IDBillzFan Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Why bother? Lately because it apparently bugs the hell out of Simon. (Oh, lighten up, Simon. It's a joke.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Lately because it apparently bugs the hell out of Simon. Not as much as holding penalties, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Lately because it apparently bugs the hell out of Simon. (Oh, lighten up, Simon. It's a joke.) Actually your newfound obsession with me is kind of cute in a "he can't get me out of his head" sort of way. I'm encouraged to know you're thinking about what I've said. Speak for yourself. Personally, my opposition to government health care is entirely because I want everyone to sicken and die. Good grief. How many times do I have to tell you it's not health care, it's health insurance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 So the state won't go bankrupt right? So then why are people making that argument about national HC. When a state goes bankrupt, they can beg for federal funds, or loan forgiveness, or cut other vital programs. What can the U.S. (under nationalized health care) do? Ask China for trillions more? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are going bankrupt. What makes you think that this plan won't do the same? Or do you not care, since you're not paying for it? Anyway, having a service is better than no service at all. This all really boils down to people not wanting others to have something. Hate to break it to you, but most people don't want (you to have) this. Most people want health care reform, but not this dungheap of a "plan." And you never answered me when I compared this to the "Cornhusker kickback" or the "Louisiana Purchase." Why were those okay? And in those cases, the Senators acted alone and at least in Nelson's case, against the wishes of the people. In Mass, the people spoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share Posted January 27, 2010 Why bother? Because he (and you too along with others) know I am speaking the truth so they feel they have to blather on. People like LA can't accept the simple truth that people in MA voted the way they did for one reason and one reason only: "I got mine... I don't want to spend a dime more... Especially on others." The part that was stupid on how the dems handled this was they had way too much faith in people. They should have just conceded the race right off the bat. The race was still close, at least there are about 47% honest people that don't minding spending a little more on others even know they got their chunk (universal HC). The truth hurts when people are exposed at being a cheap ass... Unless they actually like being a cheap ass... Which doesn't surprise me with some of the douchebags floating around this place and the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share Posted January 27, 2010 When a state goes bankrupt, they can beg for federal funds, or loan forgiveness, or cut other vital programs. What can the U.S. (under nationalized health care) do? Ask China for trillions more? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are going bankrupt. What makes you think that this plan won't do the same? Or do you not care, since you're not paying for it? Hate to break it to you, but most people don't want (you to have) this. Most people want health care reform, but not this dungheap of a "plan." And you never answered me when I compared this to the "Cornhusker kickback" or the "Louisiana Purchase." Why were those okay? And in those cases, the Senators acted alone and at least in Nelson's case, against the wishes of the people. In Mass, the people spoke. That dung heap of a plan is now what Brown is saying everybody should have... Just like they do in MA. Did you miss the bus or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 That dung heap of a plan is now what Brown is saying everybody should have... Just like they do in MA. Did you miss the bus or something? Obviously Brown is supporting Mass' health care plan: he voted for it! But he says that that plan is different (read: bad) from what the Dems are proposing, hence the reason he, and Mass, don't want it. Just like Landrieu didn't want the Dems' plan unless her state got $300M for Medicaid. (maybe if Mass had been promised $300M by Barry, they would have voted for Coakley). Yet Mass' plan still has huge cost overruns and isn't the answer either, and doesn't look like a model to even follow, even though it's probably better than what the Dems proposed. What are you not getting here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share Posted January 27, 2010 Obviously Brown is supporting Mass' health care plan: he voted for it! But he says that that plan is different (read: bad) from what the Dems are proposing, hence the reason he, and Mass, don't want it. Just like Landrieu didn't want the Dems' plan unless her state got $300M for Medicaid. (maybe if Mass had been promised $300M by Barry, they would have voted for Coakley). Yet Mass' plan still has huge cost overruns and isn't the answer either, and doesn't look like a model to even follow, even though it's probably better than what the Dems proposed. What are you not getting here? People were saying before the election that both plans were the same. What gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 People were saying before the election that both plans were the same. What gives? Are they the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 Why bother? +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 So Scott Brown voted to cut taxes. But he didn't vote along party lines, he voted for what is best for Massachusetts .. right wingers go batshit crazy with hate for him. