Dems pull biggest taxpayer heist in history

Cal Beverly's picture

Courtesy of President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and the Democrats in Congress (only Democrats, not one Republican), below are the new taxes you and I are facing in years to come, as detailed by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

Wherever you see fees and taxes on various businesses, manufacturers and industries, put your name in the place of those corporations, including insurance companies, because you and I will be paying those fees and taxes in the form of higher prices for goods and services:

The $940 billion healthcare reform legislation passed by the House of Representatives Sunday night contains Medicare spending cuts along with significant tax increases scheduled to take place over the next 10 years. A new Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact outlines the timeline of all tax provisions and highlights those that will increase or decrease revenue by more than $10 billion.

The major tax provisions include:

Retroactive to Jan. 1, 2010:

• Small Business Tax Credit for certain small businesses (those meeting certain criteria) providing health insurance to employees (retroactive to Jan. 1, 2010). In 2013, restricted only to insurance purchased through an exchange and only available for two consecutive years

• Exclusion of unprocessed fuels from the cellulosic biofuel producer credit (retroactive to Jan. 1, 2010)

Scheduled to go into effect in 2011:

• Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs ($2.5 billion for 2011, $2.8 billion per year for 2012 and 2013, $3.0 billion per year for 2014 through 2016, $4.0 billion for 2017, $4.1 billion for 2018, and $2.8 billion for 2019 and thereafter)

Scheduled to go into effect in 2012:

• Require information reporting on payments to corporations

Scheduled to go into effect in 2013:

• Limit health flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500; indexed to CPI-U after 2013

• Impose 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices

• Raise 7.5 percent AGI floor on medical expenses deduction to 10 percent; AGI floor for individuals age 65 and older (and their spouses) remains at 7.5 percent through 2016

• Broaden Medicare Hospital Insurance Tax Base for High-Income Taxpayers — additional HI tax of 0.9 percent on earned income in excess of $200,000/$250,000 (unindexed), and Unearned Income Medicare Contribution on 3.8 percent on investment income for taxpayers with AGI in excess of $200,000/$250,000 (unindexed)

• Impose Fee on Insured and Self-Insured Health Plans; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (expires after 2019)

Scheduled to go into effect in 2014:

• Impose annual fee on health insurance providers ($8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015 and 2016, $13.9 billion in 2017, $14.3 billion in 2018, and indexed to medical cost growth thereafter); based upon firm’s market share starting in 2013

• Excise Tax (i.e., penalty) on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage

• Excise Tax (i.e., penalty) on Employers Not Providing Health Insurance Coverage to Employees (Shared Responsibility for Employers)

• Refundable Tax Credit Providing Premium Assistance for Coverage Under a Qualified Health Plan

Scheduled to go into effect in 2018

• 40 percent excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500 (subject to adjustment for unexpected increase in medical costs prior to effective date) and increased thresholds of $1,650/$3,450 for over age 55 retirees or certain high-risk professions, both indexed for inflation by CPI-U plus 1 percent; adjustment based on age and gender profile of employees; vision and dental excluded from excise tax; levied at insurer level; employer aggregates and issues information return for insurers indicating amount subject to the excise tax; nondeductible.

This information is available online at www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26037.html.

Welcome to the Democrats’ brave new world.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Sonnet on Human Health

Pills got to $10 each for some new ones
A day at the bedded hospital, thousands
Two Tylenol got to be priced at tons.
This was true all over our great lands.

Now for about $7000 per year and no choice
We could after about 8-10 hours get checked.
The family full major was at $18,000, boys!
The entire system was nearly gone and wrecked.

As in most things some could afford free care
Just by showing the company card provided free
For about $7500 those 65 could stay aware!
Some beg and are insulted, their death stopped you see.

That is now fixed about 80% with more to come
All of the hubbub will soon just be a light hum.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Wow and my insurance premiums are going down $2500

Obama said so. I'm sure not as smart as he is, I would have thought premiums would go up after all these new taxes and fees, but he promised the average family would see a $2500 annual decrease in health insurance premiums as a direct result of Obamacare. The guy is a magician!

Angry Taxpayer
Angry Taxpayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/05/2008
Morgan: Magician???

Morgan, I think the term you are looking for is Alchemy... Aren't those the guys that try to turn lead into gold?

