PDA

View Full Version : Two Senators Won't Vote to Raise The Debt Ceiling



Jake
10th November 2009, 23:14
Senators Won't Vote to Lift Debt Ceiling Without Action on Spending
By Corey Boles, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200911101125dowjonesdjonline000 332&title=senswont-vote-to-lift-debt-ceiling-without-action-on-spending
http://www.ak47world.com/feinsteinAK47.jpg

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Two Democratic senators said Tuesday they wouldn't vote to support an increase in the nation's debt ceiling without corresponding action to address the country's long term fiscal imbalances.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) told a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee they would vote against a needed increase in the limit the federal government can borrow unless Congress creates a commission to come up with proposals to bring the deficit and debt under control.<---Is Feinswine a hawk on the Deficit?

The federal government's debt is fast approaching its legally binding ceiling of $12.1 trillion. Treasury officials have warned that Congress will have to increase that limit likely by mid-December.

If Congress doesn't act to increase the debt ceiling before the limit is reached, the U.S. would be forced to default on its debt. This could lead to an instant downgrading of country's prized top shelf credit rating and lead to the government having to pay significantly higher to largely foreign investors to continue buying treasury bonds.

While this scenario is extremely unlikely, it provides significant leverage to those who want to attach related measures to legislation increasing the debt limit.

"There are rare moments of leverage in this institution where you can institute fundamental change," Bayh said. "This is one of those moments."

The federal government ran a record-high budget deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009. In October, the first month of fiscal 2010, it went a further $175 billion into the red.

Rep. Jim Cooper (D., Tenn.), another long-time advocate of firm action to reign in out of control federal spending, painted an even more harsh scenario.

"We have fiscal cancer and it is metastasizing at the rate that very soon no surgery, no chemotherapy, no radiation will be able to cure the problem," he told the panel.

The hearing was called to consider various plans put forward by lawmakers to create such a commission.

They are broadly similar. A body would be established that would be bi- partisan in its membership, representing both lawmakers and the Obama administration.

It would be tasked with coming up with a comprehensive series of proposals to cut spending and increase revenues, primarily aimed at large entitlment programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and veterans' benefits.

Congress would then have to vote up or down on the package, with no amendments allowed by lawmakers to make the recommendations more politically palatable.

Sens. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), the chairman and senior Republican member on the budget committee, are expected to release details of the framework of a commission in the coming weeks.

Why Not Just Raise The Debt Ceiling to $100 Trillion? By the time we got to this number, it wouldn't matter because we'd have no country left to worry about anyway.

TheLoneRanger
10th November 2009, 23:31
All these years I was wrong about Sen. Finestein.. I always though she was a sidefolder type not an underfolder type woman. I got go get me one of those... I have the drum.. but the one folder I got is a side because thats what I THOUGH she though was evil. dang it I got fixed and AT-6 style AK's and side but no underfolder,, wonder if that is a bulgarian?

fullsafe
10th November 2009, 23:34
They won't vote for it without a "commission to come up with proposals"? Wow , thats a tough stand. At least it will create at least 8 new jobs for Barry's running total that they will count as 12 since 4 were saved jobs of Congressmen.

Katwoman
10th November 2009, 23:39
This is all an insiders game to save the FED from being properly audited.

silversurfer1
11th November 2009, 06:59
Folks this is all political theater to keep the dumbed down masses pacified. "Things" will still go on no matter what little speech a politician makes. Ron Paul's bill is getting watered down even. It's a joke.

Jake
11th November 2009, 10:35
All these years I was wrong about Sen. Finestein.. I always though she was a sidefolder type not an underfolder type woman. I got go get me one of those... I have the drum.. but the one folder I got is a side because thats what I THOUGH she though was evil. dang it I got fixed and AT-6 style AK's and side but no underfolder,, wonder if that is a bulgarian?

-----LOL--

Jake
11th November 2009, 10:38
Folks this is all political theater to keep the dumbed down masses pacified. "Things" will still go on no matter what little speech a politician makes. Ron Paul's bill is getting watered down even. It's a joke.

Of Course...This move by FrankenSwine is to trying to show she's "Fiscally Conservative" but "Socially Liberal". She's smarter than the Dwarf Senator from the south. She knows her votes now are critical to her popularity as a future Senator.

hippiebrian
12th November 2009, 15:12
Of Course...This move by FrankenSwine is to trying to show she's "Fiscally Conservative" but "Socially Liberal". She's smarter than the Dwarf Senator from the south. She knows her votes now are critical to her popularity as a future Senator.


