we seem to think that homogenization is a better thing.

How do you write a health care law the benefits 320 million people....simply stupid.

There is no "United" States of America, just fifty little fiefdoms. Any state willing to forego federal funding (it's always the Red States that give less in taxes than they take back) should be allowed to form its only little banana republic. We'll see how long they last before they become third-world shitholes begging for help. Q.v. South Carolina when the dams collapsed.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

emilynghiem

Have you ever heard of the Free State Movement.

A very interesting study in how this country works.

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem

Have you ever heard of the Free State Movement.

A very interesting study in how this country works.

Thanks Sun Devil 92 I found something online about a movement to get 20,000 people to move to NH.
Is that what you are referring to?
I've heard of people moving to Montana, and know people personally who move out to remote areas of Texas to set up their own shop.
with the ghost towns or abandoned businesses left by Wal-Mart and other economic shifts, the market is ripe for
people organizing investors or even crowdfunding to buy out these places and manage their own towns.

Have you heard of the independent currency coops that have helped whole towns create their own labor-based currency?
Introducing HOUR Money (also the time bank system in DC that uses a database to track and exchange barter credits based on hours worked)

It's not impossible to set up independent networks within the given system.
So all the secessionists in Texas yelling about this only need to organize, buy out land and build either
nonprofit schools, churches or LLC businesses that write expenses off their taxes and they can control their own domains.

You can basically secede financially by investing in your own development and writing the maximum off taxes,
depending which set up you use. We are heading for this anyway, as the basis of people developing equal representation locally,
so might as well jump in and start learning how everyone else has been doing it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

emilynghiem

Have you ever heard of the Free State Movement.

A very interesting study in how this country works.

Thanks Sun Devil 92 I found something online about a movement to get 20,000 people to move to NH.
Is that what you are referring to?
I've heard of people moving to Montana, and know people personally who move out to remote areas of Texas to set up their own shop.
with the ghost towns or abandoned businesses left by Wal-Mart and other economic shifts, the market is ripe for
people organizing investors or even crowdfunding to buy out these places and manage their own towns.

Have you heard of the independent currency coops that have helped whole towns create their own labor-based currency?
Introducing HOUR Money (also the time bank system in DC that uses a database to track and exchange barter credits based on hours worked)

It's not impossible to set up independent networks within the given system.
So all the secessionists in Texas yelling about this only need to organize, buy out land and build either
nonprofit schools, churches or LLC businesses that write expenses off their taxes and they can control their own domains.

You can basically secede financially by investing in your own development and writing the maximum off taxes,
depending which set up you use. We are heading for this anyway, as the basis of people developing equal representation locally,
so might as well jump in and start learning how everyone else has been doing it.

The idea is that this is how federalism works.

The Libertarians figured out they didn't need to own the White House, just get involved in the government where they lived. That way they get more of what they want.....

And it is working.

It's funny how left leaning NH which considers itself so freaking forward thinking.....hates these guys. They call them the biggest danger to the state.

Translation: We are totally tolerant until you buck our left leaning system.....

Real open minded.

But it is working for them. There are enough of them that they are getting onto city council, county boards, and even into the state house.

Go libertarians !!!!

Screw N.H. over.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

emilynghiem

Have you ever heard of the Free State Movement.

A very interesting study in how this country works.

Thanks Sun Devil 92 I found something online about a movement to get 20,000 people to move to NH.
Is that what you are referring to?
I've heard of people moving to Montana, and know people personally who move out to remote areas of Texas to set up their own shop.
with the ghost towns or abandoned businesses left by Wal-Mart and other economic shifts, the market is ripe for
people organizing investors or even crowdfunding to buy out these places and manage their own towns.

Have you heard of the independent currency coops that have helped whole towns create their own labor-based currency?
Introducing HOUR Money (also the time bank system in DC that uses a database to track and exchange barter credits based on hours worked)

It's not impossible to set up independent networks within the given system.
So all the secessionists in Texas yelling about this only need to organize, buy out land and build either
nonprofit schools, churches or LLC businesses that write expenses off their taxes and they can control their own domains.

You can basically secede financially by investing in your own development and writing the maximum off taxes,
depending which set up you use. We are heading for this anyway, as the basis of people developing equal representation locally,
so might as well jump in and start learning how everyone else has been doing it.

emilynghiem

That's not what I want.

This country should not be full of people running from the system.

That is just wrong.

We need a better system.

 

[P@triot]

There is no "United" States of America, just fifty little fiefdoms. Any state willing to forego federal funding (it's always the Red States that give less in taxes than they take back) should be allowed to form its only little banana republic. We'll see how long they last before they become third-world shitholes begging for help. Q.v. South Carolina when the dams collapsed.

Ah yes....liberal "logic" at its finest. Tax people to death, collect $4 trillion in taxes (highest in U.S. history), unconstitutionally send some of it back to the states, then dance and celebrate how unconstitutional, centralized control over the country is "proof" that liberalism "works".

If the federal government only took 10% from everyone (as they should), there would be plenty of money for each state to operate on their own without federal assistance. And all of them would flourish.


“The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people's money away quietly and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly.” - Thomas Sowell

 

[Arianrhod]

More undeniable, indisputable evidence of failed liberal policy creating unemployment and high energy prices...

The radical leftwing environmentalists took control. These are people who care more about the supposed rise of the oceans than the financial survival of the middle class. The industrial unions made a catastrophic decision to get in bed with these radicals and now they—and all of us—are paying a heavy price.

The latest evidence came last week when another coal giant in America, Peabody Energy Corp., declared bankruptcy. This is the same fate suffered by Arch Coal Inc., Alpha Natural Resources Inc., and other coal producers that have filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors.

The Green War Against the Working Class

Wrong forum?

 

[P@triot]

More undeniable, indisputable evidence of failed liberal policy creating unemployment and high energy prices...

The radical leftwing environmentalists took control. These are people who care more about the supposed rise of the oceans than the financial survival of the middle class. The industrial unions made a catastrophic decision to get in bed with these radicals and now they—and all of us—are paying a heavy price.

The latest evidence came last week when another coal giant in America, Peabody Energy Corp., declared bankruptcy. This is the same fate suffered by Arch Coal Inc., Alpha Natural Resources Inc., and other coal producers that have filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors.

The Green War Against the Working Class

Wrong forum?

Yes. Thank you

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???

Thanks Obamacare: This Is What Americans Spent Most Money On In 2015

Can we get back to Obummercare ?

 

[P@triot]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

View attachment 72940

Fluked again.

 

[strollingbones]

when the subsidies end in 2017 no one will be able to afford medical insurance...the rates are doubling....at least bcbs did in nc this year.....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

when the subsidies end in 2017 no one will be able to afford medical insurance...the rates are doubling....at least bcbs did in nc this year.....

In all of this....I must have missed this.

The subsidies are ending ????

 

[strollingbones]

New Obamacare Study Considers What Happens When Generous Government Subsidies End