30 million without bank accounts >>OR<< if it is good enough for health care....
Beam Me Up Scotty
health care....
Obama and Pelosi will want everyone to have "bank accounts" so that the
government can track your wealth.... There is no reason that the rest
of us should absorb the cost of bank accounts and the banking care
industry while 30 million people push that cost onto the rest of us.
No doubt there is a law in the offing that will say you *SHALL* have a
bank account or you will have a $5,000 fine and or 5 years in prison.
It is obviously as Constitutional as forcing people to have health
insurance...
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
For *your WELFARE* there is the CHINESE MASTERCARD, but Freedom is
priceless.
Jerry Okamura
know why they do not have bank accountrs. Then you have to figure out a way
to determine which one of those who do not have bank accounts, why they
don't have bank accounts. Of those I would suspect a good number of them
are very poor and don't have enought money to even have a bank account. So,
the odds are even though there are many who do not have bank accounts there
is not way that you can force them to pay for something they do not want to
pay for, or won't pay even if you try to force them to pay. I would also
suspect that a good number of those working the economic underground, or are
career criminals, along with illegal aliens are not going to have bank
accounts. So while there may be as many as 30 million, there is nothing
much the government can really do about it.
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
message news:4B16DC9F...@Talk-n-dog.com...
Beam Me Up Scotty
> First you have to know who does not have bank accounts. Second you have
> to know why they do not have bank accountrs. Then you have to figure
> out a way to determine which one of those who do not have bank accounts,
> why they don't have bank accounts. Of those I would suspect a good
> number of them are very poor and don't have enought money to even have a
> bank account. So, the odds are even though there are many who do not
> have bank accounts there is not way that you can force them to pay for
> something they do not want to pay for, or won't pay even if you try to
> force them to pay. I would also suspect that a good number of those
> working the economic underground, or are career criminals, along with
> illegal aliens are not going to have bank accounts. So while there may
> be as many as 30 million, there is nothing much the government can
> really do about it.
>
*JUST LIKE HEALTH CARE*
> "Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
> message news:4B16DC9F...@Talk-n-dog.com...
>> 30 million without bank accounts >>OR<< if it is good enough for
>> health care....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Obama and Pelosi will want everyone to have "bank accounts" so that the
>> government can track your wealth.... There is no reason that the rest
>> of us should absorb the cost of bank accounts and the banking care
>> industry while 30 million people push that cost onto the rest of us.
>>
>> No doubt there is a law in the offing that will say you *SHALL* have a
>> bank account or you will have a $5,000 fine and or 5 years in prison.
>>
>> It is obviously as Constitutional as forcing people to have health
>> insurance...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> *BE VERY CONCERNED*
>>
>> For *your WELFARE* there is the CHINESE MASTERCARD, but Freedom is
>> priceless.
>
--
Jeff Strickland
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jCDRm.78566$Xf2...@newsfe12.iad...
> First you have to know who does not have bank accounts. Second you have
> to know why they do not have bank accountrs. Then you have to figure out
> a way to determine which one of those who do not have bank accounts, why
> they don't have bank accounts. Of those I would suspect a good number of
> them are very poor and don't have enought money to even have a bank
> account. So, the odds are even though there are many who do not have bank
> accounts there is not way that you can force them to pay for something
> they do not want to pay for, or won't pay even if you try to force them to
> pay. I would also suspect that a good number of those working the
> economic underground, or are career criminals, along with illegal aliens
> are not going to have bank accounts. So while there may be as many as 30
> million, there is nothing much the government can really do about it.
>
Which is precisely the point relative to health care. The same dynamics are
in play, and the government is going to "fix" the disparity by forcing
everyone to participate in a program they can't afford and many don't even
want. If they (the government) takes enough of your money, they can pay for
whatever they want your neighbor to have that he doesn't have now. If
somebody decides that everybody has a right to a bank account, the new
accounts will be paid for using the same model being used to pay for the
health care coverage that the government insists you have a right to have.
Michael Coburn
> 30 million without bank accounts >>OR<< if it is good enough for
> health care....
>
>
>
>
> Obama and Pelosi will want everyone to have "bank accounts" so that the
> government can track your wealth....
Obama and Pelosi want everyone to have bank accounts so that government
can deposit funds directly to those accounts as opposed to sending out
checks for tax refunds and stimulus and the like. There is also
insurance reimbursement and the like. It would be very nice if the buggy
whip conservatoons would join the rest of us here in the 21'st century.
> There is no reason that the rest
> of us should absorb the cost of bank accounts and the banking care
> industry while 30 million people push that cost onto the rest of us.
Most checking accounts are free, lying pig. Mine certainly is. And it
direct deposit costs virtually nothing while creating mailing and
clearing checks DOES. Thanks for proving what a total moron you are ---
AGAIN.
> No doubt there is a law in the offing that will say you *SHALL* have a
> bank account or you will have a $5,000 fine and or 5 years in prison.
I have doubt of this, lying pig. But keep lying. The Republican lie
production is falling way behind real events. They need you on the team.
> It is obviously as Constitutional as forcing people to have health
> insurance...
What other shit will you lying pigs be making up today?
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:31:11 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> 30 million without bank accounts >>OR<< if it is good enough for
>> health care....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Obama and Pelosi will want everyone to have "bank accounts" so that the
>> government can track your wealth....
>
> Obama and Pelosi want everyone to have bank accounts so that government
> can deposit funds directly to those accounts as opposed to sending out
Do I care what they want? Do teh Amish that have no electric or
computers care?
> checks for tax refunds and stimulus and the like. There is also
> insurance reimbursement and the like. It would be very nice if the buggy
> whip conservatoons would join the rest of us here in the 21'st century.
So we all have to live by your standards? Any other micromanaging of my
life that you plan?
>> There is no reason that the rest
>> of us should absorb the cost of bank accounts and the banking care
>> industry while 30 million people push that cost onto the rest of us.
>
> Most checking accounts are free, lying pig. Mine certainly is. And it
just like most health care visits by the poor are free. That didn't stop
them from forcing us to have insurance.
> direct deposit costs virtually nothing while creating mailing and
> clearing checks DOES. Thanks for proving what a total moron you are ---
> AGAIN.
I had an online checking that I closed out.... just like I had health
insurance that I canceled.
>> No doubt there is a law in the offing that will say you *SHALL* have a
>> bank account or you will have a $5,000 fine and or 5 years in prison.
>
> I have doubt of this, lying pig. But keep lying. The Republican lie
> production is falling way behind real events. They need you on the team.
First Obama-care and then Obama-banking
>> It is obviously as Constitutional as forcing people to have health
>> insurance...
>
> What other shit will you lying pigs be making up today?
How can one be constitutional and the other NOT? Government laws forcing
you to buy Health insurance and Bank accounts.
Go ahead and make the case I want to see this....
====>
--
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:31:11 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> 30 million without bank accounts >>OR<< if it is good enough for
>>> health care....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Obama and Pelosi will want everyone to have "bank accounts" so that
>>> the
>>> government can track your wealth....
>>
>> Obama and Pelosi want everyone to have bank accounts so that government
>> can deposit funds directly to those accounts as opposed to sending out
>
> Do I care what they want? Do teh Amish that have no electric or
> computers care?
Of course you don't care, you self centered greedy Republican.
>> checks for tax refunds and stimulus and the like. There is also
>> insurance reimbursement and the like. It would be very nice if the
>> buggy whip conservatoons would join the rest of us here in the 21'st
>> century.
>
> So we all have to live by your standards? Any other micromanaging of my
> life that you plan?
If we can reduce the number of throwback cave dwelling assholes then we
can reduce the costs associated with dealing with them.
>>> There is no reason that the rest
>>> of us should absorb the cost of bank accounts and the banking care
>>> industry while 30 million people push that cost onto the rest of us.
>>
>> Most checking accounts are free, lying pig. Mine certainly is. And it
>
> just like most health care visits by the poor are free. That didn't stop
> them from forcing us to have insurance.
Get a life.
>> direct deposit costs virtually nothing while creating mailing and
>> clearing checks DOES. Thanks for proving what a total moron you are
>> --- AGAIN.
>
> I had an online checking that I closed out.... just like I had health
> insurance that I canceled.
Get a life.
>>> No doubt there is a law in the offing that will say you *SHALL* have a
>>> bank account or you will have a $5,000 fine and or 5 years in prison.
>>
>> I have doubt of this, lying pig. But keep lying. The Republican lie
>> production is falling way behind real events. They need you on the
>> team.
>
> First Obama-care and then Obama-banking
>
>
>>> It is obviously as Constitutional as forcing people to have health
>>> insurance...
>>
>> What other shit will you lying pigs be making up today?
>
> How can one be constitutional and the other NOT? Government laws forcing
> you to buy Health insurance and Bank accounts.
>
> Go ahead and make the case I want to see this....
> ====>
As I said, lying pig: There is no law that necessitates a bank account.
In that way they are different for certain. But the fewer throwback
loons there are then the less costly will be the care and feeding of them.
For the foreseeable future government will still have to be able to
create checks and send them in the US mail because throwbacks like
yourself will insist on it. You are, of course, one of the morons that,
at the same time, bitches about the postal service.
Michael Coburn
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:jCDRm.78566$Xf2...@newsfe12.iad...
>> First you have to know who does not have bank accounts. Second you
>> have to know why they do not have bank accountrs. Then you have to
>> figure out a way to determine which one of those who do not have bank
>> accounts, why they don't have bank accounts. Of those I would suspect
>> a good number of them are very poor and don't have enought money to
>> even have a bank account. So, the odds are even though there are many
>> who do not have bank accounts there is not way that you can force them
>> to pay for something they do not want to pay for, or won't pay even if
>> you try to force them to pay. I would also suspect that a good number
>> of those working the economic underground, or are career criminals,
>> along with illegal aliens are not going to have bank accounts. So
>> while there may be as many as 30 million, there is nothing much the
>> government can really do about it.