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Brown/...id=325681096282 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 So Scott Brown voted to cut taxes. But he didn't vote along party lines, he voted for what is best for Massachusetts .. right wingers go batshit crazy with hate for him. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Brown/...id=325681096282 So you're saying the Republicans are NOT the Party of No? You're saying the Republicans are not obstructionists? Interesting. I'll be curious how the left will retire those bullets walking into the Health Care Showdown on Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 So Scott Brown voted to cut taxes. But he didn't vote along party lines, he voted for what is best for Massachusetts .. right wingers go batshit crazy with hate for him. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Brown/...id=325681096282 Now this is the best idea yet that the Senate has proposed to try to create new jobs; More Republican Obstructionism: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...bKjBY&pos=9 Two senators proposed a bipartisan overhaul of the tax code that would reduce the top U.S. corporate tax rate to 24 percent from 35 percent in exchange for eliminating special breaks. Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg today also proposed creating three tax rates for individuals, topping out at 35 percent. They would repeal the alternative minimum tax and exempt the first 35 percent of capital gains and dividends from taxes. Wyden serves on the tax- writing Finance Committee and Gregg is the top Republican on the Budget Committee. The proposal is the first major tax-overhaul plan since House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York advocated reducing the 35 percent corporate tax rate to 28 percent in 2007. Wyden and Gregg would end the ability of U.S.- based multinational corporations to defer U.S. taxes on their foreign profits indefinitely. Rangel and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, have said they want to tackle a tax overhaul, and a presidential panel led by adviser Paul Volcker is preparing its own report on the subject. “By simplifying the tax code and scaling back tax breaks for special interests, we can give everyone an opportunity to get ahead,” Wyden said in a statement. “Businesses of all sizes will be in a better position to compete and grow jobs.” Wyden said his bill would almost triple the standard deduction and reduce taxes for most Americans earning less than $200,000. It would preserve deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and child tax credits. The plan, while excluding the first 35 percent of capital gains from taxes, would treat the rest as ordinary income. It would shorten the holding period necessary to gain preferential tax treatment of capital gains to six months from one year for the first $500,000 of capital-gains income. “A key element to this proposal is a flat 24 percent corporate tax rate to ensure our competiveness in the global market and create jobs in America,” Gregg said in the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 So you're saying the Republicans are NOT the Party of No? You're saying the Republicans are not obstructionists? Interesting. I'll be curious how the left will retire those bullets walking into the Health Care Showdown on Thursday. Brown bucked his own party... good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 So you're saying the Republicans are NOT the Party of No? You're saying the Republicans are not obstructionists? Interesting. I'll be curious how the left will retire those bullets walking into the Health Care Showdown on Thursday. So you are saying the Republicans let 3 of their Senators vote for this bill purely as a strategic move to be used to deflate the "party of No" label that the Republicans have earned themselves? .. because secretly they knew it was a good bill and wanted it to pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 So you are saying the Republicans let 3 of their Senators vote for this bill purely as a strategic move to be used to deflate the "party of No" label that the Republicans have earned themselves? .. because secretly they knew it was a good bill and wanted it to pass? I was just asking you a couple of questions. Sorry they went over your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Let's remember that it was 5 republican senators that voted for the bill. Let's also not forget that it was Harry Reid who killed the Bipartisan Grassley Bill two weeks ago, that surprised both the W.H and other Senate Democrats. Olympia Snowe said today, that she was angered by Reid's decision, but at the end of the day, she thought it was a good bill. Which to tell you the truth, this bill isn't bad, it's tiny, but not bad. I would of supported the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 I feel bad for Brown... Some of Brown's fans are giving him some support, but the lion's share of comments read like "LYING LOW LIFE SCUM HYPOCRITE!" and "What a bummer dude. We didn't need another Olympia Snowe," and "BROWN, YOU JUST REMEMBER YOU DOUCHEBAG...WE ARE WATCHING YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU FAILED AT THE FIRST CHANCE...YOU SCUM SUCKING ASS!!! GUESS MY 10-15 HOUR WORK DAYS WILL HELP PAY FOR THIS TOTAL bull ****!!!!!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 I feel bad for Brown... You feel bad for Brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 I was just asking you a couple of questions. Sorry they went over your head. I was just proving that two people can make up false statements and attribute them to the other. It's not hard. You make up things, then so will I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts