President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

ECONOMIST: 75% of Obamacare costs to fall on Americans making less than $120,000 a year...

Obamacare: It’s not just a big f***ing deal… It’s a big f***ing tax.

Which comes from FOX and Friends...in other words, pure Republican propaganda.

The democrats have their own version of propaganda too.

As for Obamacare, once they get this thing in force, stand by for them to increase it as often as for as much as they wish and then stand by and watch how the government dictate who benefits from it.

And, if they were going about on a daily basis posting bullshit like FF, on an almost daily basis.

Fact is, I don't know why anybody would be believe anything he writes when it took me about 5minutes to look up this on Snopes, find that it was an OLD spam Email campaign, and that it was basically bullshit...and he repeats it in his VERY NEXT article.

His posts are so full of misrepresentations, exaggerations, and propaganda, that IMO it is impossible to believe anything he posts.

[Monker]

When you post this crap, it would be nice if you actually checked to see if it were true:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

Well, it actually is true for the 65,000 or so folks who the tax actually will fall on, which makes the tax even more egregious imho. That so few people are asked to shoulder the load for millions of others just plain sucks ass. Yes, you are right, the e-mail was misleading, but the tax does actually exist, as do about 20 other taxes that are going to used to run this ACA if the Pubbies don't kill it first.

It would also be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about when you write such replies.

The tax is only applicable to those who earn over $200,000 a year AND who sell their house for a profit of $250,000....meaning if they bought their house for $100,000 they sold it for $350,000.

So, your unnamed source is saying 65,000 "or so" people pass the above criteria for their house sales in the middle of housing market that crashed, and a barely recovering recession.

That is either being totally naive, stupid, or just spouting bullshit for political reasons.

No, my unnamed source was your own Snopes link, which clearly states that this 3.8% tax is not JUST on houses but on Investment Income/Capial Gains. Further research shows that The Tax Policy Center figures that in 2013 about 0.2 percent of Americans with cash income of $100,000-$200,000 would pay any additional tax. 320 million Americans divided by .02% is roughly 64,000 Americans who will pay on average an additional $235. $235 x 64,000 = $15,040,000 in tax from those 64 thousand folks.

First of all, your original article was talking about home sales...which is what I was replying to before your misdirection here.

Second of all. Please explain how %0.2 translates to .02?

Third of all: Please explain how DIVIDING 320,000,000 by .02 = 64,000...as you say it does above.

Fourth of all. We must live in an awesome economy if 32,000,000 Americans earn over $100,000....which your misstated and inaccurate calculation is implying. And, you do not even consider the fact that some of those are not going to have any capital gains to even tax,

It's less then what you are saying - a LOT LESS.

Please go back and take basic high school algebra.

Let's do the calculation properly:

320million * .10 * .002 = 6,400 Americans who the Capital Gains tax would affect, and then you have to remove those who do not have Capital Gains. And, the 10% is taken from the 2009 census.

And, as I've said....this should have just been accounted and taxed as regular income rather then Capital Gains...just another reason why it's stupid for anybody to want to separate it out.

[Memorex]

What would be really easy is if the government could provide us everything we need, based on what they think we need, and maybe they give us a little play money. Then we could simply work and not have to worry about pesky little things like this. We could all be equal. Because as we have learned time and time again, crappy health care and poverty simply do not exists in countries where everyone is equal. And in those countries, the governments are more fair than the people deserve.

How can there be so few rich people in these numbers, and yet taking more of their money will solve all our problems?

[slucero]

What would be really easy is if the government could provide us everything we need, based on what they think we need, and maybe they give us a little play money. Then we could simply work and not have to worry about pesky little things like this. We could all be equal. Because as we have learned time and time again, crappy health care and poverty simply do not exists in countries where everyone is equal. And in those countries, the governments are more fair than the people deserve.

How can there be so few rich people in these numbers, and yet taking more of their money will solve all our problems?

You should just quote Marx..

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"


funny how that worked out... last time I looked the USSR (and what you are describing: Communism)... failed miserably...