Funny, if Ron Paul had said the same thing, what would your opinion be? Can someone you normally disagree with make a smart decision without it being some kind of conspiracy? Could it be that she is coming around to being socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

TheLoneRanger
12th November 2009, 15:27
If Ron Paul had said that, it would have been credible... it would have fit with the man's principles, and there wouldn't have been conditions and howevers and anybody wondering what it would take to change Paul's mind.

It isn't so much about what was said... there's probably 30 or 40 Senators that could have said the same thing , and I owuld have said .. yep... thats my Senator.. holding the line like always... it is more about who said it.. "Fienstein... FIENSTEIN? no way...wonder what she is smoking?" seems like an appropiate response.

hippiebrian
12th November 2009, 15:50
Hopefully, given today's economy, her stance is changing a bit.

Mylläri
13th November 2009, 11:08
Hopefully...

"Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness."
- The Architect

Jake
13th November 2009, 14:12
Funny, if Ron Paul had said the same thing, what would your opinion be? Can someone you normally disagree with make a smart decision without it being some kind of conspiracy? Could it be that she is coming around to being socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Ron Paul, Peter Schiff Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater would have supported fiscal responsibility because they believe that the role of govt. is to SERVE the people, not to become a competitive entity against those companies and individuals in the private sector.

Feinswine (and you, hippie), fundamentally believe that the role of govt. is to replace the freedom of the individual with selected "instructions" dictated by a Nannystate.

Unfortunately, because the private sector and the free individual are so resilient and full of efficient and low-cost ideas to improve the quality of life, nannystates can exist for long periods of time incrementally removing freedoms under the radar before the voting public can react to overturn them.

Feinswine is as I have said, is attempting to APPEAR as if she is fiscally responsible while knowing that in the future, her one voice will not be enough to undermine the real agenda of today's liberalism.

The Feinswines and dwarf senators of the world don't care that advocating incremental policies that remove freedoms is unsustainable. By the time it's universally known that we can't afford to pay for all the entitlements and regulations they've put into place, they'll be long gone from the Senate living off of elite pension plans put in place by and for them and only them.

Today's incremental government takeover of private sector freedoms is inevitable and beyond the point of a reasonable fix. By saying, "please praise Feinswine for her fiscal acumen" you show us how ridiculous you sound and you know it, but because liberals are liberals first, you can't get past your gutless response. That mentality is indicative of those in power now.

The simplest "fix" to every problem in our country would have been to adhere to the constitution without a modern-day "interpretation" and liberal justification of its guidelines. However, because we've allowed your kind of thinking to permeate all areas of our society from high level CEO's to kindergarten teachers, our society founded in the purest forms of individual liberties and freedoms is being slowly (and now accelerating) driven into the ground.

If you don't see this, look at other countries in the world. Every time liberal/communist/socialist/fascist/dictatorship governments have been tried, failure and individual misery results.

hippiebrian
13th November 2009, 14:33
Ron Paul, Peter Schiff Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater would have supported fiscal responsibility because they believe that the role of govt. is to SERVE the people, not to become a competitive entity against those companies and individuals in the private sector.

Feinswine (and you, hippie), fundamentally believe that the role of govt. is to replace the freedom of the individual with selected "instructions" dictated by a Nannystate.

Unfortunately, because the private sector and the free individual are so resilient and full of efficient and low-cost ideas to improve the quality of life, nannystates can exist for long periods of time incrementally removing freedoms under the radar before the voting public can react to overturn them.

Feinswine is as I have said, is attempting to APPEAR as if she is fiscally responsible while knowing that in the future, her one voice will not be enough to undermine the real agenda of today's liberalism.

The Feinswines and dwarf senators of the world don't care that advocating incremental policies that remove freedoms is unsustainable. By the time it's universally known that we can't afford to pay for all the entitlements and regulations they've put into place, they'll be long gone from the Senate living off of elite pension plans put in place by and for them and only them.

Today's incremental government takeover of private sector freedoms is inevitable and beyond the point of a reasonable fix. By saying, "please praise Feinswine for her fiscal acumen" you show us how ridiculous you sound and you know it, but because liberals are liberals first, you can't get past your gutless response. That mentality is indicative of those in power now.

The simplest "fix" to every problem in our country would have been to adhere to the constitution without a modern-day "interpretation" and liberal justification of its guidelines. However, because we've allowed your kind of thinking to permeate all areas of our society from high level CEO's to kindergarten teachers, our society founded in the purest forms of individual liberties and freedoms is being slowly (and now accelerating) driven into the ground.

If you don't see this, look at other countries in the world. Every time liberal/communist/socialist/fascist/dictatorship governments have been tried, failure and individual misery results.

