President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

Please do me and everybody else a favor and take a political science 101 class. Dude, check yourself. Tax cuts do NOT help the fucking poor. Tax cuts line the pockets of the wealthy republican. You are on crack if you think a poor minority black woman in Milwaukee or Kansas City benefits from a tax cut to a wealthy rich pig headed fuck in upstate NY.

Bullcrap. Tax breaks help everyone. BTW..."Fucking poor"? If I had used that line, you'd be on here calling me a cold-hearted neocon or something to that effect.

No they don't. If you work at McD's and get $20,000/yr, or whatever minimum wage is....a 'tax break' for everybody means very little benefit to you So, your weekly check goes up $15. BIG DEAL. If you want to help those people, give them education assistance to get a better job...not a crappy tax break.

It's nothing but politics to get votes and save THEMSELVES a bit in taxes....tax breaks have nothing to do with helping the lower incomes, or even the middle income, really. The last W tax cut made my check go up < $100/month. Big deal...it's not like that is going allow me to go buy a new car or something. So, I go and add it to my 401k...so some CEO can be overpaid while his company goes broke. That is the reality of what the past 10yrs of 'tax cuts' brought. They solved NOTHING, they didn't even HELP anything. They exasperated problems in corporate America and the selfishness of the top %1 or wage earners.

[Monker]

Any country that can reelect W as President is a country of idiots.

We elected Obama also, didn't we?

So? My point is America REELECTED the worst President in history.

As bad as the country is today, it is STILL better off then when Bush left office.

Maher is right on many things. He is right that people can be convinced to vote against their own best interests. People ARE stupid.

Possibly so...People do continue to vote straight party tickets for either of the two major, mostly inept, political parties.

Not my point. The political system is geared towards propaganda...it no longer has much to do with what someone running for office is for or against. It's all about birth certificates, witchcraft, and bullshit like that. If the public can be convinced that a candidate is a satanic, witch, born in Kenya who had a father who was a Nazi, and has bastard children living in Iran, then that candidate will lose the support of the people who he would actually help if he were elected....and they will vote for somebody who will actually hurt their future in the long run.

People can be convinced that tax breaks for the wealthiest can actually help the poor.

I don't know of anyone who's saying that tax breaks only for the wealthy will help the poor. Tax breaks for ALL help ALL.

I didn't say there were any - I said people can be convinced of that. if you don't think so, then you are pretty damn naive.

[Monker]

SOMEBODY is going to be making the decisions regarding what happens. If you don't want to call it a 'panel', fine. Call it a committee then. Maybe it's just one person, who knows. But decisions will have to be made regarding how this bill is regulated and what benefits are allowed. BO's own words have come back to haunt him I'm betting. Sure the term "death panel" was a scare tactic, it's what politicians do. Just like lots of other controversial subjects, people tend to exaggerate hoping their hyperbole will sway voters. It's pretty sad actually, but it is reality. Liberals do it too, Daniel. Just so happens that they are on the side of defending the scare tactic this time, not perpetrating it.

The point is: The DISCUSSION is what is being paid for and what is being called a 'death panel'. The DECiSION is up to the patient - and it may, or may not be paid for...if you remove the wording that caused the 'death panel' propaganda bullshit, how the DECISION is paid for remains the same.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, but upon further thought, until I see HOW this discussion will be reimbursed I think it's just more bullshit government vocal gymnastics. Insurance companies don't generally pay for individual things.

My point is this - that 'discussion' does not equate to a 'death panel'. It's just a discussion. There is no link to how that discussion is paid for and a panel deciding who gets a treatment or not. It makes no logical sense AT ALL.

Then you go on to 'what ifs' and all that. Well, what if some panel starts deciding who gets Social Security benefits? Medicare benefits. What if hospitals stop admitting anybody, except middle aged white men, and Jedi Knights? I mean, come on, you can take this to so many extremes it's ridiculous.

When some type of 'death panel' talk actually starts to seriously happen in congress, then you will have point. Until then, you are just spreading a myth that has NO basis in reality. Don't you see that?

[Rockindeano]

We elected Obama also, didn't we?

What? This is hardly fair. For you righties to say something like this, only two years into his term is ridiculous. Obama has accomplished dare I say more than any other president in history. It's just that you on the right don't like what he did sign into law(hahaha, good luck repealing the HC law assholes).

And remember Cons., BOTH Reagan and Clinton, two of the very best presidents America has ever had, were each lower in the polls than Obama is now.

[Rockindeano]

Please do me and everybody else a favor and take a political science 101 class. Dude, check yourself. Tax cuts do NOT help the fucking poor. Tax cuts line the pockets of the wealthy republican. You are on crack if you think a poor minority black woman in Milwaukee or Kansas City benefits from a tax cut to a wealthy rich pig headed fuck in upstate NY.

Bullcrap. Tax breaks help everyone. BTW..."Fucking poor"? If I had used that line, you'd be on here calling me a cold-hearted neocon or something to that effect.

No they don't. If you work at McD's and get $20,000/yr, or whatever minimum wage is....

I agree with you a fair amount of the time, Monker, but your 20,000 dollars per year at minimum wage is a bit high.