[steveo777]

If we don't elect a capitalist soon, we are fucked. Capitalists don't bail out failing companies, democrats do.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

What would be really easy is if the government could provide us everything we need, based on what they think we need, and maybe they give us a little play money. Then we could simply work and not have to worry about pesky little things like this. We could all be equal. Because as we have learned time and time again, crappy health care and poverty simply do not exists in countries where everyone is equal. And in those countries, the governments are more fair than the people deserve.

How can there be so few rich people in these numbers, and yet taking more of their money will solve all our problems?

You should just quote Marx..

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"


funny how that worked out... last time I looked the USSR (and what you are describing: Communism)... failed miserably...

or in Western Europe where some some countries effectively euthanize people they think are not worth one last effort based on resource constraints!

[Memorex]

Hope all knew I was being sarcastic.

[Behshad]

If we don't elect a capitalist soon, we are fucked. Capitalists don't bail out failing companies, democrats do.

Youre a fucking idiot!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... 27926.html

[Memorex]

He said a capitalist - no mention of Bush. Ha ha.

[Behshad]

He said a capitalist - no mention of Bush. Ha ha.

He said DEMOCRATS do bailouts, so Ha Ha back at ya

[Monker]

If we don't elect a capitalist soon, we are fucked. Capitalists don't bail out failing companies, democrats do.

W bailed out Wallstreet, GW bailed out Savings & Loans. and Reagan bailed out Chrysler and Nixon bailed out of office.

And, Romney "bailed out" how many failing companies with Bain?

Funny how many non-Capitalists are Republican.

[Monker]

What would be really easy is if the government could provide us everything we need, based on what they think we need, and maybe they give us a little play money. Then we could simply work and not have to worry about pesky little things like this. We could all be equal. Because as we have learned time and time again, crappy health care and poverty simply do not exists in countries where everyone is equal. And in those countries, the governments are more fair than the people deserve.

How can there be so few rich people in these numbers, and yet taking more of their money will solve all our problems?

It won't...but it's ridiculous to believe that a tax increase on the "1%" would cause some type of negative effects on the economy...and helping the "99%" get through their daily lives is somehow a huge negative for the country.

[Liam]

If I go on a drunken rant tonight...this looks like a good place to do it.

[Memorex]

What would be really easy is if the government could provide us everything we need, based on what they think we need, and maybe they give us a little play money. Then we could simply work and not have to worry about pesky little things like this. We could all be equal. Because as we have learned time and time again, crappy health care and poverty simply do not exists in countries where everyone is equal. And in those countries, the governments are more fair than the people deserve.

How can there be so few rich people in these numbers, and yet taking more of their money will solve all our problems?

It won't...but it's ridiculous to believe that a tax increase on the "1%" would cause some type of negative effects on the economy...and helping the "99%" get through their daily lives is somehow a huge negative for the country.

Not sure it would be all that negative, but it would do absolutely nothing - zero - nada - to solve any of the issues that we face.

And what are the issues that we face? Why do we need more money? Taxing the rich just to come up with more money to support fraud waste and hand outs I don;t think is the best use of money in this country, do you? I mean, is there really any good reason to take more of anyone's money? Let me rephrase that - is there really any decent reason whatsoever to take more of someone's money who has already paid a lopsided share into the tax revenue as it is? And if taxing the poor so bad, how are we allowing gas prices to stay so high (grossly hurts the poor and middle class) and why will a middle class or near-poor person be penalized if they choose not to carry health care when they are young and strapping? Tell me why my son, born and raised in California and now lives in Minnesota but wants to go to school back in Cali pay more than someone who is not even a citizen of this country?

I get it now. I see why we need to take more of someone's hard earned money. Why didn't I jump on this asinine bandwagon sooner? It's a flat out dumb fuckin argument. There is no good reason to keep taking from the upper middle class and rich people. They need to work within their means.

[Liam]

Looks like you took care of it for me...I'll add my own .02, though...FUCK OBAMA. LYING PIECE OF SHIT SOCIALIST COCKSUCKER!!

