Power corrupts all and of course there were abuses by the last Admin but this one is rising to new levels.

Krypton, you are ascribing claims that I haven't made...and your continued personal attacks show how vapid your position really is. Keep trying to belittle us with hate and just wait to see what happens in the next election.

You probably think free healthcare for all is attainable when it is the poor who will be fronting the bill. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...ss_opinion_main

quote:

Or consider a single worker earning $20,600 and buying an individual "silver" policy with a premium at $5,000. Again according to CBO, if his income rises to $26,500, his subsidy plummets to $2,700 from $4,400 (including a cost-sharing subsidy that goes away). This is a 29% marginal tax; moving to other income levels yields increases in the neighborhood of 20% to 23% for both individuals and families. Jim Capretta, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, calculates that when combined with other policies like the Earned Income Tax Credit that also phase out, the effective marginal rate would rise to nearly 70% at twice the poverty level. The incentives for low-wage workers are especially perverse. The exchanges give them a huge break and then take it away gradually as their income goes up. Usually such phase-outs are used to make sure "the rich" don't benefit from IRS dispensations, but here they will have a giant effect on decisions about whether and how much to work, since each additional hour worked reduces the subsidy.

This confirms that it is not about reducing costs, it is about CONTROL plain and simple. Socialism only results in an equalization of suffering across the masses.

Keep up the attacks.

Last edited by vinnie97 on Oct-19-2009 at 22:08

Are you posting author-less newspaper editorials as evidence of socialism?

___________________

Based on that tax code interpretation, how is it anything BUT socialism? Since you can't refute the claims, the author is obviously full of shit, I gather?

Basically, we're at an impasse...you all believe increasing the size of government to gargantuan levels and allowing them to meddle in every facet of our lives can only improve the standard of living. We differ greatly on that point...because power corrupts and behemoths are rarely efficient.

BTW, what would a kid gain from championing his one-sided political viewpoints with a host of threads and party-approved messages. It reeks and is just more evidence of the monopolizing tactics this Administration is trying to engage with the media. Here's more of that evidence that you claim I don't have, Krypton: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/10/15/leaked-memo-reveals-the-white-house-has-control-of-your-television-set/

More tactics that are too subtle for you to notice or care about.

Last edited by vinnie97 on Oct-19-2009 at 22:18

Right, go take a political philosophy class and then we can discuss what socialism entails.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Krypton, the evidence is all around you...only you are too thick to see it. And your continued personal attacks show how vapid your position really is. Keep trying to belittle us with hate and just wait to see what happens in the next election.

Ah, of course. I am the one who has to prove your kooky assertions. LOL. If there is anything I said that wasn't true, let me know...

quote:

You probably think free healthcare for all is attainable when it is the poor who will be fronting the bill. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...ss_opinion_main

Free? Who said "free"? Not I. Nor anyone who advocates it. It's paid for by the tax payers smart one. How about this. Instead of buying multi-billion dollar weapons systems we don't even need, let's get the government to take its rightful place in providing a primary public service for its citizens instead of trying to liberate shithole countries.

quote:

This confirms that it is not about reducing costs, it is about CONTROL plain and simple. Socialism only results in an equalization of suffering across the masses.

You confirmed faults in a healthcare bill equated to a government attempt to control the healthcare sector with nefarious intentions? Ah I see. In order to turn the country into Nazi Germany, they have to control the hospitals!

One thing is for sure. We'r the only first world country that tolerates private insurance companies profiting from sick people.

quote:

Keep up the attacks.

My "attacks" are proportional to the ridiculous nature of your comments.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Oct-20-2009 at 00:01

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ah, of course. I am the one who has to prove your kooky assertions. LOL. If there is anything I said that wasn't true, let me know... Free? Who said "free"? Not I. Nor anyone who advocates it. It's paid for by the tax payers smart one. How about this. Instead of buying multi-billion dollar weapons systems we don't even need, let's get the government to take its rightful place in providing a primary public service for its citizens instead of trying to liberate shithole countries. My "attacks" are proportional to the ridiculous nature of your comments.

Krypton, I edited the post above and added some evidence suggestive of this Admin's nefarious tactics.