Actually, as I think a little more about it, Magician may be the correct term. What Washington has done in the last few years will cause America's wealth and strength to VANISH.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Stock Market

Anyone notice what the market has done this week since the socialist take-over?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
I Noticed the Market

Health Insurance companies stock went up!!! They are gaining 40 million new customers with money!!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bernanke Says U.S. Fiscal Outlook ‘Somewhat Dark’

March 25 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told lawmakers today that the U.S. government’s budget outlook is “somewhat dark” and Congress needs to agree on a plan to reduce the deficit.

He spoke in response to a question about the budget impact of the health-care overhaul signed into law this week by President Barack Obama. Bernanke declined to discuss the effect of the health measure, saying he didn’t want to “second guess” the Congressional Budget Office.

“Clearly everyone agrees that the overall fiscal outlook for the government is somewhat dark over the medium term, and it would be very useful if there could be a bipartisan, concerted effort to explain, demonstrate and decide how the government is going to achieve a more sustainable fiscal trajectory,” he said during testimony today to the House Financial Services Committee.

I suspect no one including the CBO can say what the final cost of this health care bill is going to be.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Congressional Budget Office

This independent agency is the "Bible" when republicans are in power, and can't be believed when the democrats use their numbers!!!

Since the fellow that Bernanke replaced said we had "irrational exuberance" in our economy instead of crooks are a workin, Bernanke says similar things.
He says things like "second guess," and, "agree on a PLAN to attack the deficit!"
Well, it is not President Obama's deficit and he may want to leave it there for voters to see.
A huge economy will eventually resolve the deficit. There is no way we will cut the defense budget, the Social Security and Medicare budgets with zillions of seniors coming along born after WW2, and even stopping the wars won't help much in that effort since we will sink that savings back into the military for manpower.
Whomever figures out how to make a grand economy some way other than shuffling papers and serving one another will be a hero!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bonker$: Whomever figures out how ......

to make a grand economy some way other than shuffling papers and serving one another will be a hero!

Bonker$, egad man are you giving up on the big "O" so soon?

BTW, it is the big "O"'s deficit that tax cheat Bernanke is warning us about. Interesting how Bernanke is trying to be careful in not throwing cold water on "O"'s party. The principles of fundamental economics is sometimes cold and cruel and if they're not heeded....well you know what the outcome is.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
CY.. we know what this is really going to cost us...

and it isn't what they are reporting right now...

"Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate."

They will never come in on budget much less under it.. Anyone who believes the MIDDLE CLASS is not going to shoulder a large part of the burden and this takeover is only going to cost us a TRILLION is both BLIND and INSANE..

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
SL: The interesting thing about this....

is that congress will change this and move that in order to make the heath care law "right". The problem is that these changes are not analyzed by the CBO. Let's see, it was forecasted to be a $940 billion. After the changes the cost would be............................

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Economists and financial wizards

are coming out of the walls!!!
Didn't Bush estimate the cost of winning the two wars at a few billion?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
What does FactCheck say about Tax Foundation/ email?

The Tax Foundation, the very group this spurious e-mail cites, says the message is wrong. The link provided in the e-mail leads to a message saying: "Note: If you clicked on this link in response to an e-mail comparing income taxes under Presidents Clinton and Bush, please see this page." And that link in turn leads to an article by senior economist Gerald Prante and staff writer Alicia Hansen of the Tax Foundation. They call the e-mail "incorrect" and add that it "contains some mathematical errors," which is putting it mildly.

The Tax Foundation is an anti-tax, pro-business group and about the last place we would expect to defend the tax policies of the Clinton administration. Prante and Hansen state, quite correctly, that "federal income taxes have indeed fallen under George Bush for groups at all points on the income spectrum." No tax expert we know of disputes that. Nevertheless, to its credit, the Tax Foundation demolishes this particular comparison.

The "mathematical errors" in the e-mail actually are huge, resulting in very large overstatements of the amounts by which persons in various low- and middle-income categories benefited from the tax cuts. For example, the e-mail claims a tax cut for a single person making $30,000 a year that is nearly 10 times larger than the actual cut as calculated by Tax Foundation experts.