Ok...think I'm done.

[slucero]

To Monker:

you said:

First of all, your original article was talking about home sales...which is what I was replying to before your misdirection here.

I aknowledged in my first response back to you, that yes, the e-mail was misleading. The tax is not on home sales alone, but rather on investment income/cap gains. The sale of a home can and often does produce a cap gain.

As your own link to Snopes says right at the top regarding my misleading e-mail...""Mixture of true and flase information...False: Health Care legislation imposes a 3.8%tax on all home sales....True: Health Care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on profits over the capital gains threshold..""

So there was no misdirection here, none. You just refuse to accept the fact that I was partially right and Snopes confirms that. There is in fact a new tax on investment income/Cap gains and yes that can and sometimes will come from the sale of a home. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Now:

Second of all. Please explain how %0.2 translates to .02?

Misplaced decimal point and my bad, this makes the numbers even worse for your argument btw. I'll show you why. It is in fact 0.2% not .02%. See: The Tax Policy Center figures that in 2013 about 0.2 percent of Americans with cash income of $100,000-$200,000 would pay any additional tax. So again I was wrong and shouldn't post and do mathmatics while drinking and playing on the net, BUT WAIT! I made an error in my favor...320,000,000 Divided by 0.2% = 6,400,000. I had said only 64,000 households, BOY WAS I WAY OFF. This new tax could possibly affect 6.4 million households.

Third of all: Please explain how DIVIDING 320,000,000 by .02 = 64,000...as you say it does above

It most certainly does...turn on your calculator and hit 320,000,000 then hit the division button then hit .02 and then hit the % (percent) button. It's easy really. (hint: don't hit the = button)

Now do that again, but instead of putting in .02% put in 0.2%, and tada, you get 6.4 million. Now. The U.S. still leads the world in the number of millionaire households – around 5.1 million. So I was way off on the amount of money this tax will collect, I had guessed (wrongly) that about 64,000 folks would be taxed about an additinal 15 million dollars, boy was I wrong on that one!

Raising the Medicare tax on wages will raise an estimated $87 billion over 10 years. But combined with a new Medicare tax on investment income, the revenue collected will jump to an estimated $210 billion over 10 years., [/b]making it the biggest single revenue raiser to help pay for health reform.

Source: last paragraph...http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/news/ec ... /index.htm

It's less then what you are saying - a LOT LESS.

No it's not, see above. Also see..According to IRS-published statistics 11.8% of all incomes are over 100K and 4.1% are over 200K, 34.5% of all incomes are over 50K. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats ... 81,00.html

Money CNN says the total take from this new tax on the richs investment income/capital gains amounts to $123 Billion over 10 years. 210 -87 = 123. So that's like what, $12 Billion, 300 million a year , not the 15 million that I'd earlier suggested. What an idiot I've turned out to be!

So now you say, " how they gonna get $21 Billion a year out of 6.4 million people?" Go re-read the CNN article and do some simple math as you go along. You've heard the old saying "a dollar here and a dollar there and pretty soon we're talking real money?" Well $21 Billion a year extracted from 6.4 Million rich people only comes out to $3,281.25 apiece. They are RICH, they can afford it, RIGHT?

Keep in mind that this is newly extracted money, in fact, under penalty of the IRS, with some 16,000 new agents no less to enforce it.

Anyone else want to tell me again that this is not a tax on the rich to provide healthcare for the poor? Didn't think so.

my God.. talk about PWNAGE... nicely done... lets see if Monker can come in and re-refute your refutation...

[Monker]

It won't...but it's ridiculous to believe that a tax increase on the "1%" would cause some type of negative effects on the economy...and helping the "99%" get through their daily lives is somehow a huge negative for the country.

Not sure it would be all that negative, but it would do absolutely nothing - zero - nada - to solve any of the issues that we face. [/quote]

"Solving problems" wasn't what I was getting at. My point is that the Republican argument is that richest of Americans do not need to sacrifice anything to 'solve the issues" we face...and we should do nothing but cut government programs that help the lower classes. IMO, that is wrong....it is just as wrong to expect raising taxes on those richest will solve all of the problems without cutting expenses. BOTH need to be done in a more moderate way to solve those issues.