Your suggestion of redirecting funds is a tricky one since we are expected to be the world police and we have military bases the world over. It's a nice utopian ideal but how is it feasible in today's world when there are Venezeulas, Irans and North Koreas (Russia and China are not far behind) that don't seriously concern themselves with world opinion and UN directives? 9/11 required some kind of serious response and your suggestion that we do nothing (as opposed to invading Afghan and attacking the Taliban) would have been countered as ridiculous at best and treasonous at worst post 9/11. (I'm not opening that can of worms about Iraq)

Just exiting the country after diminishing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghan would have created a power vacuum that would just return to haunt us in later years. That's one area where Obama has an iota of sense (unfortunately, the Rules of Engagement that are being applied and the reluctance to devote the required number of troops are only devolving the situation into Vietnam Part Deuce). So no, it would be very difficult to redirect defense spending to healthcare in this current world climate. It would also result in ballooning deficits with which future generations would be shackled, not to mention if another disaster on the world stage happened to occur requiring an influx of defense spending.

This is vinnie at his neighbor's party last weekend.

___________________

Set Archive | TA DJ Challenge

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Just exiting the country after diminishing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghan would have created a power vacuum that would just return to haunt us in later years. That's one area where Obama has an iota of sense (unfortunately, the Rules of Engagement that are being applied and the reluctance to devote the required number of troops are only devolving the situation into Vietnam Part Deuce). So no, it would be very difficult to redirect defense spending to healthcare in this current world climate.

Under your logic, we are going to be at war for 100 years. Why didn't we make YOU president?

Are you friends with this guy?

___________________

Set Archive | TA DJ Challenge

That's original and well done on addressing the points and concerns brought forth. Name a prior admin that has tried to inject the level of influence on the media that the current one is desperately attempting.

I'm going to leave this liberal hotbed to all of you so you can lather yourselves up in utopian fantasies.

EDIT: Whoa, it's your boy Obama who is only taking Afganistan half seriously and seems to think the Taliban are reformed and of no concern. Half-measures aren't going to end this in 100 years or 1000 years.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Krypton, I edited the post above and added some evidence suggestive of this Admin's nefarious tactics.

I'll play courtroom judge with you. The 9/11 truthers couldn't bring a valid case before me, but alas, I give everyone a chance.

1) What crime are you accusing the Obama Administration of?
2) Present the evidence of your accusation.

quote:

Your suggestion of redirecting funds is a tricky one since we are expected to be the world police and we have military bases the world over. It's a nice utopian ideal but how is it feasible in today's world when there are Venezeulas, Irans and North Koreas

Who expects us to be the world police? Neocons, I'll give you that. What is utopian is the idea that America can spend 50% of the entire world's military expenditures while maintaining exorbitant deficits/debts. The UN is supposed to be the decision maker in international police actions.

quote:

(Russia and China are not far behind) that don't seriously concern themselves with world opinion and UN directives?

Are you asserting Russia and China are "rogue" powers? You know, in 2003, we didn't concern ourselves with UN approval either.

quote:

9/11 required some kind of serious response and your suggestion that we do nothing (as opposed to invading Afghan and attacking the Taliban) would have been countered as ridiculous at best and treasonous at worst post 9/11. (I'm not opening that can of worms about Iraq)

Nowhere did I ever say do nothing after 9/11. What I am against is occupying entire countries because they harbor terrorists. Send in special forces, launch some missiles, fine.

quote:

Just exiting the country after diminishing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghan would have created a power vacuum that would just return to haunt us in later years. That's one area where Obama has an iota of sense (unfortunately, the Rules of Engagement that are being applied and the reluctance to devote the required number of troops are only devolving the situation into Vietnam Part Deuce). So no, it would be very difficult to redirect defense spending to healthcare in this current world climate. It would also result in ballooning deficits with which future generations would be shackled, not to mention if another disaster on the world stage happened to occur requiring an influx of defense spending.

What doesn't make sense is fighting a domestic insurgency (one that never attacked us) in a country whose national past-time is warfare. These guys have been doing it for centuries, have given superpowers bloody noses, and our adventure there will be no different. It's only a matter of time before the Pentagon/NATO realizes it.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Oct-20-2009 at 00:22

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 That's original and well done on addressing the points and concerns brought forth. Name a prior admin that has tried to inject the level of influence on the media that the current one is desperately attempting. I'm going to leave this liberal hotbed to all of you so you can lather yourselves up in utopian fantasies. EDIT: Whoa, it's your boy Obama who is only taking Afganistan half seriously and seems to think the Taliban are reformed and of no concern. Half-measures aren't going to end this in 100 years or 1000 years.

I never expected you to stay long. Your kind were never tolerant of criticism. Come back when you can handle the scrutiny. I certainly will be waiting. I have no idea why you would come to a political discussion forum and not expect harsh criticism of your opinions. There is no free ride here.

___________________

I always thought it was this douchebag - http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=336517

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul