Originally posted by no1marauderRep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) said that you dolt.
From, of all people, Paul Ryan regarding your type of argument:
"There's been an undertone of disrespect in this hearing as I sat through it about people who just don't want to go to work," Ryan said. "So I appreciate your being very clear that this isn't about 2 million jobs. This is about average people having an opportunity to reduce th ...[text shortened]... on their own family."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/cbo-obamacare-jobs-tim-ryan <----- Derp
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough you believe otherwise dividends are taxed twice. First as company income, second as the owners of the company receive their money. But that's not the issue here. Regular income and dividend income are different and are justifiably treated differently. But that's not the issue here.
"Simple" you sure are.
A lower tax on dividends discourages work. IF government policy makes someone make a rational economic decision to forego some work in order for an insurance company to receive more money (that's who get the subsidy), they are "freeloaders". IF government policy encourages someone to work less and rely on dividend i ...[text shortened]... essential contribution to commerce"!
Hold your breath until you true blue, QQ.
The issue is that it is whether it is bad policy to force people to forego working opportunities so they can get governmental subsidies. I believe that it is and that those who contribute to subsidy programs should resent those who adversely effect their economic situation so others can supplement their income.
05 Feb 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, I think the distinction is you did not actively cut your hours and then apply for benefits that others pay for that you otherwise would not have qualified for.
I have a full-time job. Am I a "freeloader" because I'm not also working a second job in the weekends?
06 Feb 14
Originally posted by no1marauderBeing progressive to me is simply being a collectivist, whether this means forming large corporations and centralizing business or doing the same in politics by centralizing power to the Executive that we have seen over the years.
To you, "progressive" is just some kind of "bad" word to label virtually anybody that in your historically ignorant mind somehow contributed to policies you don't like.
To me, "progressive" has a fairly specific meaning having to do with the pro-labor policies and anti-monopoly stances of various groups around the late 19th Century and earli ...[text shortened]... on't have the slightest clue what you are talking about and are happy in your extreme ignorance.
And people like you supported the ACA which gave corporate America the right to set our tax rates. In the end, it became nothing but the largest tax increase on the middle class in US history.
Sickening.
Keep blaming the Tea Party but they have only been around a few years. You can say they are the root of all evil in the world but in the end they have no real power as seen in Congress as they cave repeatedly by increasing the debt ceiling.
06 Feb 14
Originally posted by whodeySo you think you can make up your own definitions that make no historical or logical sense. Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller were "progressives" according to that ridiculous definition.
Being progressive to me is simply being a collectivist, whether this means forming large corporations and centralizing business or doing the same in politics by centralizing power to the Executive that we have seen over the years.
And people like you supported the ACA which gave corporate America the right to set our tax rates. In the end, it became nothi ...[text shortened]... y have no real power as seen in Congress as they cave repeatedly by increasing the debt ceiling.
What taxes on the middle class were raised by the ACA? You were asked this before and couldn't name one. I know it's a right wing talking point and propaganda claim, but try thinking for yourself.
According to the CBO report that you and Eladar liked in the opening posts, there will be 25 million less uninsured people in the US because of the ACA. That is apparently "nothing" to you but it's probably "something" to them.
06 Feb 14
Originally posted by quackquackI've heard that ridiculous argument for years. A corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from its shareholders. That's the whole point of incorporation. The "double taxation" claim is bogus.
Although you believe otherwise dividends are taxed twice. First as company income, second as the owners of the company receive their money. But that's not the issue here. Regular income and dividend income are different and are justifiably treated differently. But that's not the issue here.
The issue is that it is whether it is bad policy to force ...[text shortened]... esent those who adversely effect their economic situation so others can supplement their income.
Income is income and in a logical system would be taxed the same. It isn't because it favors the rich to not do so. As a sycophant for the rich, you have no problem with this policy that discourages work because it favors the wealthy. But you "resent" average working Americans for making economically rational decisions. That's typical of your class warfare ideas.
And perhaps your reading skills are poor, but most Americans don't contribute anything to the subsidy programs as I've already explained. Please re-read my posts regarding the funding of the ACA and address the point raised.
Originally posted by no1marauderLook in any history book and you will see that the last hundred years is called the era of the progressive movement. Meanwhile, Progressives like yourself are distancing yourself as far away from the powers that be and have been as humanly possible.
So you think you can make up your own definitions that make no historical or logical sense. Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller were "progressives" according to that ridiculous definition.
What taxes on the middle class were raised by the ACA? You were asked this before and couldn't name one. I know it's a right wing talking point ...[text shortened]... S because of the ACA. That is apparently "nothing" to you but it's probably "something" to them.
Then again, I can't say I blame you.
As for health care premiums, mine have gone up as have everyone elses that I've talked to. Has yours dropped?
I personally will oppose any federal solution to health care. The issue should belong to the states. You can't expect to impose your will on conservative states and not also expect them to blindly follow along. You prove your position by demonstration. Let states find their own solutions and then adopt ones that work.
06 Feb 14
Originally posted by whodeyYes look in a history book I'm sure you'll find Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan described as "progressives".🙄
Look in any history book and you will see that the last hundred years is called the era of the progressive movement. Meanwhile, Progressives like yourself are distancing yourself as far away from the powers that be and have been as humanly possible.
Then again, I can't say I blame you.
As for health care premiums, mine have gone up as have everyone els ...[text shortened]... r position by demonstration. Let states find their own solutions and then adopt ones that work.
Health care premiums had been increasing at more than 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation for about 15 years prior to the passage of the ACA. They have slowed considerably since. By your "logic", this is a tax decrease, not a tax increase (though really it isn't either but we're playing WhodeySpeak).
The problem was left to the States. The "solution" was to have 50 million uninsured and premiums and costs skyrocketing. This was economically damaging to the People of the entire nation. A national solution was required and one was implemented (not the best one, but one our elected representatives chose). Your usual "turn the clock back" proposal is insufficient and would just put us back in the same mess as before.
06 Feb 14
I continue to try to puzzle out how anyone could claim that it was "progressive" policies that caused the economic morass which the nation got itself into over the thirty years prior to the financial meltdown of 2008. The policies adopted consisted of huge tax cuts which disproportionately benefited the wealthy, massive deregulation (including that of the financial sector), the adoption of "free trade" and free international capital flows which enriched the plutocrats but caused the US manufacturing base to almost disappear, the erosion of the real value of the minimum wage and pretty much every other damned thing that the wealthy wanted. Many of these policies directly overturned Progressive laws enacted under FDR or even before.
Progressive policies? Where? When?
06 Feb 14
Originally posted by no1marauderProgressive hide behind such legislation as Civil Rights, but then oversee the demise of the middle class. Then they implement their own policies while pointing their bony fingers at those who are not and have not been in power as being the reason for the demise.
I continue to try to puzzle out how anyone could claim that it was "progressive" policies that caused the economic morass which the nation got itself into over the thirty years prior to the financial meltdown of 2008. The policies adopted consisted of huge tax cuts which disproportionately benefited the wealthy, massive deregulation (including that of th ...[text shortened]... ressive laws enacted under FDR or even before.
Progressive policies? Where? When?
I could really care less about the term "progressive". It only boils down to collectivism and the myriad of names behind which they hide. In the end, the uber rich wish to govern our lives whether it be through corporate control or the government, each being one in the same.