chuckufarlie: FELLOW FARKERS!

I think that we have determined that Mittens Romney is skullcrusher.

Thanks for saving the US auto industry skullcrusher!

Watching Romney campaign reminds me of this:

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: He broke a promise. It's ok guys, he'll still win

If you're really going to run with this stupid criterion, you'll be glad to know that this "promise" was already "broken" when cigarette taxes went up.

technically yeah but that isn't really an income related tax so meh.

No, you should definitely go for it! The same kind of reasoning that allows you to determine that a penalty of some fixed amount or some percentage of income (whichever is smaller) on people who can afford insurance but refuse to get it somehow constitutes "broken promise" for Obama will surely have more than enough room for that. Indeed, it's an even more appropriate example, since excise taxes are at least indisputably considered a kind of tax (as opposed to noncompliance penalties which, you know, are considered by most people to just be penalties).

The tax on tanning salons too - you should find some way to work that into this as well. It can only make your argument stronger, I promise.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I live in Texas, and I'm pretty positive we'll be willing to bite our own noses off, new money or not, to not offer expanded medicare coverage.

Yep. Perry has said so, as have at least a handful of other governors.

The "non-partisan" rationale is that the madicaid's expansion is not fully federaly funded and many state's strapped budgets can't take the potential additional burden of that.

I will let others determine whether that is bullshait or not.

Corvus: BojanglesPaladin: Seriously. Everyone agrees that ACA has done some good things, And even generally agree on which particular things (like pre-existing conditions, parent's insurance through college, and no lifetime capsare the "keepers",)it is clear that it is terrible law on the whole and DOES NOT REDUCE COST, which is the root problem.

BULLshiat, almost ever Republican politician has said something along the lines of every aspect of "Obamacare" needs to be repealed, including Romney.

Why would they suddenly count as people?

ox45tallboy: skullkrusher: but PFQ can't see how this is a pledge to face these problems while reducing the debt without raising taxes on people under $250k. Actually, he can see. He's just an inveterate liar.

Aaaaaand you can't see how a statement that specifically references the Recovery Act can't be implied to be a policy statement regarding all other actions of his administration. Pretty sad, really.

actually I am capable of understanding that a speech is continuous and later bits often build on earlier ones. If you pledge to fix things while promising to reduce the deficit and then promise not to raise taxes on certain people when bringing down our debt, you've pledged not to raise taxes on those people. If you promise to reform healthcare while dealing with the deficit (both inherited and required to enact these reforms) while planning to reduce the debt without raising taxes on under $250k, you broke a promise if you raise taxes on people in conjunction with your plan to fix healthcare. It is astonishing partisan cheerleader nonsense to not recognize this for what it is.

Corvus: So you are trying to tell me that the Democrats and Obama passed it because they knew the supreme court would make it optional, and Republican governors in the state would turn down the free money just to spite Obama?

Or are you just ignoring the point of my actual comment, which was to show that ACA DOES have the provision BojanglesPaladin said ACA should have and he just has no clue what he is talking about.

Why u mad, bro?

Corvus: BULLshiat, almost ever Republican politician has said something along the lines of every aspect of "Obamacare" needs to be repealed, including Romney.

And? These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Most Republicans agree that they would keep the ban on pre-existing conditions expemptions, lifetime caps, and probably parent's insurance through college in place aftetr the repeal of the act.

As I said, they want to scrapo the whole thing and start over with a MUCH smaller set of more "modest and focused reforms" as Romney put it.

But answer this: Do YOU think everything in the ACA is good legistaltion? In rough numbers, what percentage of ACA do you think is good and will generate positive outcomes for most Americans?

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Holy Fark, this is just getting sad Sparky. You are really, really failing badly here, and yet you keep clutching smaller and smaller straws. The earlier general statement does not invalidate making a later statement more specific.

talks about addressing issues. Says "With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down...."

"...In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way. "

but PFQ can't see how this is a pledge to face these problems while reducing the debt without raising taxes on people under $250k. Actually, he can see. He's just an inveterate liar.

Holy crap, this is just farking pathetic. You can't possibly believe what you are typing.