>>
>>
> Which is precisely the point relative to health care. The same dynamics
> are in play, and the government is going to "fix" the disparity by
> forcing everyone to participate in a program they can't afford and many
> don't even want.
How many lies are in that one statement? At least 2.
1. Government is going to PAY FOR health insurance for people who can't
afford it.
2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
ripping off the rest of us.
The favorite means of lying used by the typical Republican is the "false
analogy".
> If they (the government) takes enough of your money,
> they can pay for whatever they want your neighbor to have that he
> doesn't have now. If somebody decides that everybody has a right to a
> bank account, the new accounts will be paid for using the same model
> being used to pay for the health care coverage that the government
> insists you have a right to have.
This is sorta interesting in that most checking accounts are provided for
free by the banks. They obviously pay for these services with a share of
the "interest" they collect on loans. It's sorta like "socialism" at its
finest. The US Government SAVES money by depositing directly to your
bank account instead of writing a check and mailing it. So in a way, it
is sorta like health care reform. By centralizing all the health records
a huge amount of money is saved along with a lot of mistakes being
eliminated.
Jeff Strickland
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hf75q...@news7.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:37:09 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:jCDRm.78566$Xf2...@newsfe12.iad...
>>> First you have to know who does not have bank accounts. Second you
>>> have to know why they do not have bank accountrs. Then you have to
>>> figure out a way to determine which one of those who do not have bank
>>> accounts, why they don't have bank accounts. Of those I would suspect
>>> a good number of them are very poor and don't have enought money to
>>> even have a bank account. So, the odds are even though there are many
>>> who do not have bank accounts there is not way that you can force them
>>> to pay for something they do not want to pay for, or won't pay even if
>>> you try to force them to pay. I would also suspect that a good number
>>> of those working the economic underground, or are career criminals,
>>> along with illegal aliens are not going to have bank accounts. So
>>> while there may be as many as 30 million, there is nothing much the
>>> government can really do about it.
>>>
>>>
>> Which is precisely the point relative to health care. The same dynamics
>> are in play, and the government is going to "fix" the disparity by
>> forcing everyone to participate in a program they can't afford and many
>> don't even want.
>
> How many lies are in that one statement? At least 2.
>
> 1. Government is going to PAY FOR health insurance for people who can't
> afford it.
>
That's right, and they are going to pay for the bamk accounts for those that
can't afford one. (Of course, this is a ficticious argument, now.) The point
is, everyone deserves health care and everyone deserves a bank account. Only
the rich or the working have health care, the government is going to tax the
health care you have to subsidize the health care your neighbor does not
have. They can do the same thing with your checking account. More
accurately, they can make the same argument that everybody deserves
<whatever>, then tax the <whatever> you have to pay for the <whatever> your
neighbor does not have.
> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
> ripping off the rest of us.
>
Crooks? For not buying health insurance because they are 22 and have never
been sick a day in their lives? How in Hell does that make somebody a crook?
Michael Coburn
That is a lie of course as bank accounts are not mandatory and such
accounts are already paid by the banks customers themselves. It works
just like any sort of social service system run by any major business and
it will not change by virtue of more people opening checking accounts.
> (Of course, this is a ficticious argument, now.)
It was ALWAYS fictitious.
> The point is, everyone deserves health care and everyone deserves a bank
> account.
That, of course, isn't the point, but you will continue to lie about it.
> Only the rich or the working have health care, the government
> is going to tax the health care you have to subsidize the health care
> your neighbor does not have.
Yet another lie. HR 3962 imposes a tax surcharge on incomes exceeding a
million dollars to subsidize health insurance for "the health care your
neighbor does not have".
So... You are lying.
In fact: Since a great many people who had been relying upon "free"
services due to lack of insurance, will now be paid for by this subsidy,
then YOUR health insurance premiums SHOULD come down. Those premiums
were PAYING the shifted cost of the "FREE" care. The actual economics of
this is to move the cost from the typical insurance buyer to the very
wealthy.
> They can do the same thing with your
> checking account. More accurately, they can make the same argument that
> everybody deserves <whatever>,
Yet that is NOT the argument being set forth by the sane people. _THAT_
argument in regard to health care is being set forth by the moonbats on
the far left. It may or may not be valid and your mileage may vary. The
economics argument is the one I have given. And it IS NOT actually
debatable.
> then tax the <whatever> you have to pay
> for the <whatever> your neighbor does not have.
In the case of HR 3962 -- the ONLY BILL PASSED BY ANY BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT -- the vast majority of "you" will actually be getting a break
on your insurance premiums, and no tax increases.
>> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
>> ripping off the rest of us.
>>
>>
> Crooks? For not buying health insurance because they are 22 and have
> never been sick a day in their lives?
Yes.
> How in Hell does that make
> somebody a crook?
When they crack up on the freeway while chasing a member of the opposite
sex, and while under the influence, they will be cared for at _MY_
expense.
They have stolen _MY_ money and the money of the more responsible members
of the society.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:21:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:31:11 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>
>>>> 30 million without bank accounts >>OR<< if it is good enough for
>>>> health care....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obama and Pelosi will want everyone to have "bank accounts" so that
>>>> the
>>>> government can track your wealth....
>>> Obama and Pelosi want everyone to have bank accounts so that government
>>> can deposit funds directly to those accounts as opposed to sending out
>> Do I care what they want? Do teh Amish that have no electric or
>> computers care?
>
> Of course you don't care, you self centered greedy Republican.
>
Like an old lady you're more worried about what I do than I am.
>>> checks for tax refunds and stimulus and the like. There is also
>>> insurance reimbursement and the like. It would be very nice if the
>>> buggy whip conservatoons would join the rest of us here in the 21'st
>>> century.
>> So we all have to live by your standards? Any other micromanaging of my
>> life that you plan?
>
> If we can reduce the number of throwback cave dwelling assholes then we
> can reduce the costs associated with dealing with them.
>
We? You got a mouse in your pocket?
More of that, eugenics you progressives are all interested in either
breeding a superior world or maybe euthanize the ones you don't like,
we've all seen the likes of you before.
Today it's me because you're trying to take my freedom, tomorrow it's
someone else.
Jeff Strickland
It's a metaphor. You know what a metaphor is, right?
If they don't want it but can afford it, they have assets, those assets are
taken first. If they don't have assets, then they can't afford the insurance
anyway, so your argument is the stuff that falls out of your ass.
You're okay with the government stealing your money, but object to yuppies
doing it? I'm not sure I understand how you can rationalize that one.
Poetic Justice
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:37:09 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:jCDRm.78566$Xf2...@newsfe12.iad...
>>> First you have to know who does not have bank accounts. Second you
>>> have to know why they do not have bank accountrs. Then you have to
>>> figure out a way to determine which one of those who do not have bank
>>> accounts, why they don't have bank accounts. Of those I would suspect
>>> a good number of them are very poor and don't have enought money to
>>> even have a bank account. So, the odds are even though there are many
>>> who do not have bank accounts there is not way that you can force them
>>> to pay for something they do not want to pay for, or won't pay even if
>>> you try to force them to pay. I would also suspect that a good number
>>> of those working the economic underground, or are career criminals,
>>> along with illegal aliens are not going to have bank accounts. So
>>> while there may be as many as 30 million, there is nothing much the
>>> government can really do about it.
>>>
>>>
>> Which is precisely the point relative to health care. The same dynamics
>> are in play, and the government is going to "fix" the disparity by
>> forcing everyone to participate in a program they can't afford and many
>> don't even want.
>
> How many lies are in that one statement? At least 2.
>
> 1. Government is going to PAY FOR health insurance for people who can't
> afford it.
Where did government get all that money?
> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
> ripping off the rest of us.
Yes government is ripping off the rest of us...
Did the "many" hold a gun to your head like you want to do to them?
> The favorite means of lying used by the typical Republican is the "false
> analogy".
As opposed to your false premise?
>> If they (the government) takes enough of your money,
>> they can pay for whatever they want your neighbor to have that he
>> doesn't have now. If somebody decides that everybody has a right to a
>> bank account, the new accounts will be paid for using the same model
>> being used to pay for the health care coverage that the government
>> insists you have a right to have.
>
> This is sorta interesting in that most checking accounts are provided for
> free by the banks. They obviously pay for these services with a share of
most require a minimum balance for a "free" account that's not free.
> the "interest" they collect on loans. It's sorta like "socialism" at its
> finest. The US Government SAVES money by depositing directly to your
Which is partly why I no longer have a checking account, I am *NOT* a
socialist.
> bank account instead of writing a check and mailing it. So in a way, it
> is sorta like health care reform. By centralizing all the health records
I am betting that Obama and Pelosi think so, I'm betting that
*Obama-Wealth-Care* isn't very far down the road after we get
Obama-HEALTH-care
> a huge amount of money is saved along with a lot of mistakes being
the government saving money is the best joke I've heard all day and I
heard some good Tiger Woods jokes.
> eliminated.
Eliminated mistakes, Government? The same government that brought you
The Post Office and FEMA and the SMART BOMBING of the Chinese Embassy in
Bosnia? Did you mean that government?
--
Michael Coburn
Nope. The only asset the guy had was his fast car and the ass'et' he was
chasing at the time. He has a good job so as to make the car payments
and the bar tabs. I _KNOW_ how that works. When I was young I had health
insurance through an employer, but a lot of my pals didn't. Yet they
seldom missed a night out.
> If they don't have assets, then they can't afford the
> insurance anyway, so your argument is the stuff that falls out of your
> ass.
Nope. My arguments are direct and to the point. The responsible buy
insurance. The irresponsible buy fast cars and fast women.
> You're okay with the government stealing your money, but object to
> yuppies doing it? I'm not sure I understand how you can rationalize that
> one.
