A message on healthcare that reaches out to conservatives in a way they understand

[Sirrus_Asura]

I hate to agree with Leif of all people, since he isn't even being serious(is he ever?), but he's right about the women thing.

I support informed voting, and statistics show that women are the least informed of all voters.

I recommend taking some poly-sci statistics classes...you end up learning some disturbing shit, like 90%~ of married women only vote for a guy because their husband did, and when polled about it...said exactly that. Women not married or falling in that 10%~ also statistically vote for the most handsome candidate regardless of their beliefs. A trend not repeated by men when they vote for women.

Granted most of the voter base is retarded, but the gap between men and women is pretty huge.

Reality is not politically correct.

If they can bring the polls the kitchen I don't really see an issue here.

Things would be better if half of BG didn't vote, but that dosn't give me a right to deny them of their right to vote.

[Sirrus_Asura]

when you put it that way, it sounds like Lief is actually arguing for socialism.

Yo Beckwin, do you think the best way of achieving socialism is through the government? Or just the most practical?

[Nystul]

Again, contrary to liberal belief, welfare is not "helping people when they need it the most". It is permanent support.

If people are told "Hey, if you're poor, all will be okay. You can stay on welfare!" they will have no motivation to go to school, get a job, etc etc.

I would think such concepts would be obvious. Why get a job when you can sit around all day on welfare? You may make less, but hey, you don't have to work 40 hours a week either.

Clearly you know this, so I'm going to ask. You say it's permanent.

How many people nationwide are on welfare assistance?
Of those who are on welfare, what is the average duration for receiving assistance?
What percentage of welfare recipients stay on longer than the average duration?
What percentage of welfare recipients who get welfare less than the average time never go back on welfare after their first period ends?

I'm sure you have stats for all this since you are so confident that welfare is a permanent
state of being.

I'm sure you're not just pulling shit out of your ass.

[Olo401]

The very fact that he thinks it is permanent support, when a five-year limit was put into place in the mid-1990s as part of Clinton's reform efforts, shows that Leif is completely uneducated.

[Nystul]

The very fact that he thinks it is permanent support, when a five-year limit was put into place in the mid-1990s as part of Clinton's reform efforts, shows that Leif is completely uneducated.

I didn't even bother replying to the "we can all be wealthy" statement because that was some of the dumbest shit I've seen on this forum. I mean honestly. One thing has been shown true throughout the ages: There will always be stratification both socially and economically. If you think you can get rid of that- whether it is by communism or...this is a new one on me but Leif's utopian conservativism where everyone is well to do- then you're a fucking idiot. I mean just look around you with some damned common sense. Honestly.

[Suited Aces]

The very fact that he thinks it is permanent support, when a five-year limit was put into place in the mid-1990s as part of Clinton's reform efforts, shows that Leif is completely uneducated.

The Contract with America was part of Clinton's reform efforts? Maybe I'm reading that wiki wrong.

And does the 5 year limit apply to collecting SSI benefits for having an ADHD child?

[Olo401]

The Contract with America was part of Clinton's reform efforts? Maybe I'm reading that wiki wrong.

Welfare reform was part of both parties legislative agenda and had been debated for years before Gingrich added it to a list of items on a piece of paper. They actually teamed up on this one:

Beginning in the 1980s, AFDC came under bipartisan criticism for the program's alleged ineffectiveness. While acknowledging the need for a social safety net, Democrats often invoked the culture of poverty argument.[5] Proponents of the bill argued that welfare recipients were "trapped in a cycle of poverty." [6] Highlighting instances of welfare fraud, conservatives often referred to the system as a "welfare trap" and pledged to "dismantle the welfare state". Ronald Reagan's oft-repeated story of a welfare queen from Chicago's South Side became part of a larger discourse on welfare reform.[7]

Actually if I remember correctly, Clinton later said in hindsight that he should have pushed the welfare reform package in 1993 before he tried to do Health Security, partly for the momentum that the bipartisan effort would create and partly because it would have improved the Dem's chances in the 1994 mid-term Congressional elections. The positive bounce would still have been limited by the corruption cases going on at the time though.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Clearly you know this, so I'm going to ask. You say it's permanent.