Many have received an email that gave erroneous facts. Thanks to the Tax Foundation for correcting the misinformation.

raindrops
raindrops's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
Heist?

And how much are those wars costing us? Also, the universal health care that US taxpayers provide in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

It's sound policy there, but evil socialism here? Either way, we pay.

'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

You do realize that Jesus of Nazareth - as portrayed in the Bible - was a pretty radical left-wing liberal interested in changing the status quo, right? He was not a laissez faire neoliberal trying to preserve privilege.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jesus was a WHAT?

I guess you mean Jesus was a SOCIALIST??? Let's see Jesus was all about Personal Responsibility, Free Charity not forced Charity, He was against the established rule.. He was not for the re-distribution of wealth.. so.. I don't think he would qualify as a Progressive..

But keep preaching there rainy..

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
raindrops

Mixing religion and all of their laws with politics gets us Iran, Afghanistan, and the Vatican!

To be against the Christian teaching you listed yet vote and speak for the opposite (with codicils) are called hypocrites.

Laws have a hard time among humans often deal really with religion:
For instance, prohibition; abortion for everyone who wishes it (not just the wealthy and high society); welfare, segregation, illegal people (no such thing); those states who kill---those states who do not kill; military draft for all (don't leave out preachers, lawyers sons, required executives, bad knees (J. Wayne), flat feet, etc.); those with kids --sure took a lot from the guard for this; well regulated militias being called all citizens at all times; and so forth!

As to costs of the "Christian" health plan, many think it will save money over the long haul and end up not adding to the deficit. Plus 40 million will be cared for.
The tax increases associated with this plan are NOT on people who can not afford it! It is NOT non-competitive to business since they will all have to pay a little more, not just a few. Therefore it is not a bridge to Socialism as some want to scare with.

And wonder of wonders, if some part of it turns out to be unfair, the same leaders and bodies of congress can correct it---we are a democracy.

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
Yes, Heist!

"Raindrops" seems to think a different congresses are responsible for the war funding and this new health-scam. The *same* demon-cratic congress-critters formulated, voted-on and approved whatever health-care is provided over in the sand boxes, as well as this new health-scam. The only credit Bush & Obamamessiah can claim is signing what *congress* presented to them. So it should be no surprise the dems are pushing their health scam here and abroad.

Neither does "Raindrops" know scripture. He's proven he can read scripture, but he sure does not understand it. To be sure, the LORD does promote charity and caring for each other and leaves the decision to each based on free-will - nowhere does he do so at the point of a govt weapon, which apparently folks like "raindrops" are just fine with.

George Bernard Shaw said, "A government program that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul", and now we know for sure that also includes "Raindrops" and other societal parasites who would use the force of Govt's IRS thugs to reach into your pocket to pay for their desires and to cover their lack of personal responsibility. Thanks buddy!

After 2016 when the next Republican is elected President, you better hope the ideological twin of Rush Limbaugh is not installed by executive order as the new "Health Czar". The socialist dems never - and I mean *never* - take the "Law of unintended consequences" under prudent consideration.

The only good that may come from this health-scare scam is the chances are increased that one or more of the inevitable and numerous lawsuits will result in the commerce clause being put back in it's rightful place, which will affirm that the health-scam law is obviously unconstitutional and the federal govt will be once again be limited as the founders intended.

raindrops
raindrops's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
You can call me Dave, mate.

You can call me Dave, mate. Eldest son of the author of the original blog post and publisher of this newspaper. I'm a veteran, a patriot, and a bleeding heart progressive liberal - and I know my way around scripture (I didn't have much choice in the matter growing up).

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share."

Even if you're not a fan of Paul, that's a pretty straightforward admonition there, and not really open to much leeway in interpretation.

"Lack of personal responsibility"? So, it's just low morals and base character that have us with 1 available job for every 6 job-seekers in this country? (Sure, surplus labor is great for business, but it kills people... like, dead.)

Hmmm, personal responsibility means that persons are responsible, yes? Yet, corporations who seek to be elevated to the rank of citizen though they are immortal and amoral and cannot vote but assert rights as *persons* while remaining free of the burdens of civic responsibility should be protected from the heavy hand of government, without which hand they would not and could not even exist? You might want to revisit that concept after a healthy dose of rational thought.