The government does not steal my money if the government uses the money
taken in taxes to provide for education, physical infrastructure, and
social insurance with a fair amount allocated to defense. Unfortunately,
that is not the case. 65% of the discretionary budget is spent on
imperialism and weapons. It will be interesting to see the budget for
the "surge" and even more interesting to see what happens to the
Republicans and their insistence on deficit reduction. We have Democrats
in the House taking various stands on not appropriating the money for the
surge unless there is a tax increase to pay for it. The House Democrats
did the same thing with Health Care Reform. They insisted on tax revenue
to pay for the subsidies.
As regards the yuppies, I can only say that they must learn
responsibility like the rest of us. I have, at this point, paid for my
health insurance for life. I served my country and have VA health which
more than meets the requirements for health care coverage. But I paid
for health insurance most of my life, from the time I left the US Navy
till age 62.
Michael Coburn
From people with incomes in excess of one million dollars.
>> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
>> ripping off the rest of us.
>
> Yes government is ripping off the rest of us...
>
> Did the "many" hold a gun to your head like you want to do to them?
the fact is that the "few" are holding the guns in most cases in that
corporations and the rich have most control over government. Evey now
and then the people make a small advance as with HR 3962.
>> The favorite means of lying used by the typical Republican is the
>> "false analogy".
>
> As opposed to your false premise?
No. Just false analogy regardless.
>>> If they (the government) takes enough of your money, they can pay for
>>> whatever they want your neighbor to have that he doesn't have now. If
>>> somebody decides that everybody has a right to a bank account, the new
>>> accounts will be paid for using the same model being used to pay for
>>> the health care coverage that the government insists you have a right
>>> to have.
>>
>> This is sorta interesting in that most checking accounts are provided
>> for free by the banks. They obviously pay for these services with a
>> share of
>
> most require a minimum balance for a "free" account that's not free.
Many do not require ANY minimum. But woe be to you if you overdraw. You
MUST make an initial deposit, but after that there is NO minimum.
>> the "interest" they collect on loans. It's sorta like "socialism" at
>> its finest. The US Government SAVES money by depositing directly to
>> your
>
> Which is partly why I no longer have a checking account, I am *NOT* a
> socialist.
But you are a MORON.
>> bank account instead of writing a check and mailing it. So in a way,
>> it is sorta like health care reform. By centralizing all the health
>> records
>
> I am betting that Obama and Pelosi think so, I'm betting that
> *Obama-Wealth-Care* isn't very far down the road after we get
> Obama-HEALTH-care
If it is the checking thing, I hope you are right. It is shameful, the
wealth we are wasting by check clearing services at the Fed and messing
with money orders. REEEEEELY stupid. Even worse are people who don't
even have a checking account and waste time paying by other means. How
totally backwards and ridiculous can it get???? I have written a total
of 6 checks this year. Most of my stuff I do on line and I have auto pay
for most of my utilities and the like. But a checking account is
essential to those services. My pay checks were all direct deposit, my
tax refunds were direct deposit. Rather stupid to do it in some other
way.
>> a huge amount of money is saved along with a lot of mistakes being
>
> the government saving money is the best joke I've heard all day and I
> heard some good Tiger Woods jokes.
Spoken like a true Republitard wearing a coonskin cap.
>> eliminated.
>
> Eliminated mistakes, Government? The same government that brought you
> The Post Office and FEMA and the SMART BOMBING of the Chinese Embassy in
> Bosnia? Did you mean that government?
Oh yes.... You're the guy that sends money orders through the mail and
wants a check for his tax refund.
Poetic Justice
The tax will be on *medical devices* and people buying Oxygen, wheel
chairs and pacemakers aren't all millionaires.
>>> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
>>> ripping off the rest of us.
>> Yes government is ripping off the rest of us...
>>
>> Did the "many" hold a gun to your head like you want to do to them?
>
> the fact is that the "few" are holding the guns in most cases in that
> corporations and the rich have most control over government. Evey now
> and then the people make a small advance as with HR 3962.
The government holds the gun.... and they are doing the pointing.
>>>> If they (the government) takes enough of your money, they can pay for
>>>> whatever they want your neighbor to have that he doesn't have now. If
>>>> somebody decides that everybody has a right to a bank account, the new
>>>> accounts will be paid for using the same model being used to pay for
>>>> the health care coverage that the government insists you have a right
>>>> to have.
>>> This is sorta interesting in that most checking accounts are provided
>>> for free by the banks. They obviously pay for these services with a
>>> share of
>> most require a minimum balance for a "free" account that's not free.
>
> Many do not require ANY minimum. But woe be to you if you overdraw. You
> MUST make an initial deposit, but after that there is NO minimum.
So the rich and poor pay.
>>> the "interest" they collect on loans. It's sorta like "socialism" at
>>> its finest. The US Government SAVES money by depositing directly to
>>> your
>> Which is partly why I no longer have a checking account, I am *NOT* a
>> socialist.
>
> But you are a MORON.
But I am right.
>>> bank account instead of writing a check and mailing it. So in a way,
>>> it is sorta like health care reform. By centralizing all the health
>>> records
>> I am betting that Obama and Pelosi think so, I'm betting that
>> *Obama-Wealth-Care* isn't very far down the road after we get
>> *Obama-HEALTH-care*
>
> If it is the checking thing, I hope you are right. It is shameful, the
> wealth we are wasting by check clearing services at the Fed and messing
> with money orders. REEEEEELY stupid. Even worse are people who don't
> even have a checking account and waste time paying by other means. How
And you Libs intend to force everyone to do what you think is best.
Rather than allow people a choice.
> totally backwards and ridiculous can it get???? I have written a total
> of 6 checks this year. Most of my stuff I do on line and I have auto pay
> for most of my utilities and the like. But a checking account is
> essential to those services. My pay checks were all direct deposit, my
> tax refunds were direct deposit. Rather stupid to do it in some other
> way.
I will chuckle when an internet virus hits so hard, you have no money
online. Maybe someone will empty your accounts for you.
>>> a huge amount of money is saved along with a lot of mistakes being
>> the government saving money is the best joke I've heard all day and I
>> heard some good Tiger Woods jokes.
>
> Spoken like a true Republitard wearing a coonskin cap.
>
>>> eliminated.
>> Eliminated mistakes, Government? The same government that brought you
>> The Post Office and FEMA and the SMART BOMBING of the Chinese Embassy in
>> Bosnia? Did you mean that government?
>
> Oh yes.... You're the guy that sends money orders through the mail and
> wants a check for his tax refund.
Actually I have no reason to get a "refund" of my own money from the
government, *why would I have my paycheck sent to the government* first
and then get what they haven't spent refunded to me?
I have a credit card for online. I can go to the Store/Bank and put
money on it by making a Credit Card payment. I also use a pre-loaded
credit card. I may get rid of my credit cards soon, I'm slowly reducing
my connections to the Banking system that is government run and failing
like all other government run entities.
--
Poetic Justice
Actually article 1 Section 8 specifically says what congress is allowed
to spend taxes on.
Jerry Okamura
>
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:jCDRm.78566$Xf2...@newsfe12.iad...
>>> First you have to know who does not have bank accounts. Second you
>>> have to know why they do not have bank accountrs. Then you have to
>>> figure out a way to determine which one of those who do not have bank
>>> accounts, why they don't have bank accounts. Of those I would suspect
>>> a good number of them are very poor and don't have enought money to
>>> even have a bank account. So, the odds are even though there are many
>>> who do not have bank accounts there is not way that you can force them
>>> to pay for something they do not want to pay for, or won't pay even if
>>> you try to force them to pay. I would also suspect that a good number
>>> of those working the economic underground, or are career criminals,
>>> along with illegal aliens are not going to have bank accounts. So
>>> while there may be as many as 30 million, there is nothing much the
>>> government can really do about it.
>>>
>>>
>> Which is precisely the point relative to health care. The same dynamics
>> are in play, and the government is going to "fix" the disparity by
>> forcing everyone to participate in a program they can't afford and many
>> don't even want.
>
> How many lies are in that one statement? At least 2.
>
> 1. Government is going to PAY FOR health insurance for people who can't
> afford it.
If the government is not going to pay for it, how come they have to spend
money for this programs?
>
> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
> ripping off the rest of us.
Anyone who does not buy health insrurance is "ripping us all off" unless
they are going to pay for their own healthdare needs.
>
> The favorite means of lying used by the typical Republican is the "false
> analogy".
>
>> If they (the government) takes enough of your money,
>> they can pay for whatever they want your neighbor to have that he
>> doesn't have now. If somebody decides that everybody has a right to a
>> bank account, the new accounts will be paid for using the same model
>> being used to pay for the health care coverage that the government
>> insists you have a right to have.
>
> This is sorta interesting in that most checking accounts are provided for
> free by the banks. They obviously pay for these services with a share of
> the "interest" they collect on loans. It's sorta like "socialism" at its
> finest. The US Government SAVES money by depositing directly to your
> bank account instead of writing a check and mailing it. So in a way, it
> is sorta like health care reform. By centralizing all the health records
> a huge amount of money is saved along with a lot of mistakes being
> eliminated.
If you want to avoid the scrutiny of the government, you do not want to have
a checking account. That is why there are some who work the economic
underground, or are career criminals don't put their money in a bank. And
yes, the "government" can "save" some money, but they cannot solve the cost
problem with healthcare due to medical inflation and it is medical inflation
that is the reason we have a "cost" problem.
Poetic Justice
$1 - $1.5 trillion dollars to cover ~35 million people
Once again government efficiency is just incredible.
>> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
>> ripping off the rest of us.
>
> Anyone who does not buy health insrurance is "ripping us all off" unless
> they are going to pay for their own healthdare needs.
Does that mean that anyone who has a fire is ripping the rest of us off
who did not have a fire to put out?