I researched the states minimum wage rates and they range from Minnesota's 6.15 per hour to Washington States 8.66. I would say the average is about 7.25 per hour.

7.25 per hour at 40 hours a week equals 290 dollars. 290 multiplied by 52 weeks(no vacations or sick days), comes to 15,090. Now please righties, explain to me again how you want to implement a flat tax on folks making 15,090 dollars a year? These people live paycheck to paycjheck, barely, and this is before Fica and SS taxes are taken out. I would bet these folks bring home in the neighborhood of 12K a year.

[RossValoryRocks]

Please do me and everybody else a favor and take a political science 101 class. Dude, check yourself. Tax cuts do NOT help the fucking poor. Tax cuts line the pockets of the wealthy republican. You are on crack if you think a poor minority black woman in Milwaukee or Kansas City benefits from a tax cut to a wealthy rich pig headed fuck in upstate NY.

Bullcrap. Tax breaks help everyone. BTW..."Fucking poor"? If I had used that line, you'd be on here calling me a cold-hearted neocon or something to that effect.

No they don't. If you work at McD's and get $20,000/yr, or whatever minimum wage is....

I agree with you a fair amount of the time, Monker, but your 20,000 dollars per year at minimum wage is a bit high.

I researched the states minimum wage rates and they range from Minnesota's 6.15 per hour to Washington States 8.66. I would say the average is about 7.25 per hour.

7.25 per hour at 40 hours a week equals 290 dollars. 290 multiplied by 52 weeks(no vacations or sick days), comes to 15,090. Now please righties, explain to me again how you want to implement a flat tax on folks making 15,090 dollars a year? These people live paycheck to paycjheck, barely, and this is before Fica and SS taxes are taken out. I would bet these folks bring home in the neighborhood of 12K a year.

Uh a state can't have an effective minimum wage lower than the Federal minimum wage of 7.25...So Minnesota can't have a $6.15 minimum wage factually, they can state a lower wage or none at all but the Federal law appies so it doesn't matter WHAT the state says...

As for the flat tax...you should read how it works...you just automatically assume it would be 23% or what have you and that would the that...but it doesn't work that way. The best proposal works this way, in a very simplified way: First your get rid of any tax loop holes, second you repeal the 16th amendment so the government can't institute an income tax. The the 23% tax would ONLY be on new goods sold, since companies build in the taxes the have to pay on each product know, which is like 35%, the actual cost on the shelves would drop by that tax amount. You would get your WHOLE paycheck...so that person making minimum wage would not have ANY taxes taken out, not a dime. He or she would ONLY pay taxes when she purchased a NEW product, a USED car wouldn't be taxed for example...then there would be a rebate sent out to cover the taxes on food and other necessities. The flat tax isn't a flat INCOME tax, and if you actually LOOKED at how it works you would know this, but anyone can tell you didn't do your research. The flat tax is a consumption tax. Which is far more FAIR than our current system.

Buy a NEW million dollar house (because you worked hard to earn it) and pay 230,000 in taxes, there are NO loop holes for anyone to weasel out of. It would GREATLY benefit the poor. No matter how little money a person makes, they still pay 6.2% (4.2% for 2011) to social security right now, and 1.45% for medicare...companies pay a matching amount. If companies didn't have to pay that matching amount they could raise wages and hire more people.

That is it really simplified, but you libs just don't get it...you would probably LOVE to see the government say everyone has to be paid $100,000 a year, and if your company won't give it to you then the government will make up the difference, because that would be "FAIR".

Now please, before you open your mouth to speak on a topic, either take a look and gather the correct information or just decline to speak, because when you blather on like you did here you look like just don't have a clue.

[RossValoryRocks]

Please do me and everybody else a favor and take a political science 101 class. Dude, check yourself. Tax cuts do NOT help the fucking poor. Tax cuts line the pockets of the wealthy republican. You are on crack if you think a poor minority black woman in Milwaukee or Kansas City benefits from a tax cut to a wealthy rich pig headed fuck in upstate NY.

Bullcrap. Tax breaks help everyone. BTW..."Fucking poor"? If I had used that line, you'd be on here calling me a cold-hearted neocon or something to that effect.

No they don't. If you work at McD's and get $20,000/yr, or whatever minimum wage is....a 'tax break' for everybody means very little benefit to you So, your weekly check goes up $15. BIG DEAL. If you want to help those people, give them education assistance to get a better job...not a crappy tax break.

It's nothing but politics to get votes and save THEMSELVES a bit in taxes....tax breaks have nothing to do with helping the lower incomes, or even the middle income, really. The last W tax cut made my check go up < $100/month. Big deal...it's not like that is going allow me to go buy a new car or something. So, I go and add it to my 401k...so some CEO can be overpaid while his company goes broke. That is the reality of what the past 10yrs of 'tax cuts' brought. They solved NOTHING, they didn't even HELP anything. They exasperated problems in corporate America and the selfishness of the top %1 or wage earners.

SELFISHNESS?

