blueveinedthrobber
 
  2  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 04:46 am
@H2O MAN,
So do they all.... but you only have a problem with "democrap" liars.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 07:05 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
Correction, Obama democrap liars.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 07:55 am
@okie,
Quote:
perhaps not a Leftist, but certainly not a true conservative either.

I see you want to resort to the "No true Scotsman " fallacy.

Quote:
It seems to me that there is more political weight on the Democratic side to withdraw all support of Israel, than there is on the Republican side.
Withdrawal of support is prima facia evidence of hatred of the group you are taking support away from? Hmmm.. that's an interesting take on it okie. Can we apply that standard equally to the GOP?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 07:58 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

From: Lawrence A. Hunter [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:30 PM
Subject: Death Panels & Taxes
Quote:
DEATH PANELS & TAXES
...
Obama wants you to die inexpensively.

For an administration that professes to believe that health care is a fundamental right, it's rather ironic that ObamaCare intends pay for itself by sending seniors to an early grave via DEATH PANELS a.k.a. the Independent Medicare Advisory Board and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Government paid BureauDocs will play God, weigh the value of your life and render your final judgment. Here is how one commentator, Jane Chastain, columnist and political commentator at WorldNetDaily, put it in her Mar. 18, 2010 article "Fooling Granny," available at www.wnd.com:
"This bill sets up an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which is to recommend cuts for the sole purpose of limiting the amount of resources going to Medicare patients. Some have called it a 'Death Panel.' You may think this is harsh, but if this bill passes, many seniors will die prematurely because the recommendations of these unelected bureaucrats will go into effect. Congress is not required to act on them!"

I know, I know, here we go again using scare tactics to get our point across, right? There is no such thing as Death Panels, right? After all AARP, Obama and the Liberal Media went FAR out of their way to "Expose the Myths of ObamaCare" from the opponents of Government-run health care, right? AARP would never betray seniors for profit, would they? RIGHT!

The world under ObamaCare truly has been turned upside down. For months they lied to us about death panels. "Death panels, you're exaggerating." Now that ObamaCare is law, the statists and social engineers are brazenly promoting Death Panels that target America's seniors and boomers as essential to "bend the cost curve down," right onto the backs of America's most vulnerable population.

...

Doubt it? Consider this: Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama's new director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, vocally supports the rationing arm of Britain's National Health Service, the UK's own version of a death panel, which goes under the Orwellian label the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE). NICE is responsible for determining whether or not the life-extending benefits a patient receives are worth the cost to the government.

Dr. Berwick calls this panel a "global treasure." One can just imagine the thrill up his leg Dr. Berwick feels at the mention of ObamaCare's version of comparative effectiveness to be carried out through the new death-research panel tagged the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute established to undertake comparative effectiveness research like NICE.

Additionally, Berwick's leg must tingle at the thought of the other death panel flying under cover of "efficiency and effectiveness", the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will recommend spending and coverage cuts in Medicare to "improve clinical effectiveness," ways of slowing the growth of Medicare provider payments, reducing Medicare and Medicaid drug reimbursement rate and cutting other Medicare and Medicaid spending. In a word, RATIONING!

If you want to know what medicine in America will look like under ObamaCare, just examine how it operates under the strong arm of NICE where doctors are forbidden to prescribe vital drugs that prolong the life of cancer patients, such as Lapatinib and Sutent. NICE also heavily restricts Alzheimer's drugs for those in the early stages of the disease despite the fact that the early stages are when treatment can provide the most benefit.

Originally pitched as nothing more than a board to promote "best practices," NICE has become a rationing, death panel machine, and so will ObamaCare's various cost-control and clinical-effectiveness panels.

New York Times columnist and self-professed ObamaCare cheerleader Paul Krugman said recently on ABC's This Week –
"Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sale's taxes. Its going to be; we're actually going to take Medicare under control and we're going to have to get some additional revenue from a VAT."

Yeah, he actually said DEATH PANELS



Obama and Palin agree that DEATH PANELS are part of OBAMACARE.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 08:04 am
@okie,
You make a mistake in equating equality for all including Palestine with a hatred for Jews. Moreover, the whole middle east issue seems to cross over back and forth between party lines. Even some Jews are against some of what Israel does.

example

There are extremist and conspiracy theories spread equally across the spectrum on many different issues. So it would be hard to use that as any proof of any particular group being prone to conspiracy theories. Concerning 9/11, it is just as bad to blame an entire race for the actions of a certain group within that race as it would be to put the blame on the Jews. Both are ignoring individuals actions and evidence of those actions and just blaming races or people or a certain religion. Yes there are some who think Jews control the financial world, but it is not contained in the leftist realm, not even mostly.

