The president who cried wolf

I

Illegal Smile

Guest
Obama: "Can't I just issue a fucking decree or something?" LOL I can't wait for Thursday!
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Grandma's boy said:
As for a Republi-con plan.

Last year they presented a 2 page plan.

It was mostly based on tort reform, which averages 2% of healthcare cost.

Something they didn't pass with a Republi-con President, and 6 years of a Republi-con controlled Congress.
Click to expand...
The Constitutiion, in its original form, excluding the Bill of Rights, is only 10 pages long. This document set our entire government structure in motion, and is the outline we still use today, and you want a document of biblical proportions to lay out health care reform? You must work for the IRS. :lol:
 
abe23

abe23

Active Member
Illegal Smile said:
Obama just can't let go of Obamacare can he? Now he's back to his OMG we can't wait to pass this we just can't wait!! Are we going to buy that? From this used car salesman? let's recall when he said his stimulus bill HAD to be passed right now or OMG! OMG! unemployment might go over 8%!! How did that work out? It was passed and unemployment went over 10% anyway and may get worse. The stimulus was a failure and only damaged the economy further.

Chicken little needs to knock it off.
Click to expand...
If you recall the election in November '08 (I know republicans tend to have a short memory...), a majority of americans voted for 'obamacare' over whatever the republicans were proposing. So yea...he just can't let go...that's part of what people voted him into office for.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
londonfog said:
Obama 2012 ....or who do you say Illegal ???? Ron Paul .... according to you guys straw poll ...lol
Click to expand...
No way Obama runs for re-election in 2012. 6 - 10 states will have laws requiring vault birth certificates to be on the ballot. What's he gonna do? cough it up after spending $1.7 million to keep it suppressed? He knew it was one term going in, it was all part of the plan.

The interesting question is who the dems will run. John Edwards maybe? :lol:
 
upnorth2505

upnorth2505

New Member
Illegal Smile said:
No way Obama runs for re-election in 2012. 6 - 10 states will have laws requiring vault birth certificates to be on the ballot. What's he gonna do? cough it up after spending $1.7 million to keep it suppressed? He knew it was one term going in, it was all part of the plan.

The interesting question is who the dems will run. John Edwards maybe? :lol:
Click to expand...
OMG. So Smile, you are a Birther??? Okay you are WAYYY over the top. Laaa Laaaaa La La Laaa Laaa Laaa Laa
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
abe23 said:
If you recall the election in November '08 (I know republicans tend to have a short memory...), a majority of americans voted for 'obamacare' over whatever the republicans were proposing. So yea...he just can't let go...that's part of what people voted him into office for.
Click to expand...
I recall the election of 2008, although I am not a Republican. It was not strictly Obamacare they were voting for. It was the whole Hope-N-Change thingee promised by a fresh face who could talk reel purty. The election of President NerO had more to do with rebuking Bush coupled with a reaction to the economic downturn than it did with any mandate. The sagging poll numbers bear that out.

And it's funny to me what the Big O chooses to hold fast to and exactly what promises he can let go.

Lobbyists in his administration. How long did he take to back away from that one?

Transparency. LOL!

No tax increases for earners under $250,000. A lot of people who earn under 250K use tobacco. And already leading Democraps are making noises about raising taxes for a hell of a lot more people than the evil, stinking, greedy rich.

But what is totally hilarious is how tone deaf that clown is. How many times is he willing to get teabagged to push through a program the majority of Americans oppose?
 
abe23

abe23

Active Member
Most packs of cigarettes probably cost 250K in added health-care costs...saying it's a tax on the poor is a little bit exaggerated. I'm not for paternalist legislation in most cases, but taxing substances that are known to be harmful isn't something you're going to see me argue against. Maybe I misunderstood this...

Rising healthcare costs are something almost every american is worried about, so I do think obama has a popular mandate to do something about it.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
I should also mention taxes on cigarettes are a state thing. Obama has no hand in that. Kind of a slap to that poster's intelligence
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
Most packs of cigarettes make less than $250,000 a year, to be fair.
Click to expand...
In the context of the quote you selected, that response makes no sense. :roll:

Show me where I claimed that a tobacco product, in this case a pack of smokes, has the ability or free will to earn a salary.

Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
I should also mention taxes on cigarettes are a state thing. Obama has no hand in that. Kind of a slap to that poster's intelligence
Click to expand...
You were saying?