I bet you subscribe to the axiom "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I bet you think that the average person that has managed to break into that top 1% is ALL about being a greedy son of a bitch. You have NO clue what it takes to be able to do that. The sacrafices that have to be made in time for yourself and for your family. 40 hour weeks? HA...try 100 hour weeks, some times. A small business owner that shows an income of $1 million probably takes home less than you do working whatever job you do, yet because he shows income of $1 million get taxes out of the ass. Some how to YOU that is fair, and that he is being SELFISH because he would like to keep more of it.

Yeah, SELFISH. You want to know what selfish is? Selfish is the person who refuses to get an education, has unprotected sex and pops out 4 kids by age 20 or fathers 4 kids by age 20 (of course with no consideration for the children thus created and what kind of life they will have), but won't pay to raise them, gets hooked on booze or another drug, and then expects the rest of us to pick up the tab and then demands that instead of help to rise about poor choices early in life we succumb to the lowest common denominator and take from the people who made good choices, got an education, worked hard, started a business and give it those who didn't make those choices. That is selfish.

We are all CREATED equal, we all start with the same potential to achieve greatness after that it is all up the individual to strive to become great and no amount of taking from someone in the guise of fairness and giving it to another actually makes it fair.

[Rockindeano]

Don't lecture me on any goddamned tax and pay laws. I KNOW about the flat tax.

By the way, Minnesota DOES have a state min wage of 6.15 per hour. Doesn't mean the workers of that state get paid that rate, but it IS their min pay rate.

[RossValoryRocks]

Don't lecture me on any goddamned tax and pay laws. I KNOW about the flat tax.

By the way, Minnesota DOES have a state min wage of 6.15 per hour. Doesn't mean the workers of that state get paid that rate, but it IS their min pay rate.

If you knew about the flat tax you wouldn't have made so many wrong statements about it and left out so much of it and the pay laws you twisted to make it look like people were getting paid lower than what the federal minimum wage is.

If you are going to disagree about it, then at least disagree by tearing down the facts, not outright lying about what the flat tax is.

And you are correct:

http://www.dli.mn.gov/LS/MinWage.asp

But the language of the law is: "In cases where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages."

So in essence they are saying that they could say "We don't have a set minimum wage in Minnesota, but since the Feds say a person has to be paid $7.25 a business has to pay that".

But your original comment suggested, or spun, that people were only making $6.15/hour in Minnesota and that is not factually accurate.

[donnaplease]

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, but upon further thought, until I see HOW this discussion will be reimbursed I think it's just more bullshit government vocal gymnastics. Insurance companies don't generally pay for individual things.

My point is this - that 'discussion' does not equate to a 'death panel'. It's just a discussion. There is no link to how that discussion is paid for and a panel deciding who gets a treatment or not. It makes no logical sense AT ALL.

Then you go on to 'what ifs' and all that. Well, what if some panel starts deciding who gets Social Security benefits? Medicare benefits. What if hospitals stop admitting anybody, except middle aged white men, and Jedi Knights? I mean, come on, you can take this to so many extremes it's ridiculous.

When some type of 'death panel' talk actually starts to seriously happen in congress, then you will have point. Until then, you are just spreading a myth that has NO basis in reality. Don't you see that?

We can argue about the term 'death panel' all night long, but let's not forget the words of our beloved president, who told a woman on TV for all the world to see that her mother (a woman who although quite elderly still had a pretty decent quality of life) that perhaps it wasn't fiscally responsible to have a life saving procedure, and instead to 'take a pill'. This is also from a president who believes that young children should be taught sex ed in schools and that wealth redistribution is a good thing. So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

I agree that having a discussion about advance directives is a good thing - and I've spent a fair portion of my career doing just that. Example: an 85 year old woman is under the care of the facility that I work at. She suffered breast cancer a few years ago. She had a fall a few months ago and broke her shoulder and her neck. A few weeks after that she had a massive stroke and is now paralyzed on her left side and requires a feeding tube. She has a full code status, meaning if she would stroke again or have a heart attack, we would have to do CPR. IDK if we could even do that with the cervical collar she has to wear (forever) without further damaging her neck fracture, which could potentially kill her in itself. This is a woman who should be strongly counseled about the choice of full code vs DNR status. You think Medicare would pay me to have that discussion?

[Rockindeano]

This is also from a president who believes that young children should be taught sex ed in schools

This bothers you? Please explain, I have to hear this.

[Rockindeano]

So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

No, you're right, he just signed a law that insures another 31 million Americans. Nah, I don't trust him to do what's right either. We should repeal that God awful HC law, and go back to NO insurance for 30+ millions of Americans. That's by far the right thing to do.

[donnaplease]

This is also from a president who believes that young children should be taught sex ed in schools

This bothers you? Please explain, I have to hear this.

No explanation necessary. It is what it is.

[donnaplease]

So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

No, you're right, he just signed a law that insures another 31 million Americans. Nah, I don't trust him to do what's right either. We should repeal that God awful HC law, and go back to NO insurance for 30+ millions of Americans. That's by far the right thing to do.

Make up your mind. He's a good guy or he's a schmuck... which is it? Oh, wait a minute.... he's only a good guy when he's doing something YOU can benefit from. Gotcha.

[Rockindeano]

This is also from a president who believes that young children should be taught sex ed in schools

This bothers you? Please explain, I have to hear this.