As I have said, if you are not willing to do that, and cut military spending, then you are not serious about solving anything.

Let me rephrase that - is there really any decent reason whatsoever to take more of someone's money who has already paid a lopsided share into the tax revenue as it is?

Yes...because if those 1% want to continue living in a prosperous nation, they will admit that the bush tax cuts did NOTHING to stimulate the economy and the country as a whole will be better off if they went back to where they were...ESPECIALLY if they believe in cutting the budget deficit.

And, I would say the same thing about the senior welfare system known as Social Security. Why should I be paying FICA tax for some retiree to get a check from the government even if they earn hundreds iof thousands of dollars without it, and don't need it? it's wrong, and it should stop.

And if taxing the poor so bad, how are we allowing gas prices to stay so high (grossly hurts the poor and middle class)

I hope it goes even higher so gasoline removes itself from being a 'cheap' fuel,. IMO, that is the only way we will start addressing our oil addiction...when gas becomes too expensive to compete with electric (or whatever)`consumers will move on to the next cheapest fuel.

and why will a middle class or near-poor person be penalized if they choose not to carry health care when they are young and strapping?

So, if they end up in some accident and end up in the emergency room, or some unexpected health issue, the hospital will get paid at least some of their costs by the insurance...making care cheaper for everybody involved.

And, it changes the Republican plan of Universal Health Care, showing up at the emergency room for the common flu...with no ability or intention of paying the hospital anything....again, making care cheaper for everybody.

Finally, it's basic insurance principal that group plans are cheaper, and the more people who participate the cheaper the premiums are for everybody.

Tell me why my son, born and raised in California and now lives in Minnesota but wants to go to school back in Cali pay more than someone who is not even a citizen of this country?

I have no idea what you are talking about .... tuition, healthcare, a new puppy?

I get it now. I see why we need to take more of someone's hard earned money. Why didn't I jump on this asinine bandwagon sooner? It's a flat out dumb fuckin argument. There is no good reason to keep taking from the upper middle class and rich people. They need to work within their means.

Then don't complain about deficits...because unless everybody gives a bit, nothing will change because nobody is really serious about addressing the issue.

[Monker]

To Monker:

you said:

First of all, your original article was talking about home sales...which is what I was replying to before your misdirection here.

I aknowledged in my first response back to you, that yes, the e-mail was misleading. The tax is not on home sales alone, but rather on investment income/cap gains. The sale of a home can and often does produce a cap gain.

As your own link to Snopes says right at the top regarding my misleading e-mail...""Mixture of true and flase information...False: Health Care legislation imposes a 3.8%tax on all home sales....True: Health Care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on profits over the capital gains threshold..""

So there was no misdirection here, none. You just refuse to accept the fact that I was partially right and Snopes confirms that. There is in fact a new tax on investment income/Cap gains and yes that can and sometimes will come from the sale of a home. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Now:

Second of all. Please explain how %0.2 translates to .02?

Misplaced decimal point and my bad, this makes the numbers even worse for your argument btw. I'll show you why. It is in fact 0.2% not .02%. See: The Tax Policy Center figures that in 2013 about 0.2 percent of Americans with cash income of $100,000-$200,000 would pay any additional tax. So again I was wrong and shouldn't post and do mathmatics while drinking and playing on the net, BUT WAIT! I made an error in my favor...320,000,000 Divided by 0.2% = 6,400,000. I had said only 64,000 households, BOY WAS I WAY OFF. This new tax could possibly affect 6.4 million households.

Third of all: Please explain how DIVIDING 320,000,000 by .02 = 64,000...as you say it does above

It most certainly does...turn on your calculator and hit 320,000,000 then hit the division button then hit .02 and then hit the % (percent) button. It's easy really. (hint: don't hit the = button)

Now do that again, but instead of putting in .02% put in 0.2%, and tada, you get 6.4 million. Now. The U.S. still leads the world in the number of millionaire households – around 5.1 million. So I was way off on the amount of money this tax will collect, I had guessed (wrongly) that about 64,000 folks would be taxed about an additinal 15 million dollars, boy was I wrong on that one!