How many people nationwide are on welfare assistance?
Of those who are on welfare, what is the average duration for receiving assistance?
What percentage of welfare recipients stay on longer than the average duration?
What percentage of welfare recipients who get welfare less than the average time never go back on welfare after their first period ends?

I'm sure you have stats for all this since you are so confident that welfare is a permanent
state of being.

I'm sure you're not just pulling shit out of your ass.

All those things actually went down with welfare reform, but now that Obama repealed it we sha'll see.

[eunhye]

See this is the problem:

Health care plan hits rich with big tax increases - Yahoo! News

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – Mon Nov 2, 6:26 am ET

WASHINGTON – The typical family would be spared higher taxes from the House Democratic plan to overhaul health care, and their low-income neighbors could come out ahead.

Their wealthy counterparts, however, face big tax increases that could eventually hit future generations of taxpayers who are less wealthy.

The bill is funded largely from a 5.4 percent tax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million, starting in 2011. The tax increase would hit only 0.3 percent of tax filers, raising $460.5 billion over the next 10 years, according to congressional estimates.

But unlike other income tax rates, the new tax would not be indexed for inflation. As incomes rise over time because of inflation, more families — and more small business owners — would be hit by the tax.

"Twenty years from now, we're going to see more and more small businesses ensnared into paying higher taxes," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

The tax would hit only 1.2 percent of taxpayers who claim business income on their returns, according to the estimates by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But that percentage would grow as business owners' nominal incomes rise with inflation.

In 2011, a family of four with an income of $800,000 a year would get a $24,000 tax increase, when the new tax is combined with an increase in the top two tax brackets proposed by President Barack Obama and other scheduled tax changes, according to an analysis by Deloitte Tax. That's a 12.5 percent increase in federal income taxes.

A family of four making $5 million a year would see a $434,500 tax increase, about a 32 percent increase, according to the analysis.

"These are very big numbers and very high effective tax rates," said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert at Deloitte Tax.

The new health care tax would come on top of other tax increases for the wealthy proposed by Obama. The top marginal income tax rate now is 35 percent, on income above $372,950. Obama wants to boost the top rate to 39.6 percent in 2011 by allowing some of the tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush to expire.

House Democrats said they are proud that they found a way to finance the health care package largely from a tax on the wealthy. There is, however, little appetite for a millionaire's tax in the Senate, and some tax experts think it is a mistake to tap only rich people to pay for services used by all.

"If health care is a benefit that is worth having, then it's worth paying for," said William Gale, who was an adviser to President George H. W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and is now co-director of the Tax Policy Center. "This gives the impression that it's only worth having if someone else pays for it."

Obama promised during the presidential campaign that he would not increase taxes on couples making less than $250,000. However, the health care bill would impose new taxes on people who don't buy qualified health insurance, including those making less than $250,000 a year.

Under the bill, individuals are required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay penalties, which are described as taxes in the legislation. The penalty would be equal to the cost of an average insurance plan or a 2.5 percent tax on incomes above the standard threshold for filing a tax return, whichever is less. There would be waivers for financial hardships.

To help afford insurance, families with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level would qualify for subsidies. The poverty level for a family of four is $22,050 this year.

Republicans argue that the penalties violate Obama's tax pledge, and they liken the millionaire's tax to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which Congress enacted in 1969 to ensure that wealthy Americans cannot use loopholes to avoid paying any income taxes.

The AMT was never indexed for inflation, so Congress must enact a fix each year to spare about 25 million middle-income families from being hit with big tax increases.

"They're going down the same road by not indexing this tax," said the Republican lawmaker Camp.

I mean it's gonna "trickle down" Gotta love it.

[Rhinox]

See this is the problem:

Health care plan hits rich with big tax increases - Yahoo! News



I mean it's gonna "trickle down" Gotta love it.

One of the few good thing about the bill. Taxing the rich is how Reagan's "trickle down" shouldve worked instead of a bj to his rich friends his tax cuts really was.

[Solefald]

All those things actually went down with welfare reform, but now that Obama repealed it we sha'll see.

I'm sorry, what did he repeal?

[Rhinox]

Right after he raised Income taxes and let the prisoners at Guantanamo go.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm sorry, what did he repeal?