No explanation necessary. It is what it is.

Great elaboration. I'll take it as a religious thing.

[Rockindeano]

So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

No, you're right, he just signed a law that insures another 31 million Americans. Nah, I don't trust him to do what's right either. We should repeal that God awful HC law, and go back to NO insurance for 30+ millions of Americans. That's by far the right thing to do. :roll

Despite all the bitching and arguing here Donna, you have a great New Years, eh?

[RossValoryRocks]

So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

No, you're right, he just signed a law that insures another 31 million Americans. Nah, I don't trust him to do what's right either. We should repeal that God awful HC law, and go back to NO insurance for 30+ millions of Americans. That's by far the right thing to do. :roll

Despite all the bitching and arguing here Donna, you have a great New Years, eh?

He signed a law that ensures 31 million people initially...it will soon cause rates to rise to the point that private business will not be able to afford to offer it to their employees, and then that 31 million will expand considerably. How do you propose to PAY for it? Again you prove you haven't studied up on something. Talk about throwing out talking points...I am going to start calling you Chris Matthews or would you prefer Keith Olbermann?

Oh wait...yeah....tax the "rich" making over $250,000...you have proven time and time again that you have NO grasp of the fundementals of economics, no matter the law is going to be defunded soon and repealed in 2013, sometime in February after the next President takes office.

Then we can start again, and do it correctly this time.

[conversationpc]

We elected Obama also, didn't we?

What? This is hardly fair. For you righties to say something like this, only two years intpo his term is ridiculous. Obama has accomplished dare I say more than any other president in history. It's just that you on the right don't like what he did sign into law(hahaha, good luck repealing the HC law assholes).

And remember Cons., BOTH Reagan and Clinton, two of the very best presidents America has ever had, were each lower in the polls than Obama is now.

I'm glad to hear you say that Reagan is one of the best Presidents we've ever had.

[conversationpc]

Please do me and everybody else a favor and take a political science 101 class. Dude, check yourself. Tax cuts do NOT help the fucking poor. Tax cuts line the pockets of the wealthy republican. You are on crack if you think a poor minority black woman in Milwaukee or Kansas City benefits from a tax cut to a wealthy rich pig headed fuck in upstate NY.

Bullcrap. Tax breaks help everyone. BTW..."Fucking poor"? If I had used that line, you'd be on here calling me a cold-hearted neocon or something to that effect.

No they don't. If you work at McD's and get $20,000/yr, or whatever minimum wage is....

I agree with you a fair amount of the time, Monker, but your 20,000 dollars per year at minimum wage is a bit high.

I researched the states minimum wage rates and they range from Minnesota's 6.15 per hour to Washington States 8.66. I would say the average is about 7.25 per hour.

7.25 per hour at 40 hours a week equals 290 dollars. 290 multiplied by 52 weeks(no vacations or sick days), comes to 15,090. Now please righties, explain to me again how you want to implement a flat tax on folks making 15,090 dollars a year? These people live paycheck to paycjheck, barely, and this is before Fica and SS taxes are taken out. I would bet these folks bring home in the neighborhood of 12K a year.

Uh a state can't have an effective minimum wage lower than the Federal minimum wage of 7.25...So Minnesota can't have a $6.15 minimum wage factually, they can state a lower wage or none at all but the Federal law appies so it doesn't matter WHAT the state says...

As for the flat tax...you should read how it works...you just automatically assume it would be 23% or what have you and that would the that...but it doesn't work that way. The best proposal works this way, in a very simplified way: First your get rid of any tax loop holes, second you repeal the 16th amendment so the government can't institute an income tax. The the 23% tax would ONLY be on new goods sold, since companies build in the taxes the have to pay on each product know, which is like 35%, the actual cost on the shelves would drop by that tax amount. You would get your WHOLE paycheck...so that person making minimum wage would not have ANY taxes taken out, not a dime. He or she would ONLY pay taxes when she purchased a NEW product, a USED car wouldn't be taxed for example...then there would be a rebate sent out to cover the taxes on food and other necessities. The flat tax isn't a flat INCOME tax, and if you actually LOOKED at how it works you would know this, but anyone can tell you didn't do your research. The flat tax is a consumption tax. Which is far more FAIR than our current system.

Buy a NEW million dollar house (because you worked hard to earn it) and pay 230,000 in taxes, there are NO loop holes for anyone to weasel out of. It would GREATLY benefit the poor. No matter how little money a person makes, they still pay 6.2% (4.2% for 2011) to social security right now, and 1.45% for medicare...companies pay a matching amount. If companies didn't have to pay that matching amount they could raise wages and hire more people.

That is it really simplified, but you libs just don't get it...you would probably LOVE to see the government say everyone has to be paid $100,000 a year, and if your company won't give it to you then the government will make up the difference, because that would be "FAIR".

Now please, before you open your mouth to speak on a topic, either take a look and gather the correct information or just decline to speak, because when you blather on like you did here you look like just don't have a clue.

That's actually the Fair Tax, not a flat tax, but you explained it exactly correct and it's something I've been supporting for a few years now.