Can you please explain to me which freedoms you think I'm wanting to strip from you exactly? Because as far as I know, that would be none that I know of, at least none that wouldn't affect the population in general (i.e., those laws which protect us from each other). I've been accused of this before, and I don't buy it.

hippiebrian
13th November 2009, 14:36
Ron Paul, Peter Schiff Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater would have supported fiscal responsibility because they believe that the role of govt. is to SERVE the people, not to become a competitive entity against those companies and individuals in the private sector.

Feinswine (and you, hippie), fundamentally believe that the role of govt. is to replace the freedom of the individual with selected "instructions" dictated by a Nannystate.

Unfortunately, because the private sector and the free individual are so resilient and full of efficient and low-cost ideas to improve the quality of life, nannystates can exist for long periods of time incrementally removing freedoms under the radar before the voting public can react to overturn them.

Feinswine is as I have said, is attempting to APPEAR as if she is fiscally responsible while knowing that in the future, her one voice will not be enough to undermine the real agenda of today's liberalism.

The Feinswines and dwarf senators of the world don't care that advocating incremental policies that remove freedoms is unsustainable. By the time it's universally known that we can't afford to pay for all the entitlements and regulations they've put into place, they'll be long gone from the Senate living off of elite pension plans put in place by and for them and only them.

Today's incremental government takeover of private sector freedoms is inevitable and beyond the point of a reasonable fix. By saying, "please praise Feinswine for her fiscal acumen" you show us how ridiculous you sound and you know it, but because liberals are liberals first, you can't get past your gutless response. That mentality is indicative of those in power now.

The simplest "fix" to every problem in our country would have been to adhere to the constitution without a modern-day "interpretation" and liberal justification of its guidelines. However, because we've allowed your kind of thinking to permeate all areas of our society from high level CEO's to kindergarten teachers, our society founded in the purest forms of individual liberties and freedoms is being slowly (and now accelerating) driven into the ground.

If you don't see this, look at other countries in the world. Every time liberal/communist/socialist/fascist/dictatorship governments have been tried, failure and individual misery results.

One of the models I tend to use for a better government is the Canadian government. Can you also explain why you think the Canadians are miserable? Is it their lower crime and murder rate? Their comparable standard of living? If any Canadians want to speak up here and let me know what I'm missing, and can let me know how miserable you are, please do! I must be misunderstanding something!

Jake
13th November 2009, 15:55
One of the models I tend to use for a better government is the Canadian government. Can you also explain why you think the Canadians are miserable? Is it their lower crime and murder rate? Their comparable standard of living? If any Canadians want to speak up here and let me know what I'm missing, and can let me know how miserable you are, please do! I must be misunderstanding something!

Have you ever needed major surgery or needed special care from a specialist?
Would you go to Canada to get the best medical care or would you search the United States?

Do you like the lowest taxes (now) that any developed country enjoys?
Would you live in Canada to escape high Taxes?Would you go to Canada to Buy PM's?
Value added tax in Canada is known as Goods and Services Tax. The goods and services tax was introduced in Canada on the 1st of January 1991. It was introduced by Brian Mulroney, who was the Prime Minister at that time and Michael Wilson, who was the finance minister. The goods and services tax in Canada replaced the manufacturers' sales taxes. The main purpose behind introducing the goods and services tax was that the manufacturers' sales tax was having a negative impact on the export prospects of the manufacturing sector in Canada. The manufacturers' sales tax was hidden and the rate of taxation was 13%. The goods and services tax could be called a multi-level tax. The Harmonized Sales Tax is a combination of goods and services tax and the provincial sales tax. The rate of the goods and services tax is 5% and the provincial sales tax rate is 8%. This means that the total harmonized sales tax collected in the three above mentioned provinces is 13% on top of Provincial and Federal Taxes.

Do you have an adjusted income of greater than zero?If you do, you will pay tax in Canada even if you make less than the US poverty level
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
Canadian Federal tax rates for 2009 are:15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452), +
26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264), +
29% of taxable income over $126,264

Provincial/Territorial tax rates for 2009
Under the current tax on income method, tax for all provinces (except Quebec) and territories is calculated the same way as federal tax.