The welfare reform that "Clinton" passed.

[Leif]

This is the most idiotic statement I've ever read.

Everyone cannot be wealthy. Period, end of discussion.

Our society can not exist if everyone was a college educated professional.

Who will build our roads and buildings? Who will sweep our streets? Who will prepare our food? I can name hundreds of bottom tier jobs that we cannot function without, and all of them are minimum wage or slightly better.

Don't ever fool yourself into thinking we can be a society of nothing but college educated professionals making $200K per year and up, it just can't happen unless we start paying garbage men and street sweepers the same as we do educated professionals.

Sure, not everybody in America will not be wealthy. But we can get damn close. There does have to be rich and poor in the world. There does not have to be rich and poor in the United States. Wouldn't it be awesome if India worked for us? Yes it would!

But, on point, that isn't what I said earlier. I did not stay that everyone in America will be wealthy. I said:

Contrary to liberal belief, there is room in America for everyone to be wealthy. Governments (or liberals), however, are unable provide that wealth.

So, to further prove my point, I will dissect this sentence into three parts.

Contrary to liberal belief,

Obviously, considering how ape shit people went.

there is room in America for everyone to be wealthy.

Note: this does not stay "Everyone in America will be wealthy". It says "wealth is in everybody's reach".

Governments (or liberals), however, are unable provide that wealth.

Also true!



Ta da~! I'm not such an extremist after all!

Right after he raised Income taxes

Tick tock

and let the prisoners at Guantanamo go.

I think he is following the Bush strategy a little too closely. But, of course, I could be wrong. I mean, he isn't even listening to his own war generals right now because he is afraid of what the liberals will do to him if he makes a reasonable decision.

Welfare reform was part of both parties legislative agenda and had been debated for years before Gingrich added it to a list of items on a piece of paper. They actually teamed up on this one:

So, based on only the information you just cited, only once the Republicans took control of both houses of congress the Democrats had a temporary rush of fiscal responsibility that lasted approximately six seconds.

when a five-year limit was put into place in the mid-1990s as part of Clinton's reform efforts

Bill Clinton signed the bill with a gun to his head, three months before the 96 election. It was only part of an elaborate plot to come off as moderate before an election.

[Solefald]

The welfare reform that "Clinton" passed.

When did he do this?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

When did he do this?

When the stimulus was passed.

[Rhinox]

Sure, not everybody in America will not be wealthy. But we can get damn close. There does have to be rich and poor in the world. There does not have to be rich and poor in the United States. Wouldn't it be awesome if India worked for us? Yes it would!

But, on point, that isn't what I said earlier. I did not stay that everyone in America will be wealthy. I said:


So, to further prove my point, I will dissect this sentence into three parts.


Obviously, considering how ape shit people went.


Note: this does not stay "Everyone in America will be wealthy". It says "wealth is in everybody's reach".


Also true!



Ta da~! I'm not such an extremist after all!



Tick tock


I think he is following the Bush strategy a little too closely. But, of course, I could be wrong. I mean, he isn't even listening to his own war generals right now because he is afraid of what the liberals will do to him if he makes a reasonable decision.





So, based on only the information you just cited, only once the Republicans took control of both houses of congress the Democrats had a temporary rush of fiscal responsibility that lasted approximately six seconds.



Bill Clinton signed the bill with a gun to his head, three months before the 96 election. It was only part of an elaborate plot to come off as moderate before an election.

Fuck that Don't ever talk address or quote me again unless you can tell me how tax cuts help poor people. Or how in 12 years of power that the GOP had acted some reform in congress meant to help our nations impoverished.

[Rhinox]

When the stimulus was passed.

cite your sources please. and By sources i mean not some OP-Ed or right wing blog. because we know how accurate those are.

Think Progress � Right Wing Falsely Asserts Right Wing Boogeymen Bill Ayers And Jeremiah Wright Visited The White House

[Melchiah]

There is NOT room in America for everyone to be wealthy. You're a fucking idiot living in a fantasy world.

[Olo401]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Swampy, you're so fucking delusional about how our system of government actually functions.. You're a goddamn walking psychotic teddy bear that screams out the failure of whatever homeschooling you had to properly teach you civics.