[Monker]

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, but upon further thought, until I see HOW this discussion will be reimbursed I think it's just more bullshit government vocal gymnastics. Insurance companies don't generally pay for individual things.

My point is this - that 'discussion' does not equate to a 'death panel'. It's just a discussion. There is no link to how that discussion is paid for and a panel deciding who gets a treatment or not. It makes no logical sense AT ALL.

Then you go on to 'what ifs' and all that. Well, what if some panel starts deciding who gets Social Security benefits? Medicare benefits. What if hospitals stop admitting anybody, except middle aged white men, and Jedi Knights? I mean, come on, you can take this to so many extremes it's ridiculous.

When some type of 'death panel' talk actually starts to seriously happen in congress, then you will have point. Until then, you are just spreading a myth that has NO basis in reality. Don't you see that?

We can argue about the term 'death panel' all night long, but let's not forget the words of our beloved president, who told a woman on TV for all the world to see that her mother (a woman who although quite elderly still had a pretty decent quality of life) that perhaps it wasn't fiscally responsible to have a life saving procedure, and instead to 'take a pill'. This is also from a president who believes that young children should be taught sex ed in schools and that wealth redistribution is a good thing. So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

NONE of that has anything to do with 'death panels'. You are basicaly saying you believe there will be a 'death panel' because you don't trust Obama...even though you should know Obama does not make the laws, and even though he has never introduced such a thing to be passed by congress. I can now see that it is simply political bias on your part.

I agree that having a discussion about advance directives is a good thing

Then you should agree with the bill as passed. Instead, you are so caught up in the propaganda surrounding it that you don't.

and I've spent a fair portion of my career doing just that. Example: an 85 year old woman is under the care of the facility that I work at. She suffered breast cancer a few years ago. She had a fall a few months ago and broke her shoulder and her neck. A few weeks after that she had a massive stroke and is now paralyzed on her left side and requires a feeding tube. She has a full code status, meaning if she would stroke again or have a heart attack, we would have to do CPR. IDK if we could even do that with the cervical collar she has to wear (forever) without further damaging her neck fracture, which could potentially kill her in itself. This is a woman who should be strongly counseled about the choice of full code vs DNR status. You think Medicare would pay me to have that discussion?

As has been stated in this thread - Yes, the new Health Care bill would pay for that discussion with her on how to handle her life if she has another heart attack or stroke.

[Monker]

So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

No, you're right, he just signed a law that insures another 31 million Americans. Nah, I don't trust him to do what's right either. We should repeal that God awful HC law, and go back to NO insurance for 30+ millions of Americans. That's by far the right thing to do. :roll

Despite all the bitching and arguing here Donna, you have a great New Years, eh?

He signed a law that ensures 31 million people initially...it will soon cause rates to rise to the point that private business will not be able to afford to offer it to their employees, and then that 31 million will expand considerably. How do you propose to PAY for it? Again you prove you haven't studied up on something. Talk about throwing out talking points...I am going to start calling you Chris Matthews or would you prefer Keith Olbermann?

Oh wait...yeah....tax the "rich" making over $250,000...you have proven time and time again that you have NO grasp of the fundementals of economics, no matter the law is going to be defunded soon and repealed in 2013, sometime in February after the next President takes office.

Then we can start again, and do it correctly this time.

Stuie, you are incredibly naive if you think repealing this, or anything else, is going to be that easy. It's not going to happen.

[Monker]

Please do me and everybody else a favor and take a political science 101 class. Dude, check yourself. Tax cuts do NOT help the fucking poor. Tax cuts line the pockets of the wealthy republican. You are on crack if you think a poor minority black woman in Milwaukee or Kansas City benefits from a tax cut to a wealthy rich pig headed fuck in upstate NY.

Bullcrap. Tax breaks help everyone. BTW..."Fucking poor"? If I had used that line, you'd be on here calling me a cold-hearted neocon or something to that effect.

No they don't. If you work at McD's and get $20,000/yr, or whatever minimum wage is....

I agree with you a fair amount of the time, Monker, but your 20,000 dollars per year at minimum wage is a bit high.

I researched the states minimum wage rates and they range from Minnesota's 6.15 per hour to Washington States 8.66. I would say the average is about 7.25 per hour.

7.25 per hour at 40 hours a week equals 290 dollars. 290 multiplied by 52 weeks(no vacations or sick days), comes to 15,090. Now please righties, explain to me again how you want to implement a flat tax on folks making 15,090 dollars a year? These people live paycheck to paycjheck, barely, and this is before Fica and SS taxes are taken out. I would bet these folks bring home in the neighborhood of 12K a year.

Uh a state can't have an effective minimum wage lower than the Federal minimum wage of 7.25...So Minnesota can't have a $6.15 minimum wage factually, they can state a lower wage or none at all but the Federal law appies so it doesn't matter WHAT the state says...