Provincial / Territorial tax rates (combined chart) Provinces / Territories Rate(s)
Newfoundland and Labrador 7.7% on the first $31,061 of taxable income, +
12.8% on the next $31,060, +
15.5% on the amount over $62,121
Prince Edward Island 9.8% on the first $31,984 of taxable income, +
13.8% on the next $31,985, +
16.7% on the amount over $63,969
Nova Scotia 8.79% on the first $29,590 of taxable income, +
14.95% on the next $29,590, +
16.67% on the next $33,820 +
17.5% on the amount over $93,000
New Brunswick 9.65% on the first $35,707 of taxable income, +
14.5% on the next $35,708, +
16% on the next $44,690, +
17% on the amount over $116,105
Quebec Contact Revenu Québec
Ontario 6.05% on the first $36,848 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $36,850, +
11.16% on the amount over $73,698
Manitoba 10.8% on the first $31,000 of taxable income, +
12.75% on the next $36,000, +
17.4% on the amount over $67,000
Saskatchewan 11% on the first $40,113 of taxable income, +
13% on the next $74,497, +
15% on the amount over $114,610
Alberta 10% of taxable income
British Columbia 5.06% on the first $35,716 of taxable income, +
7.7% on the next $35,717, +
10.5% on the next $10,581, +
12.29% on the next $17,574, +
14.7% on the amount over $99,588
Yukon 7.04% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
9.68% on the next $38,832, +
11.44% on the next $48,600, +
12.76% on the amount over $126,264
Northwest Territories 5.9% on the first $36,885 of taxable income, +
8.6% on the next $36,887, +
12.2% on the next $46,164, +
14.05% on the amount over $119,936
Nunavut 4% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
7% on the next $38,832, +
9% on the next $48,600, +
11.5% on the amount over $126,264

Compare These Canada Taxes That Have a VAT Tax to US Taxes:
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/2009-federal-income-tax-brackets-projected.html

What are you complaining about Brian. Take your liberalism and shove it up your ass.

hippiebrian
13th November 2009, 16:27
Have you ever needed major surgery or needed special care from a specialist?
Would you go to Canada to get the best medical care or would you search the United States?

Do you like the lowest taxes (now) that any developed country enjoys?
Would you live in Canada to escape high Taxes?Would you go to Canada to Buy PM's?
Value added tax in Canada is known as Goods and Services Tax. The goods and services tax was introduced in Canada on the 1st of January 1991. It was introduced by Brian Mulroney, who was the Prime Minister at that time and Michael Wilson, who was the finance minister. The goods and services tax in Canada replaced the manufacturers' sales taxes. The main purpose behind introducing the goods and services tax was that the manufacturers' sales tax was having a negative impact on the export prospects of the manufacturing sector in Canada. The manufacturers' sales tax was hidden and the rate of taxation was 13%. The goods and services tax could be called a multi-level tax. The Harmonized Sales Tax is a combination of goods and services tax and the provincial sales tax. The rate of the goods and services tax is 5% and the provincial sales tax rate is 8%. This means that the total harmonized sales tax collected in the three above mentioned provinces is 13% on top of Provincial and Federal Taxes.

Do you have an adjusted income of greater than zero?If you do, you will pay tax in Canada even if you make less than the US poverty level
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
Canadian Federal tax rates for 2009 are:15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452), +
26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264), +
29% of taxable income over $126,264

Provincial/Territorial tax rates for 2009
Under the current tax on income method, tax for all provinces (except Quebec) and territories is calculated the same way as federal tax.

Provincial / Territorial tax rates (combined chart) Provinces / Territories Rate(s)
Newfoundland and Labrador 7.7% on the first $31,061 of taxable income, +
12.8% on the next $31,060, +
15.5% on the amount over $62,121
Prince Edward Island 9.8% on the first $31,984 of taxable income, +
13.8% on the next $31,985, +
16.7% on the amount over $63,969
Nova Scotia 8.79% on the first $29,590 of taxable income, +
14.95% on the next $29,590, +
16.67% on the next $33,820 +
17.5% on the amount over $93,000
New Brunswick 9.65% on the first $35,707 of taxable income, +
14.5% on the next $35,708, +
16% on the next $44,690, +
17% on the amount over $116,105
Quebec Contact Revenu Québec
Ontario 6.05% on the first $36,848 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $36,850, +
11.16% on the amount over $73,698
Manitoba 10.8% on the first $31,000 of taxable income, +
12.75% on the next $36,000, +
17.4% on the amount over $67,000
Saskatchewan 11% on the first $40,113 of taxable income, +
13% on the next $74,497, +
15% on the amount over $114,610
Alberta 10% of taxable income
British Columbia 5.06% on the first $35,716 of taxable income, +
7.7% on the next $35,717, +
10.5% on the next $10,581, +
12.29% on the next $17,574, +
14.7% on the amount over $99,588
Yukon 7.04% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
9.68% on the next $38,832, +
11.44% on the next $48,600, +
12.76% on the amount over $126,264
Northwest Territories 5.9% on the first $36,885 of taxable income, +
8.6% on the next $36,887, +
12.2% on the next $46,164, +
14.05% on the amount over $119,936
Nunavut 4% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
7% on the next $38,832, +
9% on the next $48,600, +
11.5% on the amount over $126,264

Compare These Canada Taxes That Have a VAT Tax to US Taxes:
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/2009-federal-income-tax-brackets-projected.html

What are you complaining about Brian. Take your liberalism and shove it up your ass.