Raising the Medicare tax on wages will raise an estimated $87 billion over 10 years. But combined with a new Medicare tax on investment income, the revenue collected will jump to an estimated $210 billion over 10 years., [/b]making it the biggest single revenue raiser to help pay for health reform.

Source: last paragraph...http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/news/ec ... /index.htm

It's less then what you are saying - a LOT LESS.

No it's not, see above. Also see..According to IRS-published statistics 11.8% of all incomes are over 100K and 4.1% are over 200K, 34.5% of all incomes are over 50K. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats ... 81,00.html

Money CNN says the total take from this new tax on the richs investment income/capital gains amounts to $123 Billion over 10 years. 210 -87 = 123. So that's like what, $12 Billion, 300 million a year , not the 15 million that I'd earlier suggested. What an idiot I've turned out to be!

So now you say, " how they gonna get $21 Billion a year out of 6.4 million people?" Go re-read the CNN article and do some simple math as you go along. You've heard the old saying "a dollar here and a dollar there and pretty soon we're talking real money?" Well $21 Billion a year extracted from 6.4 Million rich people only comes out to $3,281.25 apiece. They are RICH, they can afford it, RIGHT?

Keep in mind that this is newly extracted money, in fact, under penalty of the IRS, with some 16,000 new agents no less to enforce it.

Anyone else want to tell me again that this is not a tax on the rich to provide healthcare for the poor? Didn't think so.

my God.. talk about PWNAGE... nicely done... lets see if Monker can come in and re-refute your refutation...

he's an idiot who doesn't even understand that .2% = .002, that if you divide by .02 you end up with a higher number, and he can't even write down his initial numbers correct...and he can't even use a calculator. Why do you even trust his calculations?

Now he is saying it isn't .02% but .2%.

Let's break this all down:
Total Number of Americans 320,000,000
Percent who earn > $100,000/yr = 10% or .1 (Sorry, but 10% is easier to multiply)
Number of Americans who earn > $100,000 = 320,000,000 * .1 = 32,000,000 (that still seems high, but whatever)
% of those making > $100,000 that this affect = .2% or .002
Number of Americans this tax affects = 32,000,000 * .002 = 64,000

So, according his latest numbers, 64,000 is the latest answer....it's actually less then this because there is a $200,000/yr cutoff, but whatever He changes the equation so often that it's become pretty irrelevant to me as he obviously has no idea what he is talking about, how to do basic math, or even how to cheat with a calculator...so, really, no point in discussing it any longer.

[slucero]

To Monker:

you said:

First of all, your original article was talking about home sales...which is what I was replying to before your misdirection here.

I aknowledged in my first response back to you, that yes, the e-mail was misleading. The tax is not on home sales alone, but rather on investment income/cap gains. The sale of a home can and often does produce a cap gain.

As your own link to Snopes says right at the top regarding my misleading e-mail...""Mixture of true and flase information...False: Health Care legislation imposes a 3.8%tax on all home sales....True: Health Care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on profits over the capital gains threshold..""

So there was no misdirection here, none. You just refuse to accept the fact that I was partially right and Snopes confirms that. There is in fact a new tax on investment income/Cap gains and yes that can and sometimes will come from the sale of a home. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Now:

Second of all. Please explain how %0.2 translates to .02?

Misplaced decimal point and my bad, this makes the numbers even worse for your argument btw. I'll show you why. It is in fact 0.2% not .02%. See: The Tax Policy Center figures that in 2013 about 0.2 percent of Americans with cash income of $100,000-$200,000 would pay any additional tax. So again I was wrong and shouldn't post and do mathmatics while drinking and playing on the net, BUT WAIT! I made an error in my favor...320,000,000 Divided by 0.2% = 6,400,000. I had said only 64,000 households, BOY WAS I WAY OFF. This new tax could possibly affect 6.4 million households.