That does it.

Romney just lost my vote for Massachusetts governor.

Biological Ali: No, you should definitely go for it!

no, I shouldn't. That was a much more tenuous breach of promise than this clear example.

Biological Ali: The same kind of reasoning that allows you to determine that a penalty of some fixed amount or some percentage of income (whichever is smaller) on people who can afford insurance but refuse to get it somehow constitutes "broken promise" for Obama will surely have more than enough room for that. Indeed, it's an even more appropriate example, since excise taxes are at least indisputably considered a kind of tax (as opposed to noncompliance penalties which, you know, are considered by most people to just be penalties).

The tax on tanning salons too - you should find some way to work that into this as well. It can only make your argument stronger, I promise.

no, it's not the same kind of reasoning, your silly assertions aside. You're better off arguing the "he didn't promise not to raise taxes on people making udner $250k" that your illustrious colleagues here are attempting. They're smart enough to at least understand that this is a tax increase. They just want to pretend that BO never promised not to raise taxes on those people.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Eh, you kinda did. But I'm glad you admit how stupid your argument was. Baby steps.

And I'm glad you have taken the time to add your thoughtful and insightful comments to the discussion.

Corvus: What Republicans politicians are for not repealing "Obamacare" exactly? Name them!

As far as I know every single one of them wants to repeal "Obamacare".

Are not not actually reading my posts? Are you unfamiliar with what throwing out the baby with the bathwater means, or how I used it to refer to the Republicans' efforts to repeal ACA?

BojanglesPaladin: Most Republicans agree that they would keep the ban on pre-existing conditions expemptions, lifetime caps, and probably parent's insurance through college in place aftetr the repeal of the act.

You cannot do this in a way that won't either cost a shiat-ton of money or result in insurance companies going bankrupt. Any Republican that tells you otherwise is wrong. I would bet my life savings and all of my future earnings on that.

BojanglesPaladin: I will let others determine whether that is bullshait or not.

In our case it's bullsh*t. It's almost impossible to get medicaid in Texas as it is. Something like you have to make less than $3,000 a year as a single person to qualify. We'd be the same about Medicare expansion. We just really don't want to help out poor people around here.

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Holy Fark, this is just getting sad Sparky. You are really, really failing badly here, and yet you keep clutching smaller and smaller straws. The earlier general statement does not invalidate making a later statement more specific.

talks about addressing issues. Says "With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down...."

"...In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way. "

but PFQ can't see how this is a pledge to face these problems while reducing the debt without raising taxes on people under $250k. Actually, he can see. He's just an inveterate liar.

Holy crap, this is just farking pathetic. You can't possibly believe what you are typing.

rolling back the tax breaks to pay for the deficit he inherited and is going to spend on (energy, healthcare and education, as he specifically mentioned) while paying down the debt.

Holy farking shiat, its not like he spoke each paragraph separately on different days. He talked about long term challenges which we would face while reducing the deficit... here's how, rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest.

You have gone beyond self satire

Sabyen91: Gwyrddu: mat catastrophe: [politicalcompass.org image 640x328]

I would think Mitt Romney's dot would be a lot bigger. I mean, how do you pin down any of his positions to that narrow a coordinate? Romney's position usually are to the right, to the left, to the north and to the south of most of those candidates, often in the same interview.

I think his dot should encompass all points...and points that aren't measured.

It's the Heisenberg principle with him- the more you try to nail Romney down on a specific point, the more you force him to be elsewhere (in rather unpredictable fashion). There's a fair probability that he's anywhere on that chart at any given time.

I don't like the ACA decision at all, but the shuffling and twisting both campaigns are doing about it is entertaining.

BojanglesPaladin: It's all the secondary consequences, federal power grab, inconsistance and irreconcilable regulatory conflicts, unfunded mandates, unimplementable changes and just various mess of slap-dash hastily slapped together legislation that makes this bad law.

Considering that none of that is true - you want the government to legislate based on your imagination?

/This could apply to every single RepubLibertarIndependent™ talking point.
//I wonder if their fantasy worlds look like the Pyro's.