First off, there's no need to get hostile with someone who disagrees with you. It just makes you sound like a dumbass, which I am sure you are not.

I realize that a single-payer health care system would increase my taxes. I personally have no problem with paying taxes, it's just the cost of living in a civilized society. I do have a problem with where my tax dollars go, however. I would much rather have my tax dollars go to health care, education, infrastructure, and other places which are beneficial to taxpayers than go to wars, special interests, senator's and congressperson's pockets, and everywhere else they are currently wasted. I would have no problem paying any of the rates you have listed if this were the case.

Right now, I can go to a specialist for any condition I may have, provided my primary physician says it's O.K. and my insurance company feels that the chances of getting better are worth the money that they are about to spend, or if my life is more important than their profits, in other words.

I would have no problem going to a specialist in Canada, and yes, I have heard the horror stories (most of which are gross exagerations, by the way). I am also sure that the many millions, as in over 45, who couldn't even talk to a specialist in this country because they have no health insurance would love to talk to a specialist in Canada. In fact, there is a bit of a problem with people in Detroit and other areas on the U.S./Canada border marrying Canadians for money just to get access to their health care system.

Right now, if you ask almost any European to give up their current state run health care system for a system run primarily by private insurance, like ours, you'd have a riot on your hands. The only people who would be hurt, in all seriousness, by a U.S. switch to a staterun system are the insurance company executives and anyone else who had stock in those companies.

It is not illegal, in any non-communist country (except Japan, I believe) to carry private insurance, and I guarentee that that would still be available here should a switch take place. And I don't want to hear about not wanting to pay extra taxes if you choose to have private care. I don't complain about paying taxes for schools even though I am not a student, and my daughter is 24 and is no longer a student. It's a responsibility in order that the general public has access.

As far as those who think any socialism is a bad thing, I have a question for you. If there is a fire, do you complain when a public financed fire department shows up to put it out? That's socialism. When your house is robbed, do you complain when a publically funded policeman or woman shows up to take a report and try to catch the criminals? That's socialism. Taxpayer funded roads and bridges? Socialism. Get what I'm saying?

Jake
13th November 2009, 17:19
First off, there's no need to get hostile with someone who disagrees with you. It just makes you sound like a dumbass, which I am sure you are not.

I realize that a single-payer health care system would increase my taxes. I personally have no problem with paying taxes, it's just the cost of living in a civilized society. I do have a problem with where my tax dollars go, however. I would much rather have my tax dollars go to health care, education, infrastructure, and other places which are beneficial to taxpayers than go to wars, special interests, senator's and congressperson's pockets, and everywhere else they are currently wasted. I would have no problem paying any of the rates you have listed if this were the case.

Right now, I can go to a specialist for any condition I may have, provided my primary physician says it's O.K. and my insurance company feels that the chances of getting better are worth the money that they are about to spend, or if my life is more important than their profits, in other words.

I would have no problem going to a specialist in Canada, and yes, I have heard the horror stories (most of which are gross exagerations, by the way). I am also sure that the many millions, as in over 45, who couldn't even talk to a specialist in this country because they have no health insurance would love to talk to a specialist in Canada. In fact, there is a bit of a problem with people in Detroit and other areas on the U.S./Canada border marrying Canadians for money just to get access to their health care system.

Right now, if you ask almost any European to give up their current state run health care system for a system run primarily by private insurance, like ours, you'd have a riot on your hands. The only people who would be hurt, in all seriousness, by a U.S. switch to a staterun system are the insurance company executives and anyone else who had stock in those companies.

It is not illegal, in any non-communist country (except Japan, I believe) to carry private insurance, and I guarentee that that would still be available here should a switch take place. And I don't want to hear about not wanting to pay extra taxes if you choose to have private care. I don't complain about paying taxes for schools even though I am not a student, and my daughter is 24 and is no longer a student. It's a responsibility in order that the general public has access.

As far as those who think any socialism is a bad thing, I have a question for you. If there is a fire, do you complain when a public financed fire department shows up to put it out? That's socialism. When your house is robbed, do you complain when a publically funded policeman or woman shows up to take a report and try to catch the criminals? That's socialism. Taxpayer funded roads and bridges? Socialism. Get what I'm saying?