Michael Coburn
Yet the CONSUMER payments for such devices are covered by the insurance
systems created by this legislation.
>>>> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
>>>> ripping off the rest of us.
>>> Yes government is ripping off the rest of us...
>>>
>>> Did the "many" hold a gun to your head like you want to do to them?
>>
>> the fact is that the "few" are holding the guns in most cases in that
>> corporations and the rich have most control over government. Evey now
>> and then the people make a small advance as with HR 3962.
>
> The government holds the gun.... and they are doing the pointing.
The government is only a problem because it is owned by the rich and
works on behalf of the rich. A truly representative government that is
responsive to the people does not point the gun at the people.
>>>>> If they (the government) takes enough of your money, they can pay
>>>>> for whatever they want your neighbor to have that he doesn't have
>>>>> now. If somebody decides that everybody has a right to a bank
>>>>> account, the new accounts will be paid for using the same model
>>>>> being used to pay for the health care coverage that the government
>>>>> insists you have a right to have.
>>>> This is sorta interesting in that most checking accounts are provided
>>>> for free by the banks. They obviously pay for these services with a
>>>> share of
>>> most require a minimum balance for a "free" account that's not free.
>>
>> Many do not require ANY minimum. But woe be to you if you overdraw.
>> You MUST make an initial deposit, but after that there is NO minimum.
>
> So the rich and poor pay.
The poor cannot pay, moron. They have no assets with which to pay. That
is why they call em "poor".
>>>> the "interest" they collect on loans. It's sorta like "socialism" at
>>>> its finest. The US Government SAVES money by depositing directly to
>>>> your
>>> Which is partly why I no longer have a checking account, I am *NOT* a
>>> socialist.
>>
>> But you are a MORON.
>
> But I am right.
That seems to be the case with Republicans. They are MORONS, but they
are always riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightt. (according to
them).
>>>> bank account instead of writing a check and mailing it. So in a way,
>>>> it is sorta like health care reform. By centralizing all the health
>>>> records
>>> I am betting that Obama and Pelosi think so, I'm betting that
>>> *Obama-Wealth-Care* isn't very far down the road after we get
>>> *Obama-HEALTH-care*
>>
>> If it is the checking thing, I hope you are right. It is shameful, the
>> wealth we are wasting by check clearing services at the Fed and messing
>> with money orders. REEEEEELY stupid. Even worse are people who don't
>> even have a checking account and waste time paying by other means. How
>
> And you Libs intend to force everyone to do what you think is best.
> Rather than allow people a choice.
You have the choice of Somalia. You do not have the choice to
purposefully conduct yourself in a manner that causes harm to me simply
because you are a religious nut case.
>> totally backwards and ridiculous can it get???? I have written a total
>> of 6 checks this year. Most of my stuff I do on line and I have auto
>> pay for most of my utilities and the like. But a checking account is
>> essential to those services. My pay checks were all direct deposit, my
>> tax refunds were direct deposit. Rather stupid to do it in some other
>> way.
>
> I will chuckle when an internet virus hits so hard, you have no money
> online. Maybe someone will empty your accounts for you.
Please hold your breath awaiting the event.
>>>> a huge amount of money is saved along with a lot of mistakes being
>>> the government saving money is the best joke I've heard all day and I
>>> heard some good Tiger Woods jokes.
>>
>> Spoken like a true Republitard wearing a coonskin cap.
>>
>>>> eliminated.
>>> Eliminated mistakes, Government? The same government that brought you
>>> The Post Office and FEMA and the SMART BOMBING of the Chinese Embassy
>>> in Bosnia? Did you mean that government?
>>
>> Oh yes.... You're the guy that sends money orders through the mail and
>> wants a check for his tax refund.
>
>
>
>
> Actually I have no reason to get a "refund" of my own money from the
> government, *why would I have my paycheck sent to the government* first
> and then get what they haven't spent refunded to me?
We send money to government because government provides services to us
for which payment is due. That's actually pretty simple.
> I have a credit card for online. I can go to the Store/Bank and put
> money on it by making a Credit Card payment. I also use a pre-loaded
> credit card. I may get rid of my credit cards soon, I'm slowly reducing
> my connections to the Banking system that is government run and failing
> like all other government run entities.
If the banking system was actually government run then we would not be
having a problem, idiot. Government did not create securitization. The
freepers did. If government had kept the banks totally separate from
brokerages and securitization we wold not have a failing currency at this
point.
Poetic Justice
The insurance is paid by the poor consumers... The insurance company
doesn't work at a loss like the Government does.
So the rates for all will rise.... did Obama and Pelosi tell you that?
>>>>> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
>>>>> ripping off the rest of us.
>>>> Yes government is ripping off the rest of us...
>>>>
>>>> Did the "many" hold a gun to your head like you want to do to them?
>>> the fact is that the "few" are holding the guns in most cases in that
>>> corporations and the rich have most control over government. Evey now
>>> and then the people make a small advance as with HR 3962.
>> The government holds the gun.... and they are doing the pointing.
>
> The government is only a problem because it is owned by the rich and
> works on behalf of the rich. A truly representative government that is
> responsive to the people does not point the gun at the people.
You are the one voting to point that gun. It is Liberals NOT evil
corporate loving Republicans, pointing the gun at my head.
>>>>>> If they (the government) takes enough of your money, they can pay
>>>>>> for whatever they want your neighbor to have that he doesn't have
>>>>>> now. If somebody decides that everybody has a right to a bank
>>>>>> account, the new accounts will be paid for using the same model
>>>>>> being used to pay for the health care coverage that the government
>>>>>> insists you have a right to have.
>>>>> This is sorta interesting in that most checking accounts are provided
>>>>> for free by the banks. They obviously pay for these services with a
>>>>> share of
>>>> most require a minimum balance for a "free" account that's not free.
>>> Many do not require ANY minimum. But woe be to you if you overdraw.
>>> You MUST make an initial deposit, but after that there is NO minimum.
>> So the rich and poor pay.
>
> The poor cannot pay, moron. They have no assets with which to pay. That
> is why they call em "poor".
The poor pay with a loss of opportunity and a loss of freedom. The rich
lose all that and their belongings and security they worked to have.
>
>>>>> the "interest" they collect on loans. It's sorta like "socialism" at
>>>>> its finest. The US Government SAVES money by depositing directly to
>>>>> your
>>>> Which is partly why I no longer have a checking account, I am *NOT* a
>>>> socialist.
>>> But you are a MORON.
>> But I am right.
>
> That seems to be the case with Republicans. They are MORONS, but they
> are always riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightt. (according to
> them).
That is NOT true... the fact is that Liberals are never right but
Republicans are NOT always right, Libertarians are right more often than
either the Libs or Repubs.
>>>>> bank account instead of writing a check and mailing it. So in a way,
>>>>> it is sorta like health care reform. By centralizing all the health
>>>>> records
>>>> I am betting that Obama and Pelosi think so, I'm betting that
>>>> *Obama-Wealth-Care* isn't very far down the road after we get
>>>> *Obama-HEALTH-care*
>>> If it is the checking thing, I hope you are right. It is shameful, the
>>> wealth we are wasting by check clearing services at the Fed and messing
>>> with money orders. REEEEEELY stupid. Even worse are people who don't
>>> even have a checking account and waste time paying by other means. How
>> And you Libs intend to force everyone to do what you think is best.
>> Rather than allow people a choice.
>
> You have the choice of Somalia. You do not have the choice to
> purposefully conduct yourself in a manner that causes harm to me simply
> because you are a religious nut case.
Buy NOT buying health insurance, I harm you how?
>>> totally backwards and ridiculous can it get???? I have written a total
>>> of 6 checks this year. Most of my stuff I do on line and I have auto
>>> pay for most of my utilities and the like. But a checking account is
>>> essential to those services. My pay checks were all direct deposit, my
>>> tax refunds were direct deposit. Rather stupid to do it in some other
>>> way.
>> I will chuckle when an internet virus hits so hard, you have no money
>> online. Maybe someone will empty your accounts for you.
>
> Please hold your breath awaiting the event.
>
>>>>> a huge amount of money is saved along with a lot of mistakes being
>>>> the government saving money is the best joke I've heard all day and I
>>>> heard some good Tiger Woods jokes.
>>> Spoken like a true Republitard wearing a coonskin cap.
>>>
>>>>> eliminated.
>>>> Eliminated mistakes, Government? The same government that brought you
>>>> The Post Office and FEMA and the SMART BOMBING of the Chinese Embassy
>>>> in Bosnia? Did you mean that government?
>>> Oh yes.... You're the guy that sends money orders through the mail and
>>> wants a check for his tax refund.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually I have no reason to get a "refund" of my own money from the
>> government, *why would I have my paycheck sent to the government* first
>> and then get what they haven't spent refunded to me?
>
> We send money to government because government provides services to us
> for which payment is due. That's actually pretty simple.
NO we have a tax to pay, so that is a bill like all others, they can
bill me.
>> I have a credit card for online. I can go to the Store/Bank and put
>> money on it by making a Credit Card payment. I also use a pre-loaded
>> credit card. I may get rid of my credit cards soon, I'm slowly reducing
>> my connections to the Banking system that is government run and failing
>> like all other government run entities.
>
> If the banking system was actually government run then we would not be
> having a problem, idiot. Government did not create securitization. The
> freepers did. If government had kept the banks totally separate from
> brokerages and securitization we wold not have a failing currency at this
> point.
>
The FED is the reason we have a failing currency.
--
Michael Coburn
The poor consumers are being subsidized, lying moron.
> So the rates for all will rise.... did Obama and Pelosi tell you that?
