Shut 'er down!!

I just did a search and read through the results of polls taken this past week on the ACA. None showed results anywhere near 60% against, typical was around 30%. Some reporting 45% against! but when you examine the breakdown of the question results, showed 10-15 were against it because it didn't go far enough. Open ended questions showed people were against it because it contained "death squads", or they just didn't understand it.

The claim that 60% oppose the ACA is just another false claim by the Tea Party types designed to mislead "low information" voters. But can we expect them to tell the truth--that they represent a small minority with extreme views? Extremists always try to convince the uninformed that they are in the mainstream. Every day the shutdown goes on, more and more people see the Tea Party for what it really is.

I guess even craziness has its benefits in the long run.
 
And alinwa thinks Mitt Romney's 47% just don't count and can be ignored (and have their positions misrepresented by conservatives).

You sure twisted that one. Romney was at a campaign meeting and said that those 47% wouldn't vote for him no matter what, so there was no point in expending campaign resources on them in a futile attempt to get their vote. Sounds like common sense to me.
 
Social Security? I paid into it for fourtysome years, and I shouldn't draw from it? Medicare? Paid for that too and am still paying for it if my Sociable Security statements are correct.

Me too. But I view Social Security as *social security* For people who need it. Lord knows there are plenty. I don't view it as "mine, all mine."

How many of you guys tithe, in some form or other? Ever read the story about rich folk, needles, and camels?

Hopefully, this latest fiasco will make what few voters there still are VOTE THE BASTARDS (AND BASTARDESSES) OUT....but it will never happen.

Yup, you're right. It will never happen. We're old enough to remember campaigning when the main form was radio. "Time for a change" they'd all say. But they never enact any change, no matter who wins. What fries me about the Tea Party is they just say things to make people mad. "They're stealing your money!!!" -- "they" being whoever holds power. All current candidate wants is some of that power.

Whatever. How about those Wall Street bankers who knowingly committed fraud, got richer, & took their bonus' while people we know were getting laid off through no fault of their own. They wouldn't send those people who committed fraud to jail. Talk about an outrage. They let us keep our guns. How come all those bankers are still alive?

Jerry, I've been pretty lucky in life. Just one example: I went to St. Olaf College, 1963-1967. The total cost for the degree was $7,200 ($1,800/year, room, board, and tuition). Today, that same degree at the same school costs $194,600 ($48,650/year for room, board and tuition).

Perspective: In 1963, the average new Chevy -- a Bel-Air -- was $2,600. Today (taking a Malibu as middle of the road) that Chevy costs $22,600.

So my college education cost 2.77 Chevys. Today it's 8.6 Chevys. Almost six new cars more. Something's wrong here. The problem isn't educational loans & the loan rate, it's the cost itself.

BTW, Most high school teachers today have a higher salary than I do. But they complain about not getting enough.

Something's wrong here.

Tea party complains about all the illegals taking services they haven't paid for. I see no documentation. You're suppose to say "that's right!" What about those illegals who have jobs where social security is withheld automatically -- there are a lot that fall into that category too, so they pay taxes they'll never recoup. Because the documentation is fake, they'll never be able to collect. No politician plots out the actual costs & contributions, they just whine, depending on which side they're on.

When the Tea Party comes up with workable solutions to problems, I'll think about supporting them. So far, all they're doing is trying to get people scared and mad. I guess they figure it's the quickest way to get power, so they can get theirs. Seen all that before, too.

Meanwhile, I'll do what my dad did. Tithe, or better. If not to the church, then to aid people less fortunate. In my dad's will, I got half, the school got half, in the form of scholarships. It wasn't all that much money, but I can make my own way. There are those who cannot, and don't give me this crap that they're all lazy. Esp. the 4-year olds.
 
What about those illegals who have jobs where social security is withheld automatically -- there are a lot that fall into that category too, so they pay taxes they'll never recoup. Because the documentation is fake, they'll never be able to collect. No politician plots out the actual costs & contributions, they just whine, depending on which side they're on.

Can you explain how that works? I would think that the employer has to have an ssn for an employee if he's withholding ss taxes. If the employee gives the employer a bogus ssn doesn't Social Security check it for validity? If not, where does the money go?
 
Can you explain how that works? I would think that the employer has to have an ssn for an employee if he's withholding ss taxes. If the employee gives the employer a bogus ssn doesn't Social Security check it for validity? If not, where does the money go?