First---I told you to take your liberalism and shove it up your ass because that's where it belongs. You respond with more liberalism so you're not taking my advice. So again, Take your liberalism/socialism/and other government failures and shove them where the sun don't shine please.
Now---You sound like a perfect Obama liberal who wants to trust your taxes to Government because you "have no problem paying them, but in the same paragraph, you condemn government waste...who causing this waste?...ahhhh...maybe the same liberals you trust with your increased taxes?


The problem with our US healthcare is not with the insurance companies. It's our never-ending costs to fund entitlements along with needless lawsuits and regulations that make our Medicare so impossible to fund that it'll go bankrupt soon. It seems to me you enjoy all the benefits of a free society to complain, but you hate everything about it. If you think you don't pay enough taxes, then send in double your obligation every year. If you think Canada is better fiscally...(you never addressed the VAT tax and other higher taxes)---then go live there.

"And I don't want to hear about not wanting to pay extra taxes if you choose to have private care."[/B]<----HUH?

So you would prefer a govt who TELLS you what healthcare you WILL have and there should be No Complaints about actually wanting the FREEDOM to choose? And you want penalties for choosing to opt out of a Mandated Unconstitutional Govt Plan? Are you Insane?...I'll answer that...YES.

This next statement really PROVES you're insane..."If there is a fire, do you complain when a public financed fire department shows up to put it out? That's socialism. <----You're Insane Brother!/COLOR]

So, we pay taxes...City Taxes...Property Taxes so that in our city we have services...and this is socialism? These are part of the few things besides National Defense that were outlined by our founding fathers. Limited Govt. for the saftey of its citizens along with local services to provide for things needed through a common taxation as long as that taxation is not excessive. The review of such is provided for with representation.---This is Socialism?
Are you out of your mind?...Do you also charge $18/1-dollar face for junk silver?...Brian, Brian Brian---Hippie Hippie Hippie...[COLOR="red"]Socialism is Govt Redistribution of assets from individuals who have to individuals who have not. The perpetuation of socialism is the continued distribution of assets to those who continue to vote for those politicians who do the distributing such that the cycle is perpetuated until its eventual collapse under a sea of mountainous debt. We are heading this way because of people like you hippie. [B]Get what I'm saying?

hippiebrian
13th November 2009, 17:32
First---I told you to take your liberalism and shove it up your ass because that's where it belongs. You respond with more liberalism so you're not taking my advice. So again, Take your liberalism/socialism/and other government failures and shove them where the sun don't shine please.
Now---You sound like a perfect Obama liberal who wants to trust your taxes to Government because you "have no problem paying them, but in the same paragraph, you condemn government waste...who causing this waste?...ahhhh...maybe the same liberals you trust with your increased taxes?


The problem with our US healthcare is not with the insurance companies. It's our never-ending costs to fund entitlements along with needless lawsuits and regulations that make our Medicare so impossible to fund that it'll go bankrupt soon. It seems to me you enjoy all the benefits of a free society to complain, but you hate everything about it. If you think you don't pay enough taxes, then send in double your obligation every year. If you think Canada is better fiscally...(you never addressed the VAT tax and other higher taxes)---then go live there.

"And I don't want to hear about not wanting to pay extra taxes if you choose to have private care."[/B]<----HUH?

So you would prefer a govt who TELLS you what healthcare you WILL have and there should be No Complaints about actually wanting the FREEDOM to choose? And you want penalties for choosing to opt out of a Mandated Unconstitutional Govt Plan? Are you Insane?...I'll answer that...YES.

This next statement really PROVES you're insane..."If there is a fire, do you complain when a public financed fire department shows up to put it out? That's socialism. <----You're Insane Brother!/COLOR]

So, we pay taxes...City Taxes...Property Taxes so that in our city we have services...and this is socialism? These are part of the few things besides National Defense that were outlined by our founding fathers. Limited Govt. for the saftey of its citizens along with local services to provide for things needed through a common taxation as long as that taxation is not excessive. The review of such is provided for with representation.---This is Socialism?
Are you out of your mind?...Do you also charge $18/1-dollar face for junk silver?...Brian, Brian Brian---Hippie Hippie Hippie...[COLOR="red"]Socialism is Govt Redistribution of assets from individuals who have to individuals who have not. The perpetuation of socialism is the continued distribution of assets to those who continue to vote for those politicians who do the distributing such that the cycle is perpetuated until its eventual collapse under a sea of mountainous debt. We are heading this way because of people like you hippie. [B]Get what I'm saying?