George Bernard Shaw did not address the matter of how exactly Peter amassed such wealth that he might fear being "robbed," did he? Nor will you, I'm quite certain. No, you'll just take up the refrain about how life isn't fair, so deal with it... while protesting that it isn't fair that government thugs are robbing you blind. (But it's a long way to Damascus, so...)

Oh, and you should probably lay off the touchstone buzzwords like health-scare, they only show you to be a dittohead tool.

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
Keep your hands out of my pockets, Dave...

Are you just parroting or do you fully understand the scripture? If I do not abide, then what? Does the govt come and force me? What if I am unwilling but abide out of fear - does that change anything? Do you not fully understand the word "willing" in that scripture?

Your use of govt to threaten me at gunpoint or incarceration to be "generous and charitable" is coercion and precludes me being either generous or charitable. Abiding by our *free-will* is what the LORD longs for us to do. If not from our free will, our generosity and charity is meaningless and you know it (unless you are intellectually dishonest).

As for the job market, look to the dem controlled congress. Yes Bush had a deficit, but it was not inherited by Obama. Obama (and his dem-controlled congress during the Bush 2nd term) formulated, wrote, argued *passionately* for and VOTED FOR the stimulus and bailout bills that Bush signed into law. Yes, a majority DEM Congress had FULL control of the stimulus & bailout bills. Obama has since more than *quadrupled* the deficit, making Bush look like a piker in comparison.

To make matters worse, Obama's actions so far have only served to threaten and/or enact policy(s) that will raise taxes, negatively impact businesses and further suppress private sector job creation. So, don't complain to me - write your representative and the Obamamessiah and ask them to knock it off. Perhaps then we will see private sector jobs rebound.

And yes, the lack of personal responsibility on one man's behalf does not equate to an automatic obligation on my behalf to provide for him! Now, I can if I personally choose to do so (not coincidentally, I am well above average in charitable giving in my demographic), but if someone freely chooses to abuse themselves or engage in risky behavior, then where does the govt derive the authority, under our constitution, to force me under penalty of law to provide for idiotic choices as this Health-Scam package does with my tax dollars?

As for corporations, they *ARE* under the heavy hand of Govt. What you see is the result of the "law of unintended consequences" when govt attempts to micro-manage via law & regulations in a doomed attempt to legislate "equality in results", rather than "equality in opportunity". Is there any wonder that it results in bad actors trying to game the very system that govt created? Would you defend wickard v. filburn and still carp about the government's regulation of commerce? The govt gave themselves the flawed justification to meddle and they have done so to *our* detriment. And you want *more* of it?

Shaw was spot on with his observation. As to "how" Peter amassed either his pittance or his fortune is irrelevant. In reality, the observation applies to *ALL* taxpayers in all income brackets. So again, the govt that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul and his fellow travelers, useful idiots and societal leeches & parasites. Do you include yourself?

I'll keep my touchstone buzzwords like "Health-Scare", "Health-Scam", "Socialism-Lite", "Obamamessiah" since those fit like a glove. They also help make the point when "bleeding heart progressive liberal" statists try to find biblical justification for govt-sponsored theft.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
atomic

Your avatar looks very similar to a member of the Bridges family. This family is known for treating others as they would want to be treated. I have no idea what their politics may be - but I have personally witnessed their Christian attitude to all communities in the Los Angeles area. Many in this family have been blessed with material wealth - but they have shared most generously with those who have not been so blessed. I personally find it difficult for one who expresses your thoughts to be associated in any way with the Bridges family.

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
It's just an avatar

You find it difficult that I draw a distinction between whatever charitable actions the Bridges family may freely make and govt-coerced "giving"?

You truly find that difficult?

The LORD wants us to care for and be kind to the less fortunate. This helps those we find in need and is good for our souls.

When the govt takes from you by force, threat, or under penalty of jail, fine or various forms of IRS thuggery, in order to give to others who may or may not truly need it - how does that improve your soul? How does never-ending free goodies from the nanny-state encourage individual responsibility and not encourage institutionalized parasites?

Govt confiscation is not "charity" or "good-works". That is a false-comparison and I would feel some amount of failure as a parent if my child could not tell the difference.