The increases, which raise the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents a pack to $1.01, applies to all tobacco products. It comes as more than two dozen states, desperate for revenue in a sunken economy, consider boosting their own tobacco taxes this year.
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-03-31-cigarettetax_N.htm

It was a slap to someone's intelligence. You bitch-slapped yourself. :dunce:
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
abe23 said:
Most packs of cigarettes probably cost 250K in added health-care costs...saying it's a tax on the poor is a little bit exaggerated. I'm not for paternalist legislation in most cases, but taxing substances that are known to be harmful isn't something you're going to see me argue against. Maybe I misunderstood this...

Rising healthcare costs are something almost every american is worried about, so I do think obama has a popular mandate to do something about it.
Click to expand...
And about fifteen years ago the states successfully sued the tobacco companies for reimbursement of medical costs related to smokers. The settlements were huge. The tobacco companies in turn, raised their prices.

For the record, I did not claim that the tobacco tax increase is a tax on the poor. Although I agree with that statement. I stated and I quote: "A lot of people who earn under 250K use tobacco."

People choose to smoke so they choose to pay the additional tax. But PrezBo was pretty clear when he said no taxes would be raised for people under a certain income threshold. Some rogue staffer must have monkeyed with the teleprompter that day. :-P

You say 'mandate.' I say the polls tell another story.
 
V

vasioplunk

Member
Let’s be honest with ourselves here. Only certain amount of people are getting very very high quality care. Some are not even getting care at all because of the Lack of funds. When we de segregated the school system. The general level of education fell. Because the introduction of a large number of uneducated students to the system. The school system has to aim at the lowest common denominator for a level balance of education. I am all for de segregation and equal rights. But this is what happened. We never really fully recovered from this. Now Healthcare, We must take a hit in healthcare in order to cover everyone and truly to be civilized no one should get a disease that a vaccine is out for just because they couldn’t afford it. No one should have to die in the street because they couldn’t afford healthcare I mean that’s a basic moral obligation. Any Christian would have to agree. You can’t refuse people because they can’t afford it. And drowning them in debt that they can’t pay is simply unproductive for everyone. So, you must realize that the healthcare system in order to incorporate millions of people. And a high volume of unhealthy individuals to the system will lower the quality. But don’t forget you can still go out and purchase care, you will just have to push out a lot a lot of money. So, don’t think you or the government can devise a plan to cover everyone and meet the moral obligation of being a humane and civilized society without some how lowering the quality of care. France has the best system in the world by the WHO more people get quality care in France than America that is basic and a simple truth. Now they might not have the best doctors in the world, but I don’t see the best doctors in the country as it is. Something to think about…
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
I missed the fact that the fed does tax tobacco, I had no idea. I stand corrected. You are right to point that out. Touche.

But you are still the one who stated:

"No tax increases for earners under $250,000. A lot of people who earn under 250K use tobacco."

So taxes went up on tobacco. That is not specific to those making less than $250,000 a year, that applies to everyone. Taxing a (harmful) product is different than taxing an individual directly. I haven't actually looked around for it, but I would be interested to see if any actual new taxes have been put down for those making less than 250K/200K single. I know for a fact there have been many tax breaks, I want to know if there are any tax increases.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
vasioplunk said:
Let’s be honest with ourselves here. Only certain amount of people are getting very very high quality care. Some are not even getting care at all because of the Lack of funds. When we de segregated the school system. The general level of education fell. Because the introduction of a large number of uneducated students to the system. The school system has to aim at the lowest common denominator for a level balance of education. I am all for de segregation and equal rights. But this is what happened. We never really fully recovered from this. Now Healthcare, We must take a hit in healthcare in order to cover everyone and truly to be civilized no one should get a disease that a vaccine is out for just because they couldn’t afford it. No one should have to die in the street because they couldn’t afford healthcare I mean that’s a basic moral obligation. Any Christian would have to agree. You can’t refuse people because they can’t afford it. And drowning them in debt that they can’t pay is simply unproductive for everyone. So, you must realize that the healthcare system in order to incorporate millions of people. And a high volume of unhealthy individuals to the system will lower the quality. But don’t forget you can still go out and purchase care, you will just have to push out a lot a lot of money. So, don’t think you or the government can devise a plan to cover everyone and meet the moral obligation of being a humane and civilized society without some how lowering the quality of care. France has the best system in the world by the WHO more people get quality care in France than America that is basic and a simple truth. Now they might not have the best doctors in the world, but I don’t see the best doctors in the country as it is. Something to think about…
Click to expand...
Thanks to the First Amendment, Christian charity has nothing to do with this discussion.