First off, to tell me to shove anything, espescially my values, up my ass is hostile. Then to reprimand me for speaking my mind just because I disagree with you makes you sound like a dumbass, still. Using my tax dollars to provide health care, roads, police, fire departments, education, support for the elderly and disabled, among other things, for the general public is socialism, yes. And if it costs more to do this than to wage war, I say so? I'll gladly pay it. You can call that redistribution if you choose, but by any name, I feel that it is my duty as a citizen of this country to help meet all of our needs. Can you come up with a better answer to these problems? Privitization, espescially in health care, has failed miserably. It sets up a heirarchy of the haves and have-nots in areas where it shouldn't. If the police department were privitized, the poor (or even the lower middle class) would have no protection. If the fire department were privitized, the poor's houses would be burned, sometimes with the people still in them. If social security and medicare were privitized, the elderly would starve to death or suffer unnecessarily. And right now, in this country, there are millions of poor who do not have health care, and are suffering and dying unnecessarily. This is not what I want for this country, the one I gave 12 years of my life for, the one which is supposed to be the role model for the world. A role model takes care of the least of their members. Just ask Jesus.

We are headed in the wrong direction I feel because of people like you Jake.

Jake
13th November 2009, 17:44
First off, to tell me to shove anything, espescially my values, up my ass is hostile. Then to reprimand me for speaking my mind just because I disagree with you makes you sound like a dumbass, still. Using my tax dollars to provide health care, roads, police, fire departments, education, support for the elderly and disabled, among other things, for the general public is socialism, yes. And if it costs more to do this than to wage war, I say so? I'll gladly pay it. You can call that redistribution if you choose, but by any name, I feel that it is my duty as a citizen of this country to help meet all of our needs. Can you come up with a better answer to these problems? Privitization, espescially in health care, has failed miserably. It sets up a heirarchy of the haves and have-nots in areas where it shouldn't. If the police department were privitized, the poor (or even the lower middle class) would have no protection. If the fire department were privitized, the poor's houses would be burned, sometimes with the people still in them. If social security and medicare were privitized, the elderly would starve to death or suffer unnecessarily. And right now, in this country, there are millions of poor who do not have health care, and are suffering and dying unnecessarily. This is not what I want for this country, the one I gave 12 years of my life for, the one which is supposed to be the role model for the world. A role model takes care of the least of their members. Just ask Jesus.

We are headed in the wrong direction I feel because of people like you Jake.

YOU ARE HOPELESS

hippiebrian
13th November 2009, 18:03
YOU ARE HOPELESS


Ya, I'm probably not going to agree with you. You are probably not going to ever agree with me either. Doesn't mean either of us is a bad guy, just different. This definately doesn't mean i think you should "shove your conservatism up your ass." I appreciate your opinions, they seem well thought out and investigated. We just interpret things differently. That is what makes this country great. No censorship, no matter the opinion.

Jake
13th November 2009, 19:06
Ya, I'm probably not going to agree with you. You are probably not going to ever agree with me either. Doesn't mean either of us is a bad guy, just different. This definately doesn't mean i think you should "shove your conservatism up your ass." I appreciate your opinions, they seem well thought out and investigated. We just interpret things differently. That is what makes this country great. No censorship, no matter the opinion.
http://ukediner.ukulele.org/imagine/tim.jpg
There you go again...INTERPRETING...Tip-toe-ing Through The Tulips
Everything with you Liberals is INTERPRETING....NAH Nah NAH
You talk in NAH Nah...We Just Interpret them differently Nah Nah

Listen Idiot...You Are Wrong BECAUSE liberalism IS wrong...CASE CLOSED
There's no interpretation...You're just Wrong

hippiebrian
13th November 2009, 19:21
http://ukediner.ukulele.org/imagine/tim.jpg
There you go again...INTERPRETING...Tip-toe-ing Through The Tulips
Everything with you Liberals is INTERPRETING....NAH Nah NAH
You talk in NAH Nah...We Just Interpret them differently Nah Nah

Listen Idiot...You Are Wrong BECAUSE liberalism IS wrong...CASE CLOSED
There's no interpretation...You're just Wrong

O.K., listen idiot! You are wrong because Conservatism is wrong! CASE CLOSED!


See how stupid that sounds, really? By the way, I don't believe that, just making a point.

Jake
13th November 2009, 19:24
O.K., listen idiot! You are wrong because Conservatism is wrong! CASE CLOSED!


See how stupid that sounds, really? By the way, I don't believe that, just making a point.