Third of all: Please explain how DIVIDING 320,000,000 by .02 = 64,000...as you say it does above

It most certainly does...turn on your calculator and hit 320,000,000 then hit the division button then hit .02 and then hit the % (percent) button. It's easy really. (hint: don't hit the = button)

Now do that again, but instead of putting in .02% put in 0.2%, and tada, you get 6.4 million. Now. The U.S. still leads the world in the number of millionaire households – around 5.1 million. So I was way off on the amount of money this tax will collect, I had guessed (wrongly) that about 64,000 folks would be taxed about an additinal 15 million dollars, boy was I wrong on that one!

Raising the Medicare tax on wages will raise an estimated $87 billion over 10 years. But combined with a new Medicare tax on investment income, the revenue collected will jump to an estimated $210 billion over 10 years., [/b]making it the biggest single revenue raiser to help pay for health reform.

Source: last paragraph...http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/news/ec ... /index.htm

It's less then what you are saying - a LOT LESS.

No it's not, see above. Also see..According to IRS-published statistics 11.8% of all incomes are over 100K and 4.1% are over 200K, 34.5% of all incomes are over 50K. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats ... 81,00.html

Money CNN says the total take from this new tax on the richs investment income/capital gains amounts to $123 Billion over 10 years. 210 -87 = 123. So that's like what, $12 Billion, 300 million a year , not the 15 million that I'd earlier suggested. What an idiot I've turned out to be!

So now you say, " how they gonna get $21 Billion a year out of 6.4 million people?" Go re-read the CNN article and do some simple math as you go along. You've heard the old saying "a dollar here and a dollar there and pretty soon we're talking real money?" Well $21 Billion a year extracted from 6.4 Million rich people only comes out to $3,281.25 apiece. They are RICH, they can afford it, RIGHT?

Keep in mind that this is newly extracted money, in fact, under penalty of the IRS, with some 16,000 new agents no less to enforce it.

Anyone else want to tell me again that this is not a tax on the rich to provide healthcare for the poor? Didn't think so.

my God.. talk about PWNAGE... nicely done... lets see if Monker can come in and re-refute your refutation...

he's an idiot who doesn't even understand that .2% = .002, that if you divide by .02 you end up with a higher number, and he can't even write down his initial numbers correct...and he can't even use a calculator. Why do you even trust his calculations?

Now he is saying it isn't .02% but .2%.

Let's break this all down:
Total Number of Americans 320,000,000
Percent who earn > $100,000/yr = 10% or .1 (Sorry, but 10% is easier to multiply)
Number of Americans who earn > $100,000 = 320,000,000 * .1 = 32,000,000 (that still seems high, but whatever)
% of those making > $100,000 that this affect = .2% or .002
Number of Americans this tax affects = 32,000,000 * .002 = 64,000

So, according his latest numbers, 64,000 is the latest answer....it's actually less then this because there is a $200,000/yr cutoff, but whatever He changes the equation so often that it's become pretty irrelevant to me as he obviously has no idea what he is talking about, how to do basic math, or even how to cheat with a calculator...so, really, no point in discussing it any longer.

actually I trust no one... and my opinion about most of this is that it is largely nonsense...

Because regardless of whether you and FF are discussing it, much as the Dems and Reps are... the result has always been the same... more discussion... focusing on the beach (the argument), all the while ignoring the tidal wave racing inland...


The beautiful thing about math is that it doesn't lie... as long as one has all the data...

[Memorex]

Monker, this is where i just feel that people must be born differently. It has to be in the brain cells early and deep rooted. Not even learned. Because I know I must be crazy to you and you are absolutely crazy to me. I just don't see a whole lot of sense in all that. But I do know that people feel the same towards my views. I don't know how we can reconcile that again in this country. Now mind you, I am not a conservative by any stretch, except when it comes to money. Then by all means, call me whatever label you want.