Charity begins at home. Not on Form-1040. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
It's just common sense - atomic

For everyone to have affordable health care and to pay their fair share - not take it out of my taxes. . .which has been the case until reform has been implemented. My goodness - we all have to pay for our car insurance so that others do not bear the responsibility of someone else's accidents or poor driving habits. I understand about charity - and with everyone having affordable health care - that won't come out of my contribution to services paid for from the 1040 form. Don't worry about the improvement of my soul. Thanks to the separation of church and state - that is still my responsibility. You and others keep up the NO!! Just try to repeal a law which gives insurance to all children regardless of pre-existing conditions; that gives relief to small businesses NOW; that will provide a pool of citizens who will be able to obtain the same healthcare that our Congressmen receive. Go ahead - try to repeal it! See ya in November!

PS. Don't forget the college graduates that will be allowed to stay on their parents healthcare programs until they find a job or reach the age of 26. Think they're going to support the 'let's repeal' it party?

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
Ehh, in case you haven't heard...

Apparently, they did *NOT* include the pre-existing conditions bit for kids. Don't know if it was a mistake or on purpose, but it's not in the signed law -or- in the reconciliation. Nice of em' to stick us with the bill and not even include that part, eh?

Repubs tried to amend with many common-sense items that the Dems left out (like no viagra for sex-offenders which the dem bill allows) and the Dems said "NO!" to all of them.

So, who is the party of "NO!" again? Sounds like both parties are to me. Opinions may vary, though...

Also, citizens will *NOT* receive the same health-care that congressmen receive -- Congress exempted themselves from having to abide by the Health-Scam. We get "Health-Scam". Congress gets "Health-Care". See how that works?Congressmen still receive their "Cadillac" plan (and full retirement at 6 years, and self-imposed raises, etc. etc.). You don't think congress identifies with us little people, do you?

As for car insurance, do you have any idea how many people don't need, and therefore do not spend a penny on car insurance? Think "New York City" and why many residents there have absolutely no need for a car. Does the govt *REQUIRE* them to but car ins? See, your argument is flawed. You can choose not to drive... and not to buy car insurance...

This Health-scam is forced regardless. It stinks to high heaven and wherever a govt-run health-scam has been tried, it has cost far more than originally anticipated and delivered far less than intended. The law of unintended consequences is brutal.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Viagra for sex offenders

That's just for Native Americans (the politically correct term for Indians on reservations). Nevertheless, why can't the Republicans get aggressive and make a decent TV ad out of how foolish the Dems are. I can see it now, it starts out just like the Broadview Security ad with a guy dropping off his date - hey maybe get an actor who looks like the incumbent Dem to play the guy - then after he leaves the Indian (wearing feathers and loin cloth, please) breaks into the house and ravishes the fair maiden. Broadview Security comes and finds Viagra and firewater left behind by the Indian, then they discover he got it free from the Dem Congressman. Good irony, huh? Tag line "Keep the Indians on the reservation, vote for ______________ (the Republican challenger)".

I like it, I'm sending it off to some political ad people I know. Remember you heard it here first.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
atomic

Does the govt *REQUIRE* them to but car ins? See, your argument is flawed. You can choose not to drive... and not to buy car insurance...

I don't know about New York, but in California - you cannot drive without insurance. If you don't have a car, why need insurance? However, - we are all susceptible to a bodily ailment, unfortunately. I don't want to pay for your ailments - get some insurance!!

Check this out regarding pre-existing conditions. This effects children who are now eligible for health care under a previous act - and insurance companies can NO LONGER DENY THEM COVERAGE!.

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
Say what?

You don't seem to have any understanding of the health-scam law just passed. It is "GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE". It is less to do about "health-care" and everything to do about "government". Where do you think the govt gets it's money from? You do know that the govt confiscates a portion of our income as taxes to fund it's operations, right?

They just passed a health care plan:
1. Written by a committee whose chairman says he didn't understand it
2. Passed by a congress that exempts itself from it
3. Signed by a president who smokes
4. With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes for 3 years in a row
5. To be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese
--and better yet --
6. It is to be financed by a country that's broke

And apparently it makes liberals feel good about themselves, even if it works against what it attempts to accomplish (symbolism over substance!). What could *possibly* go wrong?

