AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@mysteryman,

You really haven't shown any contradiction. How does the chart contradict what I said?

@cicerone imposter,

The chart doesnt.

You did it yourself when you said the conservatives NEVER post anything to back up their claims about tax cuts.
Then you immediately turned around and said you knew about the post and you knew the numbers.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

If the chart doesn't, presenting those two statements I made are not a contradiction.

You don't even understand simple logic.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

But I never said the chart contradicted you.
You said repubs/conservatives never posted evidence.
Ican REPOSTED the chart, meaning he had posted it before today.

You then said you knew about the post and the chart.

That means you had to have seen it posted BEFORE tonight.
So, you contradicted yourself, since you had said repubs NEVER posted evidence.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cice, if increasing or reducing taxes can help the economy, why not reduce them? Why proceed with Obama's plan of increasing spending. The Obama plan is stealing property from those who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those who did not lawfully earn it. The Obama plan is seeking to limit individual choice of medical insurance and treatment.

The Obama plan is not helping the economy; it's hurting the economy. The Obama plan is reducing GNP and increasing unemployment.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=GNP
GNP increase from $7.2 trillion to $14.6 trillion from 1995 t0 2008; GNP decreased from end of 2008 to middle of 2009 from $14.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
| Unemployment rates
|_____________________________________________________
..........................|February |March |April |May | June |Change from May to June|
All workers .............| 8.1| 9.2| 8.9| 9.4| 9.5| 0.1
Adult men .............| 8.2| 9.7| 9.4| 9.8| 10.0| .2
Adult women ...........| 6.7| 7.4| 7.1| 7.5| 7.6| .1
Teenagers .............| 21.3| 22.7| 21.5| 22.7| 24.0| 1.3
|________|________|________|________|________|________

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

AN AMENDED RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF HEALTHCARE MEDICAL INSURANCE
(1) Tax each and every dollar of gross income the same amount.
(2) Allow each tax payer to deduct directly from their total computed tax on their annual gross incomes, the annual cost of their private medical insurance UPTO 30% OF THEIR TOTAL COMPUTED TAX.
(3) Allow each taxpayer FOR WHOM 30% OF THEIR computed tax on their gross income exceeds the cost of the purchase of their private medical insurance, to deduct upto that excess what they donate to the purchase of the private medical insurance of others.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

AN AMENDED RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF HEALTHCARE MEDICAL INSURANCE
(1) Tax each and every dollar of gross income the same amount.
(2) Allow each tax payer to deduct directly from their total computed tax on their annual gross incomes, the annual cost of their private medical insurance UPTO 30% OF THEIR TOTAL COMPUTED TAX.
(3) Allow each taxpayer FOR WHOM 30% OF THEIR computed tax on their gross income exceeds the cost of the purchase of their private medical insurance, to deduct upto that excess what they donate to the purchase of the private medical insurance of others.

I'm thinking about this one. It just might work.

At first blush, without hearing objections, it would sure as heck give the Congress a HUGE incentive to do something about tort reform and other measures it can do to bring down the real costs of medical insurance wouldn't it? Otherwise they would have less and less of our lovely money to spend to increase their own power and fortune or they would have to raise taxes to a level the people would not tolerate and we would throw them out.

1 Reply

So it appears the government is going to infuse more billions into the "cash for clunkers" program that was out of money this week when the initial projected expectation was that the program would run through November. But today's news is that the agency overseeing the program is overwhelmed and computers are crashing even as they add billions more to an already crushing deficit. It seems that not a single dealer so far seems to think the program is being administered efficiently.

Has it occurred to anybody that if the government so greviously miscalculated the time line and cost and problems involved in administering a program as simple as 'cash for clunkers', that the consequences of nationalized healthcare reform could be way off the mark in projected timelines, could cost more money than the GDP could ever sustain, and the nightmare of administrative red tape would be beyond the ability of the government to ever efficiently manage?

1 Reply

Quote:

Most Oppose Cash for Clunkers, but Many Willing to Take the Money if Offered
Saturday, August 01, 2009

A Rasmussen Reports survey conducted in mid-June showed that 17% of Americans were Very Likely to take advantage of the “Cash for Clunkers” program. Another 18% said they were Somewhat Like to do so.