No, moron liar. The rates for the middle class will be reduced partly
through subsidy (lower middle) and partly due to the subsidy for the poor
that alleviates the "free care" cost shifting onto the middle. And this
is so because the Public Option will LIMIT the thievery of the insurance
companies. The payers of the subsidy are the wealthy with incomes in
excess of one million bucks. As I have said many times: The net result
is a shift of the cost for caring for the poor, from the middle (who had
been paying through increased premiums) to the rich who had not been
paying for this load.
>>>>>> 2. "many" who don't want it but can afford it are crooks that are
>>>>>> ripping off the rest of us.
>>>>> Yes government is ripping off the rest of us...
>>>>>
>>>>> Did the "many" hold a gun to your head like you want to do to them?
>>>> the fact is that the "few" are holding the guns in most cases in that
>>>> corporations and the rich have most control over government. Evey
>>>> now and then the people make a small advance as with HR 3962.
>>> The government holds the gun.... and they are doing the pointing.
>>
>> The government is only a problem because it is owned by the rich and
>> works on behalf of the rich. A truly representative government that is
>> responsive to the people does not point the gun at the people.
>
> You are the one voting to point that gun. It is Liberals NOT evil
> corporate loving Republicans, pointing the gun at my head.
In your case, as you are a thieving crook that wants to use all the
infrastructure for free, then this is true. And absent that gun you
would continue to rob the rest of us forever.
>>>>>>> If they (the government) takes enough of your money, they can pay
>>>>>>> for whatever they want your neighbor to have that he doesn't have
>>>>>>> now. If somebody decides that everybody has a right to a bank
>>>>>>> account, the new accounts will be paid for using the same model
>>>>>>> being used to pay for the health care coverage that the government
>>>>>>> insists you have a right to have.
>>>>>> This is sorta interesting in that most checking accounts are
>>>>>> provided for free by the banks. They obviously pay for these
>>>>>> services with a share of
>>>>> most require a minimum balance for a "free" account that's not free.
>>>> Many do not require ANY minimum. But woe be to you if you overdraw.
>>>> You MUST make an initial deposit, but after that there is NO minimum.
>>> So the rich and poor pay.
>>
>> The poor cannot pay, moron. They have no assets with which to pay.
>> That is why they call em "poor".
>
> The poor pay with a loss of opportunity and a loss of freedom. The rich
> lose all that and their belongings and security they worked to have.
Your concern for the poor and butt sucking of the rich is duly noted.
>>>>>> the "interest" they collect on loans. It's sorta like "socialism"
>>>>>> at its finest. The US Government SAVES money by depositing
>>>>>> directly to your
>>>>> Which is partly why I no longer have a checking account, I am *NOT*
>>>>> a socialist.
>>>> But you are a MORON.
>>> But I am right.
>>
>> That seems to be the case with Republicans. They are MORONS, but they
>> are always riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightt. (according
>> to them).
>
> That is NOT true... the fact is that Liberals are never right but
> Republicans are NOT always right, Libertarians are right more often than
> either the Libs or Repubs.
Nope. Republicans are the most "rightarded". Libertarians are just
stupidly fundamentalistic. The moonbat left (often called progressive)
is a left handed version of a rightarded Libertarian that believes in
Santa and the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Liberals are actually centrists
that are on about justice with moderate compassion and that is really
about it.
>>>>>> bank account instead of writing a check and mailing it. So in a
>>>>>> way, it is sorta like health care reform. By centralizing all the
>>>>>> health records
>>>>> I am betting that Obama and Pelosi think so, I'm betting that
>>>>> *Obama-Wealth-Care* isn't very far down the road after we get
>>>>> *Obama-HEALTH-care*
>>>> If it is the checking thing, I hope you are right. It is shameful,
>>>> the wealth we are wasting by check clearing services at the Fed and
>>>> messing with money orders. REEEEEELY stupid. Even worse are people
>>>> who don't even have a checking account and waste time paying by other
>>>> means. How
>>> And you Libs intend to force everyone to do what you think is best.
>>> Rather than allow people a choice.
>>
>> You have the choice of Somalia. You do not have the choice to
>> purposefully conduct yourself in a manner that causes harm to me simply
>> because you are a religious nut case.
>
> Buy NOT buying health insurance, I harm you how?
If a safe falls on you then the general public must pay for your care
though you have not paid into the insurance pool. You are a thief. It
is really similar to evading taxes in that you are getting the advantages
of infrastructure without the payment. You are ever a thief attempting
to justify your actions by hiding behind your religious fundamentalism.
You are deluded and demented by your religion. You seek to introduce
complexity where none is needed and where it will not ever be done to
your satisfaction. You are again hiding behind your religious beliefs
and whining.
>>> I have a credit card for online. I can go to the Store/Bank and put
>>> money on it by making a Credit Card payment. I also use a pre-loaded
>>> credit card. I may get rid of my credit cards soon, I'm slowly
>>> reducing my connections to the Banking system that is government run
>>> and failing like all other government run entities.
>>
>> If the banking system was actually government run then we would not be
>> having a problem, idiot. Government did not create securitization.
>> The freepers did. If government had kept the banks totally separate
>> from brokerages and securitization we wold not have a failing currency
>> at this point.
>>
>>
> The FED is the reason we have a failing currency.
OOOOHHHMMMMM! OOOHHHMMMM! OOOHHHHMMM!!!
GOVERNMENT FAILED TO CONTROL SECURITIZATION AND CDS's. THAT FACT IS
CENTRAL TO THE FINANCIAL BUBBLE.
To say that the Fed failed is fair enough. To say that the problem would
not have occurred absent the Fed is a ludicrous religious belief.
Coffee's For Closers
Every...@Talk-n-dog.com says...
> 30 million without bank accounts >>OR<< if it is good enough for
> health care....
>
>
> Obama and Pelosi will want everyone to have "bank accounts" so that the
> government can track your wealth.... There is no reason that the rest
> of us should absorb the cost of bank accounts and the banking care
> industry while 30 million people push that cost onto the rest of us.
Where does the 30 million statistic come from?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Beam Me Up Scotty
> In article <4B16DC9F...@Talk-n-dog.com>, Then-Destroy-
> Every...@Talk-n-dog.com says...
>> 30 million without bank accounts >>OR<< if it is good enough for
>> health care....
>>
>>
>> Obama and Pelosi will want everyone to have "bank accounts" so that the
>> government can track your wealth.... There is no reason that the rest
>> of us should absorb the cost of bank accounts and the banking care
>> industry while 30 million people push that cost onto the rest of us.
>
>
> Where does the 30 million statistic come from?
>
>
just as there are about 30 million people without health insurance.
It just figures that if we need to force people to have health insurance
for that number then Liberals will also demand that we force people to
to have a bank account in the interest of fairness.
--
Jerry Okamura
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
If you want more control over people, force them to have bank accounts.
Michael Coburn
If you want more total stupidity and lack of progress and want to live in
a cave then listen to conservatives and Republicans.
Poetic Justice
That's where the Liberals are headed.
--
Jerry Okamura
Beam Me Up Scotty
health care....
>> to have a bank account in the interest of *Social Justice*.
>
> If you want more control over people, force them to have bank accounts.
That's where the Liberals/Socialists are headed.
--
Day Brown
>
> That's where the Liberals/Socialists are headed.
has escaped you?
The fact is also, American corporations now havta tack the price of
health insurance onto everything they sell- which global competition
does not, since all other developed economies have socialized medicine.
If socialized healthcare covered the cost of current and retired
automakers, American automakers would not need to tack that onto the
selling price, and American cars would sell all over the world.
Socialized medicine would kill all the sweetheart deals unions have made
over the years, but I guess you didnt see that either. You only see what
you want to, which makes you guys look like a fools.
Ironic that the Liberals have not picked up on this either.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> If you want more control over people, force them to have bank accounts.
>>
>> That's where the Liberals/Socialists are headed.
> The fact that capitalist financial institutions will profit from this
> has escaped you?
They won't Profit, they will pay more tax.
> The fact is also, American corporations now havta tack the price of
> health insurance onto everything they sell- which global competition
> does not, since all other developed economies have socialized medicine.
>
So why do you tax our corporations so much if they are paying for health
care while in other countries government taxes pay for health care,
where are you wasting the taxes "that you charge and cheat us out of
health care" for?
Obviously you are taxing the corporations too much if they are doing
what other governments do for the same or less tax.
> If socialized healthcare covered the cost of current and retired
> automakers, American automakers would not need to tack that onto the
> selling price, and American cars would sell all over the world.
If you taxed the Auto Corporations Less, since you don't need all that
money because the Corporations are paying the health care costs for the
Government....
> Socialized medicine would kill all the sweetheart deals unions have made
> over the years, but I guess you didnt see that either. You only see what
> you want to, which makes you guys look like a fools.
Socialized Medicine would mean that the Union workers get health care,
which they have already, no change is it.
Talk about insanity, you need to think this through.
> Ironic that the Liberals have not picked up on this either.
Liberals don't want health care, they want control.
--
Poetic Justice
>>> If you want more control over people, force them to have bank accounts.
>>
>> That's where the Liberals/Socialists are headed.
> The fact that capitalist financial institutions will profit from this
> has escaped you?
They won't Profit, they will pay more tax.
> The fact is also, American corporations now havta tack the price of
> health insurance onto everything they sell- which global competition
> does not, since all other developed economies have socialized medicine.
>
So why do you tax our corporations so much if they are paying for health
care while in other countries government taxes pay for health care,
what are you wasting the taxes "that you charge and cheat us out of
health care" for? If you charge tax rates to corporations that are
among the highest in the world and then don't give government health
care, you must be wasting the governments money.
Obviously you are taxing the corporations too much if they are doing
what other governments do for the same or less tax as we already pay.
> If socialized healthcare covered the cost of current and retired
> automakers, American automakers would not need to tack that onto the
> selling price, and American cars would sell all over the world.
If you taxed the Auto Corporations Less, since you don't need all that
money because the Corporations are paying the health care costs for the
Government....