What I'd like to know is ARE YOU REALLY TINY TIM?
BACK FROM THE DEAD---THE GRATEFUL DEAD?

hippiebrian
13th November 2009, 19:30
What I'd like to know is ARE YOU REALLY TINY TIM?
BACK FROM THE DEAD---THE GRATEFUL DEAD?

lmao, well, I am back from a lot of Dead shows back in the day. Tiny Tim? Not so much. I like women. lol

Jake
13th November 2009, 19:40
lmao, well, I am back from a lot of Dead shows back in the day. Tiny Tim? Not so much. I like women. lol

do you like hammers and sickles?

hippiebrian
13th November 2009, 19:49
do you like hammers and sickles?


Once again, the hardcore conservative can't tell the difference between social democracy and Soviet style Comminism.

Jake
13th November 2009, 22:02
Once again, the hardcore conservative can't tell the difference between social democracy and Soviet style Comminism.

Get a clue FT-3
We do not live in a "Social Democracy"
Last time I checked, we live in a representative republic you twit
If you want a Social Democracy, then go live in the UK...or in Canada

You will find that all free people who don't fight to retain their freedoms soon live to regret it. Future generations will have to live with the insanity that this govt is enslaving us with right now.

You and types like you are thinking only for today and not realizing what you advocate. You're stupid, that's all there is to it...there just isn't any way around it unless I lie...You need to read the original documents such as the Federalist Papers, the earliest writings of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson. and John Madison. These were men of great vision, who understood what it would be like to live under tyrannical govt. There is so much this generation has lost worrying about bullshit in the schools like global warming and soda sugar.

Answer me this...are we moving toward the way our founding fathers meant us to live as a society or are we moving in the Nancy Pelosy direction of Tyranny?

Do you really advocate more govt and less freedom? Really?
It's mind-boggling!
It's Scary!
I'm glad I'm old...I don't want to have to graduate from college today...and see that the opportunity I had as a young graduate in 1981 is swept away by this statist "Dear Leader" and his liberalism.

I want to see the kids today graduate with BETTER opportunities...not worse you Idiot!
God...People like you bug me.---Ahhh...that's what your doing...you exist to bug me...I knew you had a hidden plan!...well you succeeded.

Jake
13th November 2009, 22:09
Once again, the hardcore conservative can't tell the difference between social democracy and Soviet style Comminism.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I'm a Hard Core Conservative!
OMG!
Send Reinforcements!

ccjoe
14th November 2009, 08:34
First off, to tell me to shove anything, espescially my values, up my ass is hostile. Then to reprimand me for speaking my mind just because I disagree with you makes you sound like a dumbass, still. Using my tax dollars to provide health care, roads, police, fire departments, education, support for the elderly and disabled, among other things, for the general public is socialism, yes. And if it costs more to do this than to wage war, I say so? I'll gladly pay it. You can call that redistribution if you choose, but by any name, I feel that it is my duty as a citizen of this country to help meet all of our needs. Can you come up with a better answer to these problems? Privitization, espescially in health care, has failed miserably. It sets up a heirarchy of the haves and have-nots in areas where it shouldn't. If the police department were privitized, the poor (or even the lower middle class) would have no protection. If the fire department were privitized, the poor's houses would be burned, sometimes with the people still in them. If social security and medicare were privitized, the elderly would starve to death or suffer unnecessarily. And right now, in this country, there are millions of poor who do not have health care, and are suffering and dying unnecessarily. This is not what I want for this country, the one I gave 12 years of my life for, the one which is supposed to be the role model for the world. A role model takes care of the least of their members. Just ask Jesus.

We are headed in the wrong direction I feel because of people like you Jake.

Jake--If you had this discussion with me or Brian or anyone with balls on the street, your physical well being would be jeopardized.
He has done EVERYTHING to be kind to you. He served his country so we could ALL speak out.
You are acting like road rage people who feel safe behind their 2 ton pickup trucks when they give people the finger.
It's exactly YOUR attitude JAKE, that we're fighting in this country to rid ourselves of. YOU are the PC one who if anyone disagrees, you scorn as if that marginalizes them. To intelligent people, it ain't working. Get it?
Show respect Jake as you have good ideas, but so does Brian, and others that I disagree with.

Jake
14th November 2009, 13:21
Jake--If you had this discussion with me or Brian or anyone with balls on the street, your physical well being would be jeopardized.
He has done EVERYTHING to be kind to you. He served his country so we could ALL speak out.
You are acting like road rage people who feel safe behind their 2 ton pickup trucks when they give people the finger.
It's exactly YOUR attitude JAKE, that we're fighting in this country to rid ourselves of. YOU are the PC one who if anyone disagrees, you scorn as if that marginalizes them. To intelligent people, it ain't working. Get it?
Show respect Jake as you have good ideas, but so does Brian, and others that I disagree with.

As I said in the other Thread...I'll Let this guy be...and no more exchanges with this guy.