The Obamamessiah sold you a pig in a poke because he was more interested in securing his "legacy" than doing what is right for this country! He preached that everyone's premiums could go down as much as $2500 per family (well, that's what his teleprompter told him to say). Now, after it has passed and the truth of it is coming out, CBO projects an average increase of up to $2100 -and- each time they get new info to score it, the number keeps going *UP*!

Guess what? Everyone's money goes into the same big bucket. Not only are you going to pay for everyone who makes poor life choices: alcoholics, drug abusers, neo-nazi skinheads, inner-city gang-bangers, daredevils, tobacco users and illegal aliens, chronic over-eaters - everyone - AND it's going to cost us more to boot! Who wouldn't love a plan like that?

But, if you don't bother to educate yourself on the bill just passed, then you will remain unfamiliar and continue supporting it based on talking points or probably because some lib talking head told you to. So, we're wasting our time arguing about it.

*Now* I'm done.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Your 'pockets'

Don't know you or your story - but most of us have 'pockets' because we are a country of laws (government) and by abiding by them, (laws) we have the freedom to believe, earn, and live - pretty much as we choose. Take away the 'laws' - and we have chaos. Regulation was lifted - and we received service from corporations that benefited their 'pockets' and not the people who wrote the law and have chosen to abide by law in the US. Jesus lived by the Divine Law of God - and tried desperately to show his followers how to do the same. We've gotten a little a- far-off from this primitive but effective way to treat our fellow man. Obama is not a Messiah - but just a man trying to encourage others to treat their neighbors as they would want to be treated. The 'poor' will always be with us - according to Scripture - but they can/should be 'healthy'. . .at least in the US.

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
Wrong again...

Those "Laws" you speak of apply to you and me, but not to those who wrote them. Congress routinely exempts themselves from having to abide by the very laws they impose on US. Take your heath-scam law. You *DO* know that congress exempted itself, don't you? If the health-scam law is so good, why are they not subjected to it as they subject US to it, eh?

Regulations were not lifted more than over-reaching regulations were emplaced in the always-doomed-to-fail liberal effort to force "equality in outcome" rather than "equality in opportunity".

Dems, starting with that buffoon Carter, sought to force lending institutions to extend credit (as fed-backed Sub-Prime loans) to all the "po' folks" so they could buy a house. If the lenders didn't make enough loans to those demographics, they faced regulatory sanctions. Then "po' folks" kept expanding til it was "anyone who can fog a mirror" gets a loan, whether they can afford it or not. All that accomplished was to create the real estate bubble and you know how that turned out. Again, the "law of unintended consequences" rears it's ugly head.

Obama is not trying to encourage anything; he is using the FORCE of govt to achieve his political goals and ambitions. If his goal is to bankrupt America and distribute misery equally, then he seems well on his way.

The only person I can think of who may be happy about all this is Carter! He's no longer considered the "worst president ever", since Obama bumped him up from below!

As for how we treat our fellow man - the liberal/progressive "know-betters" have fought tooth and nail for *decades* to obliterate GOD and Christian values from American life. You self-identify as a "bleeding-heart, progressive liberal", yet you have the audacity to complain that, "We've gotten a little a- far-off from this primitive but effective way to treat our fellow man." Yeah. Ya think?

I'd say you might want to pluck that log from your own eye first!

You are right, in that we *DO* need to look out for our brothers and sisters. But you are wrong in that the govt should do it by force and confiscation.

Whatever the govt subsidizes, it gets more of.
Whatever the govt sanctions, it gets less of.

Subsidize poverty, and you get generations of institutionalized welfare familes who know of no other existence, doomed to be perpetually dependent on the state for their survival. The intent of that policy may have been honorable, but the execution of that policy is disastrous to both the recipients and givers souls.

I'm sure they truly don't want to be in that situation and I also don't want them in that situation. But your blessed progressive/lib representatives will keep them there as long as they can, because both rely on each other: one for sustenance, one for a vote.

Look, you are a "bleeding-heart, progressive liberal". You have my condolences. It's clear that you trust govt first. I'm old enough to see the horrid effects of an over-reaching govt. Govt does have a role, but it has been over-reaching for some time and it is only making matters worse. "The govt that governs best, governs least." One day, you may realize the truth of that statement. I'm done beating this dead horse you are riding. You can have the last word.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
atomic-just what has Congress exempted itself from?