> Socialized medicine would kill all the sweetheart deals unions have made
> over the years, but I guess you didnt see that either. You only see what
> you want to, which makes you guys look like a fools.
Socialized Medicine would mean that the Union workers get health care,
which they have already, no change is it.
Talk about insanity, you need to think this through.
> Ironic that the Liberals have not picked up on this either.
Liberals don't want health care, they want control.
--
Jerry Okamura
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
> On 12/17/2009 3:38 PM, Day Brown wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> If you want more control over people, force them to have bank accounts.
>>>
>>> That's where the Liberals/Socialists are headed.
>
>> The fact that capitalist financial institutions will profit from this
>> has escaped you?
>
> They won't Profit, they will pay more tax.
They won't profit....really? What are they going to do when they are taxed?
Day Brown
> On 12/17/2009 3:38 PM, Day Brown wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> If you want more control over people, force them to have bank accounts.
>>> That's where the Liberals/Socialists are headed.
>
>> The fact that capitalist financial institutions will profit from this
>> has escaped you?
>
> They won't Profit, they will pay more tax.
workers. This is not driven by the Liberals so much as the US
corporations who see how socialized medicine will reduce their costs and
allow them to have lower prices in the global market.
There's some talk of VAT, which all the other developed economies use.
And like them, the tax on anything which is exported will be rebated.
So, the prices go up for consumers to cover healthcare, but they wont
really see it at the cash registers as sales tax, even tho that is what
it is, but collected further up at the wholesale level.
Which is too complicated for most voters to figure out.
Jerry Okamura
"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b2e8770$0$13061$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 12/17/2009 3:38 PM, Day Brown wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>> If you want more control over people, force them to have bank
>>>>> accounts.
>>>> That's where the Liberals/Socialists are headed.
>>
>>> The fact that capitalist financial institutions will profit from this
>>> has escaped you?
>>
>> They won't Profit, they will pay more tax.
> THey wont tax the financial outfits and corporations, they'll tax the
> workers. This is not driven by the Liberals so much as the US corporations
> who see how socialized medicine will reduce their costs and allow them to
> have lower prices in the global market.
>
is paid directly by the "people" or indirectly by the "people". When you
tax a business, they are simply going to get that money from their
customers.
Mitchell Holman
Then why do corporations complain about taxes?
They just pass them on anyway, right?
Poetic Justice
Actually I don't hear the corporations complain so much as the customers
and people in the corporations that know the cost is passed on to the
customers.
--
Mitchell Holman
$yM1...@newsfe11.iad:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from
demanding that billions be spent on Iraq and billions be
spent on prisons and billions be spent on Halliburton
contracts and billions be spent on the military to complain
about paying the taxes all of that spending requires.
Jerry Okamura
"Mitchell Holman" <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE8E1D9A1E5D...@216.196.97.130...
conservatives who do not have the same goals. To say in either case, that
they all are the same, is really a stretch. But let us take each one of
these at a time shall we, since there is also a big hole in your argument.
First to Iraq. The war with Iraq was supported by a large majority of US
Senators, both democrats and republicans voted in favor of giving the
President the authorization to go to war, so you started out making the
wrong statement. Second, democrats are now in control of the White House
and the Congress, they could stop spending money on Iraq if they wanted to,
and they have not done that have they? So, to place the blame on
"conservatives" is a lie. As for prisons, that is one of those equal
opportunity issues. Both parties, and both ideologies buld prisons. So,
once again you claim is false. As for defense spending, how often has total
defenxe spending actually decreased from one year to the next. Who was the
President and who controlled Congress at the time.
Jerry Okamura
taxes. If I had a business and everyone I competed with paid the same
taxes, there is no problem with paying the taxes, it seems to me. We would
all be in the same boat together, no one has a competitive edge as a result
of taxation. The only effect would be I would have to charge more for my
products, which would have an effect of selling fewer items. But if I paid
taxes that other businesses that I compete with, do not have to pay, then I
would not approve of paying taxes, that a competitor does not has to pay.
So, for instance, if my products competed with products made in another
country, and my taxes were higher than my competitors, that would put me at
a more competitive disadvantage, all other things being equal. I am also
not sure that ALL corporations complain about paying higher taxes. It is an
example of those who cry the loudest get heard the most, I would think.
Mitchell Holman
Yes, it is true the Bush administration lied repeatedly
in order to gain support for the unjustified invasion of Iraq.
Remember Colin Powell's detailed photos showing just where
the weapons factories were?
Well, where are they?
> Second, democrats are now in
> control of the White House and the Congress, they could stop spending
> money on Iraq if they wanted to, and they have not done that have
> they?
If Obama retreats from Iraq he is a "surrender monkey". If
he expands the war he is "wasting money" and "endangering the
lives of troops". There is no pleasing a Republican.
> So, to place the blame on "conservatives" is a lie. As for
> prisons, that is one of those equal opportunity issues. Both parties,
> and both ideologies buld prisons. So, once again you claim is false.
> As for defense spending, how often has total defenxe spending actually
> decreased from one year to the next. Who was the President and who
> controlled Congress at the time.
When a Republican reduces defense spending he is a
"fiscal conservative". If a Democrat does the same thing
he is "crippling the military".
John Galt
I don't know. What I do know is that if there was *conclusive and
actionable* evidence that Bush lied, then he'd be on trial or jailed.
Since he's not, we can conclude one of two things: (1) that the evidence
that he lied is neither conclusive or actionable, or (2) the Democrats
in power are more interested in political triangulation than they are in
fulfilling their oaths of office (which is not a particularly good
commentary on their character).
You choose.
>
>
>> Second, democrats are now in
>> control of the White House and the Congress, they could stop spending
>> money on Iraq if they wanted to, and they have not done that have
>> they?
>
>
> If Obama retreats from Iraq he is a "surrender monkey". If
> he expands the war he is "wasting money" and "endangering the
> lives of troops". There is no pleasing a Republican.
Same notion. Either (1) it's militarily important for us to remain in
Iraq, or (2) Obama is choosing to risk the slaughter of American
soldiers for his own political gain and that of his party, which does
not say much for his character or his ability to lead.
You choose.
>
>
>
>> So, to place the blame on "conservatives" is a lie. As for
>> prisons, that is one of those equal opportunity issues. Both parties,
>> and both ideologies buld prisons. So, once again you claim is false.
>> As for defense spending, how often has total defenxe spending actually
>> decreased from one year to the next. Who was the President and who
>> controlled Congress at the time.
>
>
> When a Republican reduces defense spending he is a
> "fiscal conservative". If a Democrat does the same thing
> he is "crippling the military".
The Democrats have just ripped more money out of Medicare than has ever
been done before, and called it "health care reform."
Care to guess what the Democrats would have called it if the same had
been suggested by the Republicans when in power?
JG
Mitchell Holman
nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com:
What law prevents a politician from lying?
>
> Since he's not, we can conclude one of two things: (1) that the
evidence
> that he lied is neither conclusive or actionable, or (2) the Democrats
> in power are more interested in political triangulation than they are
in
> fulfilling their oaths of office (which is not a particularly good
> commentary on their character).
or 3) you cannot prosecute a president for lying.
>
> You choose.
>>
>>
>>> Second, democrats are now in
>>> control of the White House and the Congress, they could stop spending
>>> money on Iraq if they wanted to, and they have not done that have
>>> they?
>>
>>
>> If Obama retreats from Iraq he is a "surrender monkey". If
>> he expands the war he is "wasting money" and "endangering the
>> lives of troops". There is no pleasing a Republican.
>
> Same notion. Either (1) it's militarily important for us to remain in
> Iraq, or (2) Obama is choosing to risk the slaughter of American
> soldiers for his own political gain and that of his party, which does
> not say much for his character or his ability to lead.
>
> You choose.
Obama is stuck with the overseas quagmire wars
that Bush started. What would YOU have him do?
John Galt
Nothing, and a good thing to, because it's as natural as breathing for
many of them.
It's the implication of lying that matters. There is little question in
my mind that a lie that resulting in the US going to war and the death
of individuals is should AT LEAST be referred to the Justice Department
for investigation.
Hell, they went that far just because they thought that Roger Clemens
might have been lying about using steroids.
>
>
>> Since he's not, we can conclude one of two things: (1) that the
> evidence
>> that he lied is neither conclusive or actionable, or (2) the Democrats
>> in power are more interested in political triangulation than they are
> in
>> fulfilling their oaths of office (which is not a particularly good
>> commentary on their character).
>
>
> or 3) you cannot prosecute a president for lying.
See above.
>
>> You choose.
>>>
>>>> Second, democrats are now in
>>>> control of the White House and the Congress, they could stop spending
>>>> money on Iraq if they wanted to, and they have not done that have
>>>> they?
>>>
>>> If Obama retreats from Iraq he is a "surrender monkey". If
>>> he expands the war he is "wasting money" and "endangering the
>>> lives of troops". There is no pleasing a Republican.
>> Same notion. Either (1) it's militarily important for us to remain in
>> Iraq, or (2) Obama is choosing to risk the slaughter of American
>> soldiers for his own political gain and that of his party, which does
>> not say much for his character or his ability to lead.
>>
>> You choose.
>
>
> Obama is stuck with the overseas quagmire wars
> that Bush started. What would YOU have him do?
Stuck? He needs to think out of the box a little and work the problem.
1) Leave supporting intel coordinators and special forces groups in both
countries to assist in training the local security forces and if
necessary to participate in local ops if they include transborder
terrorist groups. Get everyone else the hell out of there.
2) Working from intel provided by the above coordinators, police both
countries from the air. We don't really care if the places are
hellholes. We care if bad guys are planning stuff against us in them.
3) Take a portion of the huge amount of money saved and double down on
domestic security.