As for the flat tax...you should read how it works...you just automatically assume it would be 23% or what have you and that would the that...but it doesn't work that way. The best proposal works this way, in a very simplified way: First your get rid of any tax loop holes, second you repeal the 16th amendment so the government can't institute an income tax. The the 23% tax would ONLY be on new goods sold, since companies build in the taxes the have to pay on each product know, which is like 35%, the actual cost on the shelves would drop by that tax amount. You would get your WHOLE paycheck...so that person making minimum wage would not have ANY taxes taken out, not a dime. He or she would ONLY pay taxes when she purchased a NEW product, a USED car wouldn't be taxed for example...then there would be a rebate sent out to cover the taxes on food and other necessities. The flat tax isn't a flat INCOME tax, and if you actually LOOKED at how it works you would know this, but anyone can tell you didn't do your research. The flat tax is a consumption tax. Which is far more FAIR than our current system.

Buy a NEW million dollar house (because you worked hard to earn it) and pay 230,000 in taxes, there are NO loop holes for anyone to weasel out of. It would GREATLY benefit the poor. No matter how little money a person makes, they still pay 6.2% (4.2% for 2011) to social security right now, and 1.45% for medicare...companies pay a matching amount. If companies didn't have to pay that matching amount they could raise wages and hire more people.

That is it really simplified, but you libs just don't get it...you would probably LOVE to see the government say everyone has to be paid $100,000 a year, and if your company won't give it to you then the government will make up the difference, because that would be "FAIR".

Now please, before you open your mouth to speak on a topic, either take a look and gather the correct information or just decline to speak, because when you blather on like you did here you look like just don't have a clue.

There is one HUGE "Loophole". Buy all your big purchases from Canada, or anywhere else outside of the US....and pay no tax at all. I wonder how long it would take for new car dealerships to spring up just over the border in Canada and Mexico. The "Mall of America" could move just a bit further north And, why would ANYBODY be stupid enough to buy a 'new' house if they can save tens of thousands of dollars with a house that is just a year or so old.

[Monker]

Please do me and everybody else a favor and take a political science 101 class. Dude, check yourself. Tax cuts do NOT help the fucking poor. Tax cuts line the pockets of the wealthy republican. You are on crack if you think a poor minority black woman in Milwaukee or Kansas City benefits from a tax cut to a wealthy rich pig headed fuck in upstate NY.

Bullcrap. Tax breaks help everyone. BTW..."Fucking poor"? If I had used that line, you'd be on here calling me a cold-hearted neocon or something to that effect.

No they don't. If you work at McD's and get $20,000/yr, or whatever minimum wage is....a 'tax break' for everybody means very little benefit to you So, your weekly check goes up $15. BIG DEAL. If you want to help those people, give them education assistance to get a better job...not a crappy tax break.

It's nothing but politics to get votes and save THEMSELVES a bit in taxes....tax breaks have nothing to do with helping the lower incomes, or even the middle income, really. The last W tax cut made my check go up < $100/month. Big deal...it's not like that is going allow me to go buy a new car or something. So, I go and add it to my 401k...so some CEO can be overpaid while his company goes broke. That is the reality of what the past 10yrs of 'tax cuts' brought. They solved NOTHING, they didn't even HELP anything. They exasperated problems in corporate America and the selfishness of the top %1 or wage earners.

SELFISHNESS?

Yes. Selfishness. The rich politicians who go about promoting such ideas, and the company CEO's that support them, THEY are the people who benefit from these tax cuts. They are not doing it for anybody else.

I bet you subscribe to the axiom "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

No. But, I do not subscribe the moronic idea that giving a person $15/week more in a tax cut helps then in any real significant way.

I bet you think that the average person that has managed to break into that top 1% is ALL about being a greedy son of a bitch.

No. I just do not believe in the loony idea that giving them a tax break helps the other %99 of the people.

You have NO clue what it takes to be able to do that.

And, you do not know me - at all. The argument above has NOTHING to do with what type of effort it takes to make it to the top 1%.

The sacrafices that have to be made in time for yourself and for your family. 40 hour weeks? HA...try 100 hour weeks, some times. A small business owner that shows an income of $1 million probably takes home less than you do working whatever job you do, yet because he shows income of $1 million get taxes out of the ass. Some how to YOU that is fair, and that he is being SELFISH because he would like to keep more of it.[/qote]

Get over yourself, Stuie. Not everything is about you and your insignificant life.

I was not talking about you. I was talking about the selfish politicians that spread the propaganda that a tax cut is some magical device that helps everybody and can solve any economic problem. It's just NOT TRUE. Giving YOU (yes,I am talking about YOU now) a tax cut does not help anybody else but YOU. The politicians propose such ideas to popularize themselves, get elected, get CEO's and big business on their bandwagon and their contributions...and give THEMSELVES a tax cut. THAT is selfish.

Yeah, SELFISH. You want to know what selfish is? Selfish is the person who refuses to get an education, has unprotected sex and pops out 4 kids by age 20 or fathers 4 kids by age 20 (of course with no consideration for the children thus created and what kind of life they will have), but won't pay to raise them, gets hooked on booze or another drug, and then expects the rest of us to pick up the tab and then demands that instead of help to rise about poor choices early in life we succumb to the lowest common denominator and take from the people who made good choices, got an education, worked hard, started a business and give it those who didn't make those choices. That is selfish.

Selfish is thinking you can write a 1000 word, 1 paragraph sentence, and expect me to read it and try to decipher and understand it.