There has been quite a few stories these last couple of years of disrespectful artwork concerning Muslims. My point being that hate is pretty much an equalizer and does not signify leftist as being like Hitler in any way. Both would be wrong. What would be wrong is say for example a anti-Muslim artwork being allowed or at advocated to stay by right wingers but the Christianity artwork advocated to be removed. Both should be allowed to stay as freedom of speech or whatever that would fall under. But both would be disrespectful to both religions in my view. People's own particular taste or beliefs should not dicate what is in the law, but rather what is fair to everyone regardless of religious beliefs or prejudice or race or sexual prefrence ... (I don't articulate very well, but maybe my point can puzzled out)

For Leftist who are political, what most of us want (to put in my own words and belief which may differ from other leftist) is for example Jews and Muslims and Christianity or any other religion being treated the same and for none of it being legislated or forced upon us through laws.

For example the same sex marriage issue is forcing religious (or whatever) views and discriminating against the homosexuals to have the same rights and freedoms as heterosexuals. It is not being anti-Christianity to oppose same sex marriage ban, but merely, freedom for all including homosexuals.

Another example that is also relevant now was the whole Mosque thing in NY. That was discriminated against Muslims the right to build their religious place of worship plain and simple. If it was people of the Jewish race or religion who did 9/11 and a Jewish group later wanted to build a Temple near the place, it would have been the same discrimination to deny them the right to build their Temple if they had nothing to with the horrific acts of 9/11. (of which I don't believe, nor do most of the considered leftist here in a2k)

Not sure where all \\\\\\ are coming from, but anyway I have pontificated on all this enough, kind of went on there.

revelette
 
  2  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 08:36 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

The bill specifically prohibits any cost-effectiveness analysis that would use any adjusted life years factor that would place lower value on the life of elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individuals compared to younger and healthier individuals.




source

Without having read nor any desire to read transcripts from ABC This Week concerning Paul Krugman, if he used the phrase "death panel" and actually said what the quote from Ican's article indicated, he is misinformed.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 12:17 pm
Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20100&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Why the Spending Stimulus Failed
The intellectual and political left argues that the failed $814 billion stimulus in 2009 wasn't big enough, and that spending control any time soon will derail the economy. But economic theory, history and statistical studies reveal that more taxes and spending are more likely to harm than help the economy, says Michael J. Boskin, a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Boskin's colleagues John Cogan and John Taylor, with Volker Wieland and Tobias Cwik, demonstrate that government purchases have a gross domestic product (GDP) impact far smaller in New Keynesian than Old Keynesian models and quickly crowd out the private sector.

They estimate the effect of the February 2009 stimulus at a puny 0.2 percent of GDP by now.

By contrast, the last two major tax cuts -- President Reagan's in 1981-1983 and President George W. Bush's in 2003 -- boosted growth.

They lowered marginal tax rates and were longer lasting, both keys to success.

In a survey of fiscal policy changes among countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) over the past four decades, Harvard's Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna conclude that tax cuts have been far more likely to increase growth than has more spending.

Former Obama adviser Christina Romer and David Romer of the University of California, Berkeley, estimate a tax-cut multiplier of 3.0, meaning $1 of lower taxes raises short-run output by $3.

Andrew Mountford of the University of London and Harald Uhlig of the University of Chicago show that substantial tax cuts have a far larger impact on output and employment than spending increases, with a multiplier up to 5.0.

Conversely, a tax increase is very damaging. The best stimulus now is to stop the impending tax hikes, says Boskin.

Source: Michael J. Boskin, "Why the Spending Stimulus Failed," Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2010.

revelette
 
  2  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 01:29 pm
@ican711nm,
Ican, don't you think if anyone wanted these (unrelated to any ongoing point) partisan newsletters; we could subscribe to them to be delivered to our own email accounts without you shoving them out here for no good reason?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 02:53 pm
Ican, keep up the good work - thank you
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  2  
Fri 3 Dec, 2010 11:15 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Obama lies.


You're the dumbest thing that's ever happened. By thousands and thousands of dumb points.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Sat 4 Dec, 2010 04:32 am
Gargamelanoma hasn't a clue.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  3  
Sat 4 Dec, 2010 01:26 pm
@Gargamel,
Gargamel wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Obama lies.


You're the dumbest thing that's ever happened. By thousands and thousands of dumb points.


probably from inhaling all that blue water on the job.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Sat 4 Dec, 2010 01:51 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Looks like Gargamelanoma has a new special someone to share warm showers and walks in the rain with.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Sun 5 Dec, 2010 12:01 pm
It is obvious that within any particular income range, a 0% tax rate will produce zero fed revenue. It is also obvious that within any particular income range, a 100% tax rate will produce zero fed income after the first year it is applied. It is also obvious that a tax rate some where in between will produce the maximum fed revenue. What is that tax rate within any particular income range that will produce the maximum tax revenue? It appears from the data below that tax rate that will produce maximum tax revenue from any particular income range is less than 40%!

My estimate is that tax rate that will produce maximum tax revenue from any particular income range is a tax rate less than 30%.