BojanglesPaladin: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Eh, you kinda did. But I'm glad you admit how stupid your argument was. Baby steps.

And I'm glad you have taken the time to add your thoughtful and insightful comments to the discussion.

Stupid is as stupid does. And you are doing stupid. Don't expect rational discourse when that is not what you are providing.

Unless you are SK. Then you are allowed to spew a bunch of semantic nonsense and declare victory. He's never lost an argument you know. You could learn something from him. We all could.

Both sides atewthe same so vote Democrat?

Tor_Eckman: BojanglesPaladin: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Eh, you kinda did. But I'm glad you admit how stupid your argument was. Baby steps.

And I'm glad you have taken the time to add your thoughtful and insightful comments to the discussion.

Stupid is as stupid does. And you are doing stupid. Don't expect rational discourse when that is not what you are providing.

Unless you are SK. Then you are allowed to spew a bunch of semantic nonsense and declare victory. He's never lost an argument you know. You could learn something from him. We all could.

BP is more into disingenuous concern trolling.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Holy Fark, this is just getting sad Sparky. You are really, really failing badly here, and yet you keep clutching smaller and smaller straws. The earlier general statement does not invalidate making a later statement more specific.

talks about addressing issues. Says "With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down...."

"...In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way. "

but PFQ can't see how this is a pledge to face these problems while reducing the debt without raising taxes on people under $250k. Actually, he can see. He's just an inveterate liar.

Holy crap, this is just farking pathetic. You can't possibly believe what you are typing.

rolling back the tax breaks to pay for the deficit he inherited and is going to spend on (energy, healthcare and education, as he specifically mentioned) while paying down the debt.

Holy farking shiat, its not like he spoke each paragraph separately on different days. He talked about long term challenges which we would face while reducing the deficit... here's how, rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest.

You have gone beyond self satire

Sparky, I hate to break it too you, nbut multiple people are pointing out what a steaming pile of bullshiat this argument of yours is. I know you think it's because you are just soo much smarter than everyone else, but maybe you should consider the possibility that you are shoveling a teaming pile of bullshiat. Your attempts to ignore multiple specific statements directly related to the "pledge" in favor of earlier general statements is just silly.

Epoch_Zero: Aldon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: So you are saying that the "not one dime" thing was NOT in direct relation to a specific discussion about the Bush tax cuts?

"There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down.

"Long term challenges" which he just enumerated. Energy, Healthcare and education.

"...In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."

sure sounds to me like he plans on addressing the crisis and long term challenges while "saving our children from a future of debt" while not increasing taxes on people under $250k. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. He broke a promise. It's ok guys, he'll still win

Holy Fark, this is just getting sad Sparky. You are really, really failing badly here, and yet you keep clutching smaller and smaller straws. The earlier general statement does not invalidate making a later statement more specific.

Obama said 'we will end the tax breaks' therefore he is ending all tax breaks all the time on everything... those are the only words that matter right?

Obama is a liar because he didn't "end the tax breaks".

Oh , he lies about more than that. Check this out:

"My fellow citizens: I stand..... by the.... grateful ....mindful.... President Bush ... to...rising...waters of... raging storms. At these mo ...

That's it! Obama and all the liberals on this thread are proven liars and it is sad that they attempt to deny this fact!

Game...set...match... biatches!

Aldon: chuckufarlie: FELLOW FARKERS!

I think that we have determined that Mittens Romney is skullcrusher.

Thanks for saving the US auto industry skullcrusher!

Thanks for insisting on a mandate to have health insurance, saying "We can do that for America, just like we did it there [in Massachusetts]" skullcrusher!

skullkrusher: no, it's not the same kind of reasoning, your silly assertions aside. You're better off arguing the "he didn't promise not to raise taxes on people making udner $250k" that your illustrious colleagues here are attempting. They're smart enough to at least understand that this is a tax increase. They just want to pretend that BO never promised not to raise taxes on those people.

An instance of excise taxes being raised is not a "tax increase" then?

Also, I'm making the very same argument that my "illustrious colleagues here" are making, so your misplaced condescension represents a failure to understand either my comments or theirs (or some combination thereof).