You said Republicans argument is that the richest Americans do not need to sacrifice anything to solve the issues. That is just a flat out wrong statement. I think all people, from all walks of life, believe whole heartedly that it's fair for folks to pay more the more they have. If it was a flat tax, then a millionaire still pays more. If it's our current scale, the rich pay more. No one disagrees with that concept. What conservatives say is that if we don't draw a line in the sand, then nothing will ever be too much. The fear is going back to the 75% tax rate. So this rant about Republicans just want to take from the poor and give to the rich is really silly. It's simply not true.

What government programs have we cut? By all accounts, every single entitlement and program has grown substantially in the last three years. When you see conservatives fight, it's not usually a fight about all or nothing. It's a fight about what the appropriate cap is. But Dems spin it as Republicans wanting to starve children. Again, it's just simply not true.

I think there was a lot of wealth built after the Bush tax cuts, until they're weren't. I know they helped me and continue to help me. And so I do my part to help others. And i can tell you right now, without those tax cuts, I'd have many thousands less in my pocket to help anyone. And frankly for what I make and my expenses, I am still over taxed.

The FICA you are paying is not for the rich retiree. The rich retiree paid his own fica and if he's rich, a hell of a lot more in overall taxes than any of us. You think people should be handed health care for nothing and against someone receiving back what they rightfully earned. Plain and simple. I would hope that you could at least find some logic in the opposite argument. As cruel as it may sound.

Gas & oil - Here is where I cannot stand the argument because your case makes ZERO sense. This is earth - the world - humanity. If something is available to be invented and grown as an industry, it will, regardless of the cost of alternatives. Somebody is not sitting around not inventing a power source because gas is cheap. Please at least tell me you know this. Restore my faith a little. Could you imagine the wealth and fame that will be lavished on the person, team, or company that has that breakthrough? There are so many reasons to try. Gas could be fifty cents a gallon and still it would be something people try to achieve. So how about this - we embrace what the earth has given us to thrive and we praise all that it has given us and at the same time do our best to invest some (very little percentage wise) via the government and hopefully a whole lot from the private sector in new technologies. I'm pretty sure that when a new technology comes forth that will be cost efficient and "green", no one can stand in its path. You probably want more investment in wind and solar, but those technologies cannot self-sustain. Not without breaking our backs first. Can you maybe just accept that we aren't quite there yet. I mean, it hasn't been all that long in the history of humanity that we figured out how to harness the power of oil. Keeping poor and lower-middle-class folks from getting to work is not going to help anything. Fuel should be cheap because it's available and abundant and what we have. Why should only the rich people get to benefit from that? Let's say gas becomes too expensive to compete with the next best thing. Should a poor person be forced to pay for the next best thing due to artificial prices when they could have been a whole lot better off with the cheaper better fuel priced to sell?

Why is it that no one can afford to go to the hospital or dr anymore? Because with each new entitlement, costs go up. Simple fact. Insurance for Drs and hospitals is out of control. There is so much more we can do to lower costs. I've done some research for a hospital group and participating Dr's. It's crazy how much non-treatment crap is involved day to day. The post office is more efficient than these folks. It's nuts.

Yes - group plans are cheaper if everyone participates. But GM would be doing better as a company if everyone bought a car. Awake would not have been cancelled if more people watched. And I could buy a house with twice the square footage if people who never were going to buy a house were forced to contribute to mine. Sure. Of course. Except oops, my insurance has gone up and up and up with less benefits. I want the uninsured to be insured. I just don't want it to be so easy that you stop trying.

As far as my son and tuition - many states have rules now that illegal aliens in the state pay in-state tuition costs. But my son, who has been gone from California for 3 years but lived there for 15, has to pay out of state costs (much higher). So it's frustrating to me that my son must pay more than a non-citizen. Not because I don't want the non-citizen to be educated. I do. But it's our taxes going to that education (via grants and lower costs) and then I get hit with a higher bill on top of that. Something's not right there to me. It makes no sense.