JG
Jerry Okamura
Those of you who make that claim, have not thought through your reply very
well. "If" the President lied, then all those democrats in the Senate were
so dumb that they bought the lie, or they would not have voted to give him
the authority to go to war, based on a lie. And how many democratic
Senators stood on the Senate chanbers to tell us that they believed that
Saddam did have WMD's, and how many of democratic Senators tell us that they
believed the Saddam did not have WMD's?
> Well, where are they?
It does not matter. One reason given was the existence of WMD"s. If you
never went to war, you would never have known if there were there or they
were not there. The only reason you know that they are not there is because
we did invade and win.
>
>
>> Second, democrats are now in
>> control of the White House and the Congress, they could stop spending
>> money on Iraq if they wanted to, and they have not done that have
>> they?
>
>
> If Obama retreats from Iraq he is a "surrender monkey". If
> he expands the war he is "wasting money" and "endangering the
> lives of troops". There is no pleasing a Republican.
So what? We call Obama all kinds of names, and has that stopped him from
doing what he is doing? Is he the leader of this country or isn't he? He
believes that what he is doing it the "right thing" to do, doesn't he? So,
if he does not do what you think he should do, then you don't believe he is
doing the right thing when it comes to Iraq, does it?
>
>
>
>> So, to place the blame on "conservatives" is a lie. As for
>> prisons, that is one of those equal opportunity issues. Both parties,
>> and both ideologies buld prisons. So, once again you claim is false.
>> As for defense spending, how often has total defenxe spending actually
>> decreased from one year to the next. Who was the President and who
>> controlled Congress at the time.
>
>
> When a Republican reduces defense spending he is a
> "fiscal conservative". If a Democrat does the same thing
> he is "crippling the military".
>
NO!!! Anyone who increases government spending, and increases the National
Debt at the same time, is wrong. A "fiscal conservative", if they mean what
they say, would be against ANY spending that increases the National Debt, or
they would not be true "fiscal conservatives.
Michael Coburn
The Senators DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE INTELLIGENCE DATA, you
pretentious prick. Only the president and his close advisers have such
access. And no amount of pig shit from you will change that essential
fact of reality. When the POTUS says that intelligence indicates WMDs
and a link to Al Qieda then the Senate _CANNOT_ reject that assessment
even though the inspectors were saying Bush was full of shit.
> And how
> many democratic Senators stood on the Senate chanbers to tell us that
> they believed that Saddam did have WMD's, and how many of democratic
> Senators tell us that they believed the Saddam did not have WMD's?
Due to the lack of access to the data the point is moot. But:
I'll bite.... It's your dead skunk. Please give us the numbers and the
cite to your source.
>
>> Well, where are they?
>
> It does not matter. One reason given was the existence of WMD"s. If
> you never went to war, you would never have known if there were there or
> they were not there. The only reason you know that they are not there
> is because we did invade and win.
Well,, uh, no. The inspectors were telling us that they were not there
and asking the asshole administration for the location of these supposed
weapons so that the inspectors could actually "find" them. The locations
were not forthcoming and the invasion went forward when it did because
the administration KNEW it was losing the opportunity to invade based on
the _FACT_ that the inspectors were being given access to all they wanted
to see.
>>
>>
>>> Second, democrats are now in
>>> control of the White House and the Congress, they could stop spending
>>> money on Iraq if they wanted to, and they have not done that have
>>> they?
>>
>>
>> If Obama retreats from Iraq he is a "surrender monkey". If
>> he expands the war he is "wasting money" and "endangering the lives of
>> troops". There is no pleasing a Republican.
>
> So what? We call Obama all kinds of names, and has that stopped him
> from doing what he is doing? Is he the leader of this country or isn't
> he? He believes that what he is doing it the "right thing" to do,
> doesn't he? So, if he does not do what you think he should do, then you
> don't believe he is doing the right thing when it comes to Iraq, does
> it?
Any and all further waste of American resources in the middle east is
just pissing American wealth into a black hole.
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, to place the blame on "conservatives" is a lie. As for
>>> prisons, that is one of those equal opportunity issues. Both parties,
>>> and both ideologies buld prisons. So, once again you claim is false.
>>> As for defense spending, how often has total defenxe spending actually
>>> decreased from one year to the next. Who was the President and who
>>> controlled Congress at the time.
>>
>>
>> When a Republican reduces defense spending he is a
>> "fiscal conservative". If a Democrat does the same thing he is
>> "crippling the military".
>>
> NO!!! Anyone who increases government spending, and increases the
> National Debt at the same time, is wrong. A "fiscal conservative", if
> they mean what they say, would be against ANY spending that increases
> the National Debt, or they would not be true "fiscal conservatives.
That may give you a clue, moron. The Republicans made war and cut taxes
at the same time. They are _NOT_ "fiscal conservatives". The Democratic
Congress seems ready to raise taxes in support of the Republican war.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Mitchell Holman
Wrong.
The phoney WMD claim was the ENTIRE reason Bush went to war.
"We have high confidence that they have weapons
of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about."
George Bush April 10, 2003
Day Brown
> Now that is the relevant question. I do not know why they do complain
> about taxes. If I had a business and everyone I competed with paid the
> same taxes, there is no problem with paying the taxes, it seems to me.
> We would all be in the same boat together, no one has a competitive edge
> as a result of taxation. The only effect would be I would have to
> charge more for my products, which would have an effect of selling fewer
> items. But if I paid taxes that other businesses that I compete with,
> do not have to pay, then I would not approve of paying taxes, that a
> competitor does not has to pay. So, for instance, if my products
> competed with products made in another country, and my taxes were higher
> than my competitors, that would put me at a more competitive
> disadvantage, all other things being equal. I am also not sure that ALL
> corporations complain about paying higher taxes. It is an example of
> those who cry the loudest get heard the most, I would think.
As may be. I read developed economies commonly use VAT taxes, which
corporations pass on in higher prices. But commonly also, VAT taxes are
rebated for goods that are exported. I read developed economies have
higher taxes, but that, rather than higher prices to cover the cost of
corporate healtcare, provides socialized medicine.
Not that you cant buy private insurance and healthcare if you can afford
it. No matter how much socialized medicine the USA has, places like the
Mayo clinic will still be in business to serve the elites.
The indigent get healthcare anyway because healthcare workers feel the
moral obligation to provide it to everyone. But then they jack the price
on everyone who pays to cover the loss of free treatment. Socialized
healthcare will have problems, but the businesses want to off load the
cost of corporate healthcare plans to improve their profits, so we'll
get it whether we like it or not. It would not matter if you convinced
everyone here that socialized healthcare was a bad idea. Its not upta us.
Jerry Okamura
It does not matter. Their job is to be as informed as possible when they
cast their vote. And there is no more important a job they have then to
decide to send our men and women to war, where some of them are going to die
or get injured. If you are not sure about what you are being told, then you
should not vote to give the President the authorization to go to war. It is
as simple as that.
Jerry Okamura
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan
or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the
day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and
chemical weapons. Former President Bill Clinton During an interview on
CNN's "Larry King Live" July 22, 2003
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
President Clinton - 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-
range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have
alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He
is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> Now that is the relevant question. I do not know why they do complain
>> about taxes. If I had a business and everyone I competed with paid the
>> same taxes, there is no problem with paying the taxes, it seems to me.
>> We would all be in the same boat together, no one has a competitive edge
>> as a result of taxation. The only effect would be I would have to charge
>> more for my products, which would have an effect of selling fewer items.
>> But if I paid taxes that other businesses that I compete with, do not
>> have to pay, then I would not approve of paying taxes, that a competitor
>> does not has to pay. So, for instance, if my products competed with
>> products made in another country, and my taxes were higher than my
>> competitors, that would put me at a more competitive disadvantage, all
>> other things being equal. I am also not sure that ALL corporations
>> complain about paying higher taxes. It is an example of those who cry
>> the loudest get heard the most, I would think.
>
> As may be. I read developed economies commonly use VAT taxes, which
> corporations pass on in higher prices. But commonly also, VAT taxes are
> rebated for goods that are exported. I read developed economies have
> higher taxes, but that, rather than higher prices to cover the cost of
> corporate healtcare, provides socialized medicine.
If you replaced all forms of taxation with a VAT tax, that would be one
thing. But I suspect that if we ever went the VAT tax appproach, it would
just be another tax, added on top of all the other taxes we already pay.
Very few people are suggesting that we replace ALL taxation with a VAT tax.
So, a VAT tax is not the solution, if that is what is going to happen. It
is also hard to imagine that if that is what is being proposed, that those
who favor a progressive tax system, would not be in favor of such an idea,
since by definition, if applied as it is proposed, it would not do that.
So, the odds are that even if such a tax was imposed, Congress would
immediately exempt some products from the tax, which then defeats the
purpose of such a tax, it would seem to me. Then it is a question of what
will happen after the tax is introduced. Our income tax system when it was
first created was also a very simple tax system, requiring everyone only to
fill out a one page form. Look at what Congress has done in the intervening
years, and you probably have a good idea of what will happen to the VAT tax
over time.
>
> Not that you cant buy private insurance and healthcare if you can afford
> it. No matter how much socialized medicine the USA has, places like the
> Mayo clinic will still be in business to serve the elites.
One thing this proposal will do is benefit the rich. If you "force them" to
have health insurance, then they don't have to spend their own money for
their healthcare needs. And since they are rich, then buy definition they
can either use the health insurance for their needs, but if the insurance
will not pay for what they need or want, they have the option to pay for
that extra service since they can afford to do that.
>
> The indigent get healthcare anyway because healthcare workers feel the
> moral obligation to provide it to everyone. But then they jack the price
> on everyone who pays to cover the loss of free treatment. Socialized
> healthcare will have problems, but the businesses want to off load the
> cost of corporate healthcare plans to improve their profits, so we'll get
> it whether we like it or not. It would not matter if you convinced
> everyone here that socialized healthcare was a bad idea. Its not upta us.