Ned Stark: Both sides atewthe same so vote Democrat?

Oh, great. The thread is almost dead and now the really bright people decide to show up. Jeez.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: In our case it's bullsh*t. It's almost impossible to get medicaid in Texas as it is. Something like you have to make less than $3,000 a year as a single person to qualify. We'd be the same about Medicare expansion. We just really don't want to help out poor people around here

Yeah. Texas definately takes the "bootstrappy" approach. That being said, most hospitals offer very generous discount or free programs for low-income patients. They'd rather get 10% of the normal rate than nothing, and they get a tax write-off on the rest. I had a buddy who worked retail into his 30s and could never afford personal coverage on less than 40K a year, so he signed up for the hospital plan and it covered most of his health needs at a somewhat reasonable out of pocket cost.

Serious Black: You cannot do this in a way that won't either cost a shiat-ton of money or result in insurance companies going bankrupt.

I agree. But it's also pretty clear that the current ACA will eventually drive insurance companies out of business, but first we will see a huge wave of consolidation (well more than what has currently been happening) leaving Americans with even fewer choices than before. And have you noticed that ACA defenders are simultaneously arguing that we MUST have the individual mandate in order for Insurance companies to have the base to support their coverage, at the same time that they argue that the mandate penalty will affect virtually no one?

I will bet my paycheck that within the next 10 years we will be in another helathcare crisis brought about by the legislation as Insurance companies fail or leave the health insurance market because they can't turn enough profit to make it worthwhile.

Ned Stark: Both sides atewthe same so vote Democrat?

New instructions foul up your command line prompt there?

READ MY LIPS... NO NEW TAXES! Bush Sr. when running for president. The Democrats pounced on the tax increases he was forced to make do to the economy. Now when the shoe is on the other foot (other party) it is no big deal because SCOTUS said it was a tax?. Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year. It turns out that, yes, Obama has been caught in a lie. Just like Bush Sr. had no intention of raising taxes, but this is what we have. The Dems need to accept that fact. He is going to have to raise taxes based upon his actions. And he was VERY adamant about NOT raising taxes on those making less than 250000, so much so that it was a selling point of his election, just like Bush Sr.

Obviously your all to stupid too read. If you read the SCOTUS finding, you'll see that Justice Rogers clearly states that he doesn't accept that the commerce clause covers Obamacare so, ergo, it is not, ipso facto, an issue regarding interstate commerce, per se. Therefore, Massachusetts, being in and of itself an individual commonwealth (as distinguished from a state, as per Plessy vs. Fergusson) is particularly charged with the abilities (as guaranteed by the 9th Ammendmant) to levie penalties that are not "taxes" thereunto. The "taxness" of this fee being, of course, of unparalleled importance, because as even the most basic constitutional scholar knows, taxes are bad, while fees are freedom.

How exactly is increasing the insurance pool going to drive insurance companies out of business?

trey101: READ MY LIPS... NO NEW TAXES! Bush Sr. when running for president. The Democrats pounced on the tax increases he was forced to make do to the economy. Now when the shoe is on the other foot (other party) it is no big deal because SCOTUS said it was a tax?. Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year. It turns out that, yes, Obama has been caught in a lie. Just like Bush Sr. had no intention of raising taxes, but this is what we have. The Dems need to accept that fact. He is going to have to raise taxes based upon his actions. And he was VERY adamant about NOT raising taxes on those making less than 250000, so much so that it was a selling point of his election, just like Bush Sr.

The tax is only on those who can afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it for some reason.

Also, 'taxes' are only an inherently evil thing to children and idiots. Adults recognize and accept that taxes are both necessary and even 'good' for maintaining a thriving civilized society.

So, yes. Obamacare has a provision ensuring that if you choose to forsake your financial responsibilities when it comes to your health, you WILL be taxed over it because we're done dealing with freeloaders and cheapskates.

BojanglesPaladin: I had a buddy who worked retail into his 30s and could never afford personal coverage on less than 40K a year, so he signed up for the hospital plan and it covered most of his health needs at a somewhat reasonable out of pocket cost.