What you just wrote is about someone being stupid and lazy...and has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about.

We are all CREATED equal, we all start with the same potential to achieve greatness after that it is all up the individual to strive to become great and no amount of taking from someone in the guise of fairness and giving it to another actually makes it fair.

So what? That has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.

[Monker]

Don't lecture me on any goddamned tax and pay laws. I KNOW about the flat tax.

By the way, Minnesota DOES have a state min wage of 6.15 per hour. Doesn't mean the workers of that state get paid that rate, but it IS their min pay rate.

Also, last I knew, there is NO minimum wage for part time workers.

[Rockindeano]

So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

No, you're right, he just signed a law that insures another 31 million Americans. Nah, I don't trust him to do what's right either. We should repeal that God awful HC law, and go back to NO insurance for 30+ millions of Americans. That's by far the right thing to do. :roll

Despite all the bitching and arguing here Donna, you have a great New Years, eh?

He signed a law that ensures 31 million people initially...it will soon cause rates to rise to the point that private business will not be able to afford to offer it to their employees, and then that 31 million will expand considerably. How do you propose to PAY for it? Again you prove you haven't studied up on something. Talk about throwing out talking points...I am going to start calling you Chris Matthews or would you prefer Keith Olbermann?

Oh wait...yeah....tax the "rich" making over $250,000...you have proven time and time again that you have NO grasp of the fundementals of economics, no matter the law is going to be defunded soon and repealed in 2013, sometime in February after the next President takes office.

Then we can start again, and do it correctly this time.

You're so blinded by YOUR conservative principles, that you won't even consider a liberal POV. Look, I don't give one shit about how we "pay for socialized medicine." I am FOR Socialized medicine. I make no bones about it. Find a way to insure EVERYBODY...I don't care how, just do it.

And as for your very bold prediction about the HC law being repealed in 2013, I am here to graciously offer you a bet, or two:

1) I will bet you 100 bucks Obama is still president come 2013. You righties have NO ONE who can beat him.
2) I bet you another 100 bucks the GOP loses control of Congress in 2012. After 2 years of saying "no" and accomplishing nothing, the electorate will finally see through these hollow bastard sonsofbitches for what they truly are-a puppet for the rich. Fuck the rich.

PS- I know you are probably beet red in the grill right now after reading my comments, but I would still love a XXL Winter Classic Shirt....Bring a jacket, that push back to 8PM will have you shaking like a Popsicle at Heinz.

[Angel]

Look, I don't give one shit about how we "pay for socialized medicine." I am FOR Socialized medicine. I make no bones about it. Find a way to insure EVERYBODY...I don't care how, just do it.

My first instinct here was to ask you if you really just said that...then after a brief contemplation I realized that yeah, you did say that and this is exactly how the Dems feel. "I don't know where we'll get the money, I don't care, I just want to make sure the government gives me what I'm 'entitled' to. I don't want to work any harder to take care of myself, I just want someone else to do it for me, because I deserve it"

[Rockindeano]

Look, I don't give one shit about how we "pay for socialized medicine." I am FOR Socialized medicine. I make no bones about it. Find a way to insure EVERYBODY...I don't care how, just do it.

My first instinct here was to ask you if you really just said that...then after a brief contemplation I realized that yeah, you did say that and this is exactly how the Dems feel. "I don't know where we'll get the money, I don't care, I just want to make sure the government gives me what I'm 'entitled' to. I don't want to work any harder to take care of myself, I just want someone else to do it for me, because I deserve it"

Whatever. I DO feel that EVERY US Citizen is entitled to health care.

If Canada, UK, and even Cuba can do this for its' citizens, why can't the great USA do it? Seriously, this country is so great, blah blah blah, yet Cuba, that shit infested rat hole down south, takes care of its' people better than a superpower does.

Do the math.

Where will get the money? First off, if you overhaul the BROKEN, existing situation(note I said situation, because we don't even have a plan in place yet), we can save shit tons of money. Secondly, we could cut at least a 1/4 from the fuckin military. They receive way too much money to justify it keep. Also, there are cuts in other gov't programs, the ridiculous ones, where money could be reallocated, and finally, taxes. Yes, taxes. I would propose and impose, a 2% tax increase on payroll...not doing the math here right now, but that would bring a lot of money into the HC Bank.

Make it happen.

[RossValoryRocks]

So no, I don't trust him to do what's right by way of our elderly.

No, you're right, he just signed a law that insures another 31 million Americans. Nah, I don't trust him to do what's right either. We should repeal that God awful HC law, and go back to NO insurance for 30+ millions of Americans. That's by far the right thing to do. :roll

Despite all the bitching and arguing here Donna, you have a great New Years, eh?

He signed a law that ensures 31 million people initially...it will soon cause rates to rise to the point that private business will not be able to afford to offer it to their employees, and then that 31 million will expand considerably. How do you propose to PAY for it? Again you prove you haven't studied up on something. Talk about throwing out talking points...I am going to start calling you Chris Matthews or would you prefer Keith Olbermann?