Can't a conservative complain about deficits because of waste, fraud, and hand outs without having to agree to tax increases? I don't see it as a fair or equal argument. Cleaning up our system will provide a million times more benefit than raising taxes on some small subset of people. So it's not like raising taxes and cutting waste is somehow a 50/50 argument. Cutting waste = 80% benefit vs 20% benefit for raising taxes. And bet the divide is even greater than that.

You must be reading this thinking what an idiot. You have to be. Because I think of all of this as complete logical math and for you not to believe what I have spelled out means it is simply in your DNA not to, just as it's in my DNA not to buy into all this social justice and welfare.

[Memorex]

Your #4 is outdated. The CBO's estimate has since more than doubled.

[Behshad]

Hey FakeFinder , let me ask you this. You have a great job , you have great healthcare. So why do you care whether obamacare exists or not. It won't affect You one bit. Those people who will be forced to have insurance are the people that currently get treatment (healthcare) provided to them by YOUR tax money. Wouldn't you rather them start paying for their insurance so YOU don't have to contribute anymore , Mr Oreos

[Memorex]

Beshad, your argument is only partially correct. Number one, if Fact Finder is a normal American with normal benefits provided by his employer, than I am sure his rates have gone way up in the last two years as insurers prepare for this plan. Also, if his employer is like mine, they have already determined that paying the fine is going to be the only way they can move ahead. My employer has pretty much said they will be dropping our healthcare coverage because of Obamacare costs. Except for all the exceptions the administration gave, this story is going to be one that is played out over and over across the country.

Second, many of the people that do not have insurance and cannot afford it will be paying the fine and still not paying for their emergency room visits. If they can't afford it now, they may not be able to afford it later, even with all the freebies.

And worst of all, many of the new people in the roles will be people that have no business buying health insurance anyway. a 25 year old male with a desk job should carry car medical for the big risk in his life and it will be much cheaper overall for him to pay out of pocket for all other expenses. So now the dude has to go buy expensive insurance so that someone else gets cheaper coverage.

You say we are paying for it in taxes - my guess is we will be paying much more for it via those same taxes, more taxes, and higher insurance premiums. Not to mention lessened health care services.

[Behshad]

You're only assuming that we have to pay more taxes.
Insurance rate has gone up the last two years ?! How about the last 20 years.
FakeFinder is not a NORMAL American thanks for answering for him though, he always needs others help

[Memorex]

Not answering for him. Just contributing.

Yes - insurance and health care costs are going up - more and more. I see no end in sight. The problem is now it will add yet another straw to the back of the entitlement structure.

[slucero]

You're only assuming that we have to pay more taxes.
Insurance rate has gone up the last two years ?! How about the last 20 years.
FakeFinder is not a NORMAL American thanks for answering for him though, he always needs others help

except... even under the ACA, insurance rates are expected to continue going up....


so where's the SAVINGS??

[Memorex]

I will say though - there is something very comforting about the ability for more people to access health care and insurance. I just hope America doesn't break under it. I am in the group that is now saying, "Ok, we got it, it's here. Now let's take a look at this thing and fix it and make sure it makes sense for our time."

[Liam]

What does politics have to do with the 4th of July????

[Behshad]

The taxes you're talking about above is the panalty for those who don't have healthcare , so it still doesn't affect YOU , who will have your healthcare .

[The Sushi Hunter]

Hey FakeFinder , let me ask you this. You have a great job , you have great healthcare. So why do you care whether obamacare exists or not. It won't affect You one bit. Those people who will be forced to have insurance are the people that currently get treatment (healthcare) provided to them by YOUR tax money. Wouldn't you rather them start paying for their insurance so YOU don't have to contribute anymore , Mr Oreos

Well I care because right now what I pay in premiums that comes directly out of my pay through my employer's payroll depends on what plan I have elected. However, with Obamacare, I can guarantee that what I pay will drastically increase compared to what I'm paying now and I will get much less in return. What I pay right now in premiums is for me. However, if Obamacare is enforced, most of what I pay for will go to sponges.

That's why I care. My state and federal income taxes are already going to a bunch of fucking sponges and I don't like that as it is. The democrats are just concocting and crafting up another handout to the sponges called Obamacare.