Despite the willingness of people to accept the money if it was available, 54% opposed the “Cash for Clunkers” proposal and just 35% were in favor the plan. Twelve percent (12%) were undecided.

The Cash for Clunkers plan was designed to encourage people to trade in old cars for new, more fuel-efficient models. At the time of the survey, Congress had just passed the legislation and sent it to President Obama for his signature. Since it has become available, the number of people signing up has greatly exceeded government estimates and the program has already reached its initial one billion dollar spending limit. The House of Representatives quickly approved an additional $2 billion for the program and the Senate is set to vote on it next week
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/july_2009/most_oppose_cash_for_clunkers_but_many_willing_to_take_the_money_if_offered

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

. . . it would sure as heck give the Congress a HUGE incentive to do something about tort reform and other measures it can do to bring down the real costs of medical insurance wouldn't it . . . .

The mindless minions line up to protect the big money interests from the consequences of their tortious conduct. How nice.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Has it occurred to anybody that if the government so greviously miscalculated the time line and cost and problems involved in administering a program as simple as 'cash for clunkers', that the consequences of nationalized healthcare reform could be way off the mark in projected timelines, could cost more money than the GDP could ever sustain, and the nightmare of administrative red tape would be beyond the ability of the government to ever efficiently manage?

Complicated things are subject to screw ups. Where were you with your constructive criticism during the Reagan-Bush-Bush debacles?

One has to wonder why your concern doesn't extend to innocents dying, innocents being napalmed, innocents being hit with depleted uranium, innocents being covered with burning phosphorus.

Why is that, Foxy?

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT, It's obvious they love to challenge the small stuff to make it look like everything Obama does is worse than the smallest screw ups of those presidents you listed.

One thing, though, is that maverick McCain is back again to doing the rights things for the people of our country by fighting pork - many by republican congress members. That's the best place for McCain; in congress to keep them honest, but he's the lone ranger in this regard.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

...One thing, though, is that maverick McCain is back again to doing the rights things for the people of our country...

he really does do his best work there, doesn't he? as soon as he started running for the big chair his whole personality changed. that's a drag.

it's gonna be interesting when, one of these days, he finally let's loose what he really thinks of palin.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

The mindless minions line up to protect the big money interests from the consequences of their tort{u}ous conduct.

No Debra, those you call "the mindless minions" are not mindless, but they are minions.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=minion&x=29&y=9
Main Entry: 1min·ion
...
3 : one highly esteemed and favored
...

Unlike others, the minions recognize that tort reform to reduce unwarranted civil suits, not only helps the "big money interests," it also helps those who pay the "big money interests" for their products and services. The prices of those products and services provided the minions by "big money interests" include the cost of unwarranted civil suits. Obviously, reducing those unwarranted civil suits reduces the prices the minions have to pay for those products and services.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

But speaking of those who present themselves as 'minions' in Congress, I wonder why 'tort reform' is almost never on the table as a solution for excessive healthcare costs? Even if it surfaces, it is generally dismissed without a vote and/or before it makes it out of committee.

Could it be that most of our law makers are lawyers of the type who benefit from tort? And they can't correct the abuse of the tort system without cutting into their own profits and/or those who support them?

0 Replies

And many of us who have admired Sarah Palin and who like her despite the times shrewd media commentators have been successful (and I believe often intentional) in making her falter verbally, I wonder if anybody has looked at the young lady in this video as a rising star? She handled herself so well in this interview, I suspect she's sharp enough and can think on her feet well enough to go toe to toe with anybody:

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Yes, saw her on tv recently (NBC it must have been, most probably the same as on your youtube link).

As far as I remember, she was mentioned her on A2K a few years ago already, since she defends Japanese American internment by the US-government as having been appropriate and fair.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

What do you think of what she is saying here?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Well, she can talk. She'll get more claqueurs than before.

I don't like such tones,but that's just a personal thing.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I thought she was not at all abrasive or confrontational. I thought she answered leading questions put to her directly, in a calm, friendly, and non offensive manner, and without mincing words.

What kind of tone did you hear that you don't like? Did you have any problem with Matt Lauer's tone?

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know