It is up to "us". If we do not vote with our convictions, then this will
remain the law of the land, if it passes. If we do not want that to happen,
then it is our responsibility to show that disapproval when we vote and
demand that it be changed.
Day Brown
>> Socialized healthcare will have problems, but the businesses want to
>> off load the cost of corporate healthcare plans to improve their
>> profits, so we'll get it whether we like it or not. It would not
>> matter if you convinced everyone here that socialized healthcare was a
>> bad idea. Its not upta us.
>
> It is up to "us". If we do not vote with our convictions, then this
> will remain the law of the land, if it passes. If we do not want that
> to happen, then it is our responsibility to show that disapproval when
> we vote and demand that it be changed.
whatever the mass corporate media tells them to support. Even here, most
of what we see is rote recitation of left or right dogma.
Trade treaties make it illegal to tax imports. But they have not yet
said a nation cannot use a VAT tax internally, and the rebate the tax to
increase profits to their exporters. This is what American Corporations
have to compete with. In addition, for example, if the Big Three could
offload the cost of union healthcare plans onto the tax payers, which is
what all the other global automakers have been doing, then their prices
would be so low American cars would sell all over the world.
The corporations are not going to admit this of course. The unions know
what they get now is gonzo better than socialized medicine. But unions
no longer have the votes to stop big media from getting the rest of the
electorate to, in effect, take the cost of union healthcare plans off
the books of corporations so they can compete in a global market.
Business will likewise press for a VAT tax so they too can get federal
subsidies for exports. Agribusiness gets subsidies, and its doing fine.
Michael Coburn
Bush lied to the Congress about intelligence data and then based on even
more up to date and corrected data that said there were no WMD the lying
little shit invaded Iraq anyway. It is as simple as that.
Michael Coburn
True story. As of Jan., 2001 there were still weapon unaccounted for.
None of which could have produced a "mushroom cloud".
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
> That is our bottom line."
> President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Yep. Another true story. That was in early 1998.
> "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
> threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
> ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
> today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
> emboldened tomorrow." President Clinton - 1998
True story in 1998.
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
> We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
> destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
> deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
> nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
> greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> times since 1983."
> Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
> U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
> appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
> effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
> mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.
> Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
> destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
> he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy
> Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
All of this pig shit is 1998..... and at that time intelligence data
supported WDM's in the form of WHAT WE GAVE IRAQ in the 80's.
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
> destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton
> Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
Yet the weapons inspectors after that date said there were no WMD's.
> "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
> programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
> programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
> addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
> using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range
> missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to
> President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5,
> 2001.
And where does Bob Graham get is intelligence data???? He is not the
president and not provy to such data.
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
> threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
> mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
> destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI),
> Sept. 19, 2002.
Again based on the Administration's lies. All data after 2001 was
controlled by the Bush administration.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/ --------------
"The trigger for military action preferred by the British government,
other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was
a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other
key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia
- argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should
be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would
not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated
their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies,
launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 - a military campaign
that quickly brought about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and
ultimately resulted in his capture. (Note 3)"
------------------------------------------------------------------
So in the opinion of the rest of the universe, the inspections were
working and there were no WMD. All, if not most intelligence, at this
point indicated a lack of any threat to the US or its allies. The reason
this invasion took place when it did is because the inspectors were
ruining Pinocchio Bush's excuse to be a war president.
<<<<<<<<<<<<< further lying pig shit deleted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>> Socialized healthcare will have problems, but the businesses want to off
>>> load the cost of corporate healthcare plans to improve their profits, so
>>> we'll get it whether we like it or not. It would not matter if you
>>> convinced everyone here that socialized healthcare was a bad idea. Its
>>> not upta us.
>>
>> It is up to "us". If we do not vote with our convictions, then this will
>> remain the law of the land, if it passes. If we do not want that to
>> happen, then it is our responsibility to show that disapproval when we
>> vote and demand that it be changed.
> "Who's we? You and I. The VAST MAJORITY of the voters will go along with
> whatever the mass corporate media tells them to support. Even here, most
> of what we see is rote recitation of left or right dogma.
The "we" are those citizens who bother to vote. And it does not matter who
controls those who do vote. "If" we can be "controlled" then we allow
ourselves to be controlled, and then we deserve what we get. Whether those
who control us are like you believe the "corporate media", or as I believe
the political parties, or for that matter anyone else who tries to control
us. That is their job, to try and control us. it is our job, not to be
controlled by anyone.
>
> Trade treaties make it illegal to tax imports.
That is because those in power whether they are democrats or republicans
believe the benefits outweight the cost. Why do you think they do not?
But they have not yet
> said a nation cannot use a VAT tax internally, and the rebate the tax to
> increase profits to their exporters. This is what American Corporations
> have to compete with. In addition, for example, if the Big Three could
> offload the cost of union healthcare plans onto the tax payers, which is
> what all the other global automakers have been doing, then their prices
> would be so low American cars would sell all over the world.
Because it is still just a tax. You either get the money from one group of
people or you get the money from another group of people, that is the only
difference. As long as they continue to increase total spending, it does
not really matter. They will get their pound of flesh from the hard working
citizens of this country. Besides, if I were a liberal, which I am not, the
last thing I would be favoring is a VAT tax. The reason is simple. It
hurts the less fortunate a whole lot more than the more fortuante. And like
the income tax, you can bet your bottom dollar that as time goes on, our
government will start to tinker with who pays that tax, by favoring one
group over another. So, over time, you won't recognize what started out as
a simple concpet, just like the income tax started our as a simple one page
form. Look at what has happened in the intervening years and you probably
have a good idea what would happen to a VAT tax. The other big problem with
a VAT tax is it is another hidden tax, so they can slowly raise revenue,
simply by increasing the tax rate, which has happened in every country that
has moved to a VAT tax. And finally their is the little matter of whether
you believe that if they do pass a VAT tax, that they will abolish all other
taxes. What do you think the odds of that happening are?
>
> The corporations are not going to admit this of course. The unions know
> what they get now is gonzo better than socialized medicine. But unions no
> longer have the votes to stop big media from getting the rest of the
> electorate to, in effect, take the cost of union healthcare plans off the
> books of corporations so they can compete in a global market.
Are you saying you are against this healthcare reform bill now being
considered by our government?
>
> Business will likewise press for a VAT tax so they too can get federal
> subsidies for exports. Agribusiness gets subsidies, and its doing fine.
Somewhat confusing. Are you in favor of a VAT tax or not?
Jerry Okamura
it was based on a lie or not, if the members of the US Senate did not give
him the authorization to go to war, based on the reasons he gave for the
need to go to war.
Jerry Okamura
Yep, and did he tell us later that he was wrong? Besides, the question
before us is who beleived that Saddam did nto have these weapons?
Day Brown
> Are you saying you are against this healthcare reform bill now being
> considered by our government?
hidden deals in what is going on that will affect the result. Corporate
mass media will spin it so that the majority will, as you imply, 'get
what they deserve' for their laziness and stupidity. I cant solve that
problem, and surely not here.
>> Business will likewise press for a VAT tax so they too can get federal
>> subsidies for exports. Agribusiness gets subsidies, and its doing fine.
>
> Somewhat confusing. Are you in favor of a VAT tax or not?
Again, it dont matter what I favor. I'm just looking at the way the
money flows while it pushes power in directions few of us favor. Of
course, as you say, they wont lower other taxes while they sneak in a
VAT tax, which mite be clothed in environmental whacko rhetoric about
making 'polluters pay'. A tax on all the crap that ends up in the land
fills would be easy to sell to the sheeple.
I dont see why anyone should care what I think should happen, but they
mite mull over what I see going on and coming down, whether we like it
or not. I've been online for over 20 years, and have seen policy laid
out in ascii like this that was later enacted. but that process took
years, and I dont think we have time any more for any rational policy
promoted here to be enacted before its too late.
Jerry Okamura
You may be right, but then again, if you don't think we are doing the right
thing, and we say nothing about it, or are not willing to fight to get them
to do the "right thing", whatever the "right thing is", then they win and
those who do not think they are doing the right thing win, don't they?
Day Brown
> You may be right, but then again, if you don't think we are doing the
> right thing, and we say nothing about it, or are not willing to fight to
> get them to do the "right thing", whatever the "right thing is", then
> they win and those who do not think they are doing the right thing win,
> don't they?
been all these years saying the drug war is being run like a speed trap.
They have, by now, searched my property 9 times since 1969, and they
have yet to get a conviction. After the 7th time in 1998, I resolved a
setup to prove my point, operating so far below the radar that there was
no way a police informant could legally find out what I was doing. So,
of course, they resorted to other methods in 2008, which they know know
I was ready for. They do not want to take this to trial...
But no matter. AT 71, I'm not far from a residential care facility or
hospice care. If there's bars on the windows, it wont make much diff to
a man in a wheel chair.
But as for the rest of you, the only vote you have which counts is that
with your investments, your ass, or a U-haul. If the whole system tanks
because of blind sided group think, there will be, as there always have
been after the fall of empire, some localities that quickly adapt where
life is again reasonably comfortable. There will be some businesses that
know how to handsomely profit off local resources, and some people who
saw it all coming and got the fuck outta Dodge to set themselves up in a
more promising community.
Those people, businesses, and communities, will not be run by Left or
Right wing ideologues. If you have women you care about, select a town
or system run by women; that way, your daughter wont be selling her cunt
to the leadership just to eat. Which we've seen in both Capitalist or
Communist systems.
If I win in court, that'll be an indication that the Arkansas Ozarks are
such a rational region. The population is 99.9% white. The schools still
work, and men can still find outside jobs that provide the physical
exercise needed to maximize mental performance. Transnationals have been
investing in the small towns here because the staff hired on is so much
more sane and emotionally stable.
They've always elected GOP congressmen, but never neocons.