(1) Federal Revenues increased by more than a factor of 5 when the tax rates decreased and remained lower than 40% after 1980.
(2) Percent of Civilian population Employed rose after 1980 until 2007.
(3) Percent of Civilian population Employed remained higher than it was in 1980 until 2010 when it became lower than in 1980.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sun 5 Dec, 2010 12:13 pm
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] as of November 2010

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.2 [OBAMA] as of November 2010 [/quote]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Sun 5 Dec, 2010 12:23 pm
Either President Obama is stupid enough to actually believe his tax and spend policies will recover the the USA economy, or he knows damn well his policies will not recover the USA economy and will in fact make it worse.

Why would President Obama knowingly make the USA economy worse? President Obama is an employee of George Soros whose objective is the creation of a "new world order" within which the USA is subordinate and less productive.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sun 5 Dec, 2010 01:22 pm
Quote:

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm
WHAT’S FAIR?
Percent of American Income Tax Payers, Percent of All Annual Incomes, Percent of All Taxes Paid, and Average Annual Incomes

POITP = Percent Of Income Tax Payers
POAI = Percent Of All Income
POAITP = Percent Of All Income Taxes Paid
AAI = Average Annual Income

POITPPOAIPOAITPAAI
1%.…...21%40% $365,000
5%.…...30%56% $145,283
10%.…..43%65% $103,912

Quote:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
Schedule Y-1: Married filing jointly--DOLLARS TAXABLE INCOME
IF OVER | BUT NOT OVER | TAX IS | PLUS TAX RATE | OF AMOUNT OVER
$0 | $16,750 | $0.00 |10% |$0
$16,750 | $68,000 | $1,675.00 | 15% | $16,750
| $68,000 | $137,300 | $9,362.50 |25% | $68,000
| $137,300 | $209,250 | $26,687.50 |28% | $137,300
| $209,250 | $373,650 | $46,833.50 |33% | $209,250
| $373,650 | $--------- | $101,085.50 |35% | $373,650

PER PERSON | NUMBER PERSONS | TOTAL
Standard Deduction | $5,700 |4 | $22,800
Exemptions | $3,650 |4 | $14,600
Deduct' + Exemp's |$9350 | 4 | $37,400

GROSS INCOME $37,400 $50,000 $100,000
TAXABLE INCOME $0 $12,600 $62,600
INCOME TAX $0.00 $1,260.00 $8,552.49
% TAX ON GROSS 0% 3% 9%

GROSS INCOME $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $100,000,000
TAXABLE INCOME $962,600 $9,962,600 $99,962,600
INCOME TAX $307,218 $3,457,218 $34,957,218
% TAX ON GROSS 31% 35% 35%




JTT
 
  1  
Sun 5 Dec, 2010 01:42 pm
@ican711nm,
to actually believe his tax and spend policies will recover the the USA economy, or he knows damn well his policies will not recover the USA economy

=====================

This use of the verb 'recover' is interesting. It's like the recent use of the verb 'grow', eg. "will grow the economy".

Is this a new usage, Ican or is it common to your dialect? Have others seen or read this collocation, or have you used it yourself?

[I'm not making fun of Ican or his use of 'recover' in this way. I'm only interested in its frequency of use]
parados
 
  4  
Sun 5 Dec, 2010 02:42 pm
@ican711nm,
You left out a couple of important figures ican.
Percent of all Wealth

and

Percent of TOTAL taxes paid.

But, I don't expect you to tell the complete truth about any thing. It only means your solutions won't solve anything though.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Sun 5 Dec, 2010 04:35 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

JTT quoting ican: "to actually believe his tax and spend policies will recover the the USA economy, or he knows damn well his policies will not recover the USA economy."

This use of the verb 'recover' is interesting. It's like the recent use of the verb 'grow', eg. "will grow the economy".

Is this a new usage, Ican or is it common to your dialect? Have others seen or read this collocation, or have you used it yourself?

[I'm not making fun of Ican or his use of 'recover' in this way. I'm only interested in its frequency of use]

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=recover&x=25&y=8
Main Entry: 1re·cov·er Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: rkv(r), r-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): recovered; recovered; recovering \-v()ri\; recovers
Etymology: Middle English recoveren, from Middle French recoverer, from Latin recuperare; akin to Latin recipere to take back, receive -- more at RECEIVE
transitive verb
1 : to get or win back <sat down to recover his breath> <died without recovering consciousness> <answered as soon as he could recover his voice> <recover the pioneering spirit of their ancestors>
2 archaic : to get well from (as an injury, a sickness)
3 a : to bring (oneself) back to normal balance or self-possession <stumbled and recovered himself> b archaic : RESCUE, DELIVER <that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil -- 2 Tim 2:26 (Authorized Version)>
4 a : to make good the loss, injury, or cost of : make up for <recover increased costs through higher prices> <hoped to recover his gambling losses with a big coup> b : to gain by legal process <recover damages and costs in a libel suit> <recover title to a disputed property> <recover judgment against a defendant>
5 archaic : to gain by motion or effort : REACH
6 archaic : RESTORE, CURE, HEAL <from death to life thou might'st him yet recover -- Michael Drayton> <she hath recovered the king and undone me -- Shakespeare>

...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1872
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 04:39:39