Oh wait...yeah....tax the "rich" making over $250,000...you have proven time and time again that you have NO grasp of the fundementals of economics, no matter the law is going to be defunded soon and repealed in 2013, sometime in February after the next President takes office.

Then we can start again, and do it correctly this time.

You're so blinded by YOUR conservative principles, that you won't even consider a liberal POV. Look, I don't give one shit about how we "pay for socialized medicine." I am FOR Socialized medicine. I make no bones about it. Find a way to insure EVERYBODY...I don't care how, just do it.

And as for your very bold prediction about the HC law being repealed in 2013, I am here to graciously offer you a bet, or two:

1) I will bet you 100 bucks Obama is still president come 2013. You righties have NO ONE who can beat him.
2) I bet you another 100 bucks the GOP loses control of Congress in 2012. After 2 years of saying "no" and accomplishing nothing, the electorate will finally see through these hollow bastard sonsofbitches for what they truly are-a puppet for the rich. Fuck the rich.

PS- I know you are probably beet red in the grill right now after reading my comments, but I would still love a XXL Winter Classic Shirt....Bring a jacket, that push back to 8PM will have you shaking like a Popsicle at Heinz.

I'm not angry...I told you I will send you the shirts...and yeah the game tonight will be cold...look for me on TV though!

Fuck the rich? Maybe instead of trying to find ways to steal their weath, you should get off your lazy ass and GET RICH?!

Novel idea, don't you think?

[Angel]

Look, I don't give one shit about how we "pay for socialized medicine." I am FOR Socialized medicine. I make no bones about it. Find a way to insure EVERYBODY...I don't care how, just do it.

My first instinct here was to ask you if you really just said that...then after a brief contemplation I realized that yeah, you did say that and this is exactly how the Dems feel. "I don't know where we'll get the money, I don't care, I just want to make sure the government gives me what I'm 'entitled' to. I don't want to work any harder to take care of myself, I just want someone else to do it for me, because I deserve it"

Whatever. I DO feel that EVERY US Citizen is entitled to health care.

If Canada, UK, and even Cuba can do this for its' citizens, why can't the great USA do it? Seriously, this country is so great, blah blah blah, yet Cuba, that shit infested rat hole down south, takes care of its' people better than a superpower does.

Do the math.

Where will get the money? First off, if you overhaul the BROKEN, existing situation(note I said situation, because we don't even have a plan in place yet), we can save shit tons of money. Secondly, we could cut at least a 1/4 from the fuckin military. They receive way too much money to justify it keep. Also, there are cuts in other gov't programs, the ridiculous ones, where money could be reallocated, and finally, taxes. Yes, taxes. I would propose and impose, a 2% tax increase on payroll...not doing the math here right now, but that would bring a lot of money into the HC Bank.

Make it happen.

Yep, exactly what I said-"I don't want to work for it-I want others to pay for it."

But please, enlighten me, oh all knowing one, what would you fix about the broken system??? I agree there are issues with our current healthcare system but I'm very interested to know what you would fix about it.

[Rockindeano]

Look, I don't give one shit about how we "pay for socialized medicine." I am FOR Socialized medicine. I make no bones about it. Find a way to insure EVERYBODY...I don't care how, just do it.

My first instinct here was to ask you if you really just said that...then after a brief contemplation I realized that yeah, you did say that and this is exactly how the Dems feel. "I don't know where we'll get the money, I don't care, I just want to make sure the government gives me what I'm 'entitled' to. I don't want to work any harder to take care of myself, I just want someone else to do it for me, because I deserve it"

Whatever. I DO feel that EVERY US Citizen is entitled to health care.

If Canada, UK, and even Cuba can do this for its' citizens, why can't the great USA do it? Seriously, this country is so great, blah blah blah, yet Cuba, that shit infested rat hole down south, takes care of its' people better than a superpower does.

Do the math.

Where will get the money? First off, if you overhaul the BROKEN, existing situation(note I said situation, because we don't even have a plan in place yet), we can save shit tons of money. Secondly, we could cut at least a 1/4 from the fuckin military. They receive way too much money to justify it keep. Also, there are cuts in other gov't programs, the ridiculous ones, where money could be reallocated, and finally, taxes. Yes, taxes. I would propose and impose, a 2% tax increase on payroll...not doing the math here right now, but that would bring a lot of money into the HC Bank.

Make it happen.

Yep, exactly what I said-"I don't want to work for it-I want others to pay for it."

But please, enlighten me, oh all knowing one, what would you fix about the broken system??? I agree there are issues with our current healthcare system but I'm very interested to know what you would fix about it.

It's really quite simple Natalie. As president, I would appoint an expert in the field, and have him or her work on the things I insisted be in the bill; ie, the public option. I would tell him or her, what my desires were, and to get it done. I would then tell my Congressional peers that EVERY citizen is to be covered, period.

I don't care how you fund it, just fund it.

It is in my view, an absolute "right" to have health care. I don't consider it to be a luxury. This is something that I would insist on accomplishing in my term. When we have people dying every day in this country, because they simply do not have health insurance, that to me is unacceptable.

I notice you didn't refute my points on Canada, the UK and Cuba having HC for its' people, and if they could do that, why couldn't we? Care to take the question, Nurse?