A large number of the estimated 46 million people without health insurance are illegal aliens, already eligible for an existing government program, or they make enough money to purchase their own health insurance.

My biggest objection to Obamacare is that it is unconstitutional. If a state wishes to provided government health insurance to its citizens, that is between the citizens of that state and the policy makers of that state. State mandated health insurance coverage is Constitutional per the 10th Amendment.
dukeofbaja said:
I missed the fact that the fed does tax tobacco, I had no idea. I stand corrected. You are right to point that out. Touche.

But you are still the one who stated:

"No tax increases for earners under $250,000. A lot of people who earn under 250K use tobacco."

So taxes went up on tobacco. That is not specific to those making less than $250,000 a year, that applies to everyone. Taxing a (harmful) product is different than taxing an individual directly. I haven't actually looked around for it, but I would be interested to see if any actual new taxes have been put down for those making less than 250K/200K single. I know for a fact there have been many tax breaks, I want to know if there are any tax increases.
Click to expand...
I said it and I stand by it.

This report from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, is slightly dated. It was issued in 2002, but you get the idea.

Persons aged 18 or older from lower-income families were more likely than persons from families with higher incomes to use most tobacco products in the past month (Figure 2). For example, 35 percent of persons with total combined family incomes of less than $9,000 reported smoking cigarettes during the past month compared with 29 percent of those from families with incomes between $20,000 and $39,999 and 19 percent of those from families with incomes of $75,000 or more. Persons with total combined family incomes of less than $75,000 were more likely than those with incomes of $75,000 or more to use smokeless tobacco during the past month. Similarly, persons with total combined family incomes of less than $20,000 were more likely than those with total incomes of more than $20,000 to smoke pipes during the past month. In contrast, persons with total combined family incomes of $75,000 or more were more likely than those with incomes between $9,000 and $74,999 to smoke cigars during the past month.
Click to expand...
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k2/Tob/tob.htm

A tax increase is a tax increase. Obama did just what he said he would not do.

I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. - Barack Hussein Obama
Click to expand...
And a word of friendly advice....

The next time you attempt to fling insults, make damn sure you are right. I say attempt, because you did not insult me. In fact, I laughed out loud heartily at such a shining example of staggering arrogance coupled with utter stupidity.
 
V

vasioplunk

Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Thanks to the First Amendment, Christian charity has nothing to do with this discussion.

A large number of the estimated 46 million people without health insurance are illegal aliens, already eligible for an existing government program, or they make enough money to purchase their own health insurance.

My biggest objection to Obamacare is that it is unconstitutional. If a state wishes to provided government health insurance to its citizens, that is between the citizens of that state and the policy makers of that state. State mandated health insurance coverage is Constitutional per the 10th Amendment.

I said it and I stand by it.

This report from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, is slightly dated. It was issued in 2002, but you get the idea.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k2/Tob/tob.htm

A tax increase is a tax increase. Obama did just what he said he would not do.

And a word of friendly advice....

The next time you attempt to fling insults, make damn sure you are right. I say attempt, because you did not insult me. In fact, I laughed out loud heartily at such a shining example of staggering arrogance coupled with utter stupidity.
Click to expand...

Ya, but you forget something. The constitution also applies to those who fall within the jurisdiction of the state. Well am not saying force people to have healthcare. If you would rather not have healthcare and pay out of pocket that is your right, but if you get hit by a bus and are dying well you don’t really have a choice in which sort of healthcare you will receive heh

BTW: Am against ObamaCare personally, I think it has the wrong premise. To save money, not to help people.

But you may have a point, maybe we should delagate it to the states. It will be very very fractured. But it would fall upon the states. Wooo Don't want to get healthcare in MS :P
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
vasioplunk said:
Ya, but you forget something. The constitution also applies to those who fall within the jurisdiction of the state. Well am not saying force people to have healthcare. If you would rather not have healthcare and pay out of pocket that is your right, but if you get hit by a bus and are dying well you don’t really have a choice in which sort of healthcare you will receive heh
Click to expand...
I did not forget anything.

The Constitution states quite clearly that anything not specifically delegated to the Federal government is a state issue. It is the responsibility of each state to choose whether to provide health care to its citizens. Constitutionally, health care/health insurance is a state issue.

This does not void any individual Constitutional protections afforded to all citizens.
vasioplunk said:
BTW: Am against ObamaCare personally, I think it has the wrong premise. To save money, not to help people.
Click to expand...
The Democratic leaders claim this to be the case, but that pesky Congressional Budget Office says different. MessiahCare would be enormously expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top