/I should point out though that it usually meant taking the better part of the day off to get treatment.

//I should also point out that I have excellent insurance and I still have to take the better part of the day off to get treatment. Two weeks ago spent 2 hours for a 3 minute check up with the doc.

Philip Francis Queeg: Sparky, I hate to break it too you, nbut multiple people are pointing out what a steaming pile of bullshiat this argument of yours is.

yeah, look who they are... People who have been caught lying in this very thread and typical rah-rah types. Stop saying "sparky". You sound stupid enough as it is without adding that.

Philip Francis Queeg: I know you think it's because you are just soo much smarter than everyone else, but maybe you should consider the possibility that you are shoveling a teaming pile of bullshiat.

no, I think it is because you guys are dishonest asshats. You don't "know" much of anything.

Philip Francis Queeg: Your attempts to ignore multiple specific statements directly related to the "pledge" in favor of earlier general statements is just silly.

statements made in the context of solving problems while reducing the deficit. Here's a larger snippet that puts the lie to your continued bullshiat:

BO lists 3 priorities. HC, education and energy.

"There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down."

we need to deal with these problems and handle the deficit we inherited.

"I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.
Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.
In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

Here's what I've done and what I plan to do in terms of reigning in spending to deal with our deficit

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way. "

In addition to the measures I am taking to reign in spending, I also plan on dealing with the costs of these programs and our inherited deficit by increasing revenues by rolling back the tax cuts on people making more than $250k. If you earn less than that, you will not see your taxes increased by one dime. In fact, I have given a tax cut to 95% of working families via the recovery plan.

that is a pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class, numbnuts.

trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

They are? I already have insurance. My taxes aren't going up.

Serious Black: BojanglesPaladin: Most Republicans agree that they would keep the ban on pre-existing conditions expemptions, lifetime caps, and probably parent's insurance through college in place aftetr the repeal of the act.

You cannot do this in a way that won't either cost a shiat-ton of money or result in insurance companies going bankrupt. Any Republican that tells you otherwise is wrong. I would bet my life savings and all of my future earnings on that.

If you'll read Justice Ginsburg's opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius, she recounts what happened in one or two states that banned pre-existing condition discrimination, but did not enact individual mandates. It did not work out.

skullkrusher: Holy farking shiat, its not like he spoke each paragraph separately on different days. He talked about long term challenges which we would face while reducing the deficit... here's how, rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest.

You have gone beyond self satire

We have those now. Fifteen percent maximum tax for share dividends. Among the lowest top tax bracket rate in decades.



How's that deficit reducing doing since that started?



When the talk's about numbers, did you consider using math?

Self satire. Indeed.

Fart_Machine: How exactly is increasing the insurance pool going to drive insurance companies out of business?

Technically, the insurance companies WOULD have an issue if there wasn't a mandate requiring people to get covered.

People could simply ignore their obligations until they get sick/break a leg, and then buy insurance and the companies couldn't reject them due to the pre-existing conditions.

With the mandate in place, the insurance companies have a locked-in customer base with plenty of healthy people paying in monthly/yearly to cover the costs of the current crop of sick people.

Combine that fact with the fact that they are required to spend 80% of their premium money on medical care(85% on big plans), and you'll see how they're going to go from a 'big profit per customer' plan to a 'small profit per customer, but lots more customers' plan.

Is the politics mod too hungover to green things today?

Serious Black: BojanglesPaladin: Most Republicans agree that they would keep the ban on pre-existing conditions expemptions, lifetime caps, and probably parent's insurance through college in place aftetr the repeal of the act.

You cannot do this in a way that won't either cost a shiat-ton of money or result in insurance companies going bankrupt. Any Republican that tells you otherwise is wrong. I would bet my life savings and all of my future earnings on that.

Well, I have a feeling that under the Republican plan the ban on pre-existing condition exemptions would still be in place BUT there would be no limit on what insurance companies would be allowed to charge you in premiums. So sure, they couldn't deny you coverage but they could set your premium at whatever price they wanted which would effectively price people with pre-existing conditions out of the market. So in effect, nothing would change.