After more than 50 years of being over 21, I think I qualify for 'being old enough'. Check out some facts - and you, sir, may have the last word

By the way - most persons would like to have the 'looks' of the Bridges family. You just don't have the class to express yourself that they have - by their actions, not their 'posts'.

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
Well, well...

So, Ms. 71 year old - since you abandoned reasoned argument and resorted to a personal attack, you take the cake! Talk about *low class*?! Ha!

And by the way, my charitable contributions exceeded %16 of my pre-tax income. I have fair standing to remark on the topic. Do you?

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
That's another thing going away- charitable giving

When we are each forced into subsidizing 2 or 3 layabouts with our tax dollars and sharing our access to health care and maybe even sharing the same waiting room with those same layabouts, our ability (and possibly our charitable attitude) will likely diminish.

I'm like you ts.atomic, I give over 15% to church, YMCA and other charities, but will be less likely to do so when my insurance premiums double just so some "unfortunate" can get free blood pressure pills to counteract the junk food he buys with food stamps. This country is going down fast.

The sad part is the churches and others are able to help far many more people now under a "free-market" system of charity than they will under the forced system of charity that the socialist in chief wants to put under. Law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Sorry, this was already written for me in the comment area!!!!!
mudcat wrote:

When we are each forced into subsidizing 2 or 3 layabouts with our tax dollars and sharing our access to health care and maybe even sharing the same waiting room with those same layabouts, our ability (and possibly our charitable attitude) will likely diminish.

I'm like you ts.atomic, I give over 15% to church, YMCA and other charities, but will be less likely to do so when my insurance premiums double just so some "unfortunate" can get free blood pressure pills to counteract the junk food he buys with food stamps. This country is going down fast.

The sad part is the churches and others are able to help far many more people now under a "free-market" system of charity than they will under the forced system of charity that the socialist in chief wants to put under. Law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
And I'm called "bonkers"

because my id happens to be that! We have a real one!

Obama spent the 5 trillion over budget while Bush was in office?? My, my!

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
Who Spent It?

During Bush's last term, a DEM-Congress controlled the purse-strings.

The Dem congress hashed out, wrote, argued & debated *for* and then **VOTED FOR** the massive spending bills that Bush signed. If you don't like it, take it up with your representative. Besides, Obama has driven up the deficit by a factor of three to four times what it was when he entered office, making Bush look like a spendthrift in comparison!

Remember, it took Bush EIGHT years to spend a third to a fourth of what Obama has obligated IN HIS FIRST YEAR ALONE -and- Obama still has three more years to go! And you were complaining about Bush's spending? Really?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Atomic.. Nice sound arguments

totally wasted on Davids Mom and Bonkers however.. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

Bonkers is well.... Bonkers and DM sees RACE in about everything.. No matter how strong your argument they will disagree and declare themselves the winner..

You will meet others on here that are the same soon I am sure..

Till then welcome to my world...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Prices in 2009 compared to the Bush years

It takes a lot of $ to dig us out of the hole - right? But we're coming out of it!! Now that health care reform is beginning - we can concentrate on jobs, education, etc. There is a lot of work to do - and the young people in this country are capable of getting it done. We 'older' folks need to step back and support their innovative ideas and courage. This status quo has got to go!!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Raindrop!

You are refreshing!

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
atomic

Then do I understand you to say that the Bible words quoted do not apply to government, to Caesar, to Reagan, to Obama, to any Senator or Representative?

Not even to the Church! But only to you and your attitude and good works as you personally see it?
Man that is power! Doesn't require any laws, even though we are a nation of laws.

ts.atomic
ts.atomic's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/24/2010
I agree, you *are* bonkers

Yes - that scripture applies to individuals - as well as the individuals that comprise govt, but not to "govt" itself. The LORD wants you to make those choices of your own free will. If the govt uses it's thugs who ultimately force you at threat of gunpoint or incarceration to be charitable or giving, then it is neither. You don't have to like it, but your use of force does not equate to my free-will and no matter how you try to twist it, you can not bend scripture enough to justify this health-scam atrocity.

Your disconnect seems to be that you think government run health-care is more about "health-care" than it is about "government" and if so, you are pathetically mistaken.