If you Google the topic,

illegal aliens who pay social security tax

you'd find a lot of hits. Here's just one...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

Just another item in the lesson, don't believe what any politician tells you when they're trying to scare you into voting for them.

For something comprehensive, that factors in both the cost generated by illegal aliens getting services (not completely offset in a direct form at the local level), and the overall economic gain of having them as additional consumers of products, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

It's a lot of reading, but then, nothing much is simple anymore. I think politicians on both the left & right hope you won't read & will just take their word about things. YMMV.
 
Nice try...

You sure twisted that one. Romney was at a campaign meeting and said that those 47% wouldn't vote for him no matter what, so there was no point in expending campaign resources on them in a futile attempt to get their vote. Sounds like common sense to me.

...but there was a whole lot more. It was the standard conservative distortion that the 47% were "takers," i.e., by implication, deadbeats, slackers and lazy welfare cheats. Really???? 47%??? Of course, Romney (and Alinwa) only care about the 1% at the top. The rest of us are just parasites.

Romney was ahead in the polls but the 47% comment cost him the election. Common sense??? Sure it was. You betcha.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...Of course, Romney (and Alinwa) only care about the 1% at the top. The rest of us are just parasites.
You have Al wrong. He is a true conservative, willing to accept the considerable human cost for what he feels to be best in the long run. Unlike so many, he doesn't deny the cost. Romney seemed to be another matter entirely. A "say what'll let me win" kind of guy. They're not rare...
 
I just hope everyone understands...................

The presidential election means nothing. The House and Senate elections mean EVERYTHING! The presidential candidate may say " If elected I will........" But he has already lied. He should have said "If elected I will ask Congress if they will let me........"
think about that.
ba
 
...but there was a whole lot more. It was the standard conservative distortion that the 47% were "takers," i.e., by implication, deadbeats, slackers and lazy welfare cheats. Really???? 47%??? Of course, Romney (and Alinwa) only care about the 1% at the top. The rest of us are just parasites.

Romney was ahead in the polls but the 47% comment cost him the election. Common sense??? Sure it was. You betcha.

There you go again. Romney didn't say that they were deadbeats, slackers and welfare cheats. Nor does he only care about the top 1% and he doesn't call you parasites. You throw out these incendiary statements that are not factual but only your distorted opinion. This is the kind of rhetoric that makes it impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion with a liberal. No wonder we have such an impasse in Washington if most of the democrats think like you. For my part I'm done with you and wont respond to any more of the crap you post. It's just not worth two seconds of my time.
 
Romney's 47% quote

Here is the exact quote of Romney's 47% comment:

"All right there are 47 percent who are with him [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That's an entitlement and the government should give it to them."

"...These are people who pay no income tax."

"...And so my job is not to worry about those people--I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

His job (as president) is to "not worry" about 47% of this nation's people?

His indifference proven by his remarks cost him the election.
 
You want to support the worthless free riders then donate your check to their cause its your free choice.
I prefer to hang onto mine to support my family, I earned it and it should be my free choice. Maybe you are in that 47% and have allot to loose, that would surely justify your reactions.
 
Last edited:
You want to support the worthless free riders then donate your check to their cause its your free choice.
You mean the 50-year old guy who had no debt, but lost his job when his parent company went under due to the fraudulent adventures of wall street, slicing and repackaging home mortgages as investment bonds?

Or the guy at NorTel, which went under because the Chinese broke into their computes & stole all the technical information, then turned around and offered the same products and services at a far lower rate?

Or the guy who was fully retired after working 40 years for a company that subsequently went bankrupt, and in the "negotioated settlements" stripped much of the pension benefits from the retired workers -- Hint: check out airlines & automakers. While you're at it check how much the lawyers who "negotiated" these settlement took as compensation, before whatever was left was doled out.

Those freeloaders? You spout, but have no data. Yes there are freeloaders. And yes, there are those who have been royally screwed, after working hard and living life honestly, assuming other would too. Do you know how many of each there are?

Are you one of those guys who just wants all he can get, so you latch on to what any old politician tells you? Or are you willing to do the work to find out, not by logging on to those web sites that just spout more of what you want to hear (doesn't matter what you want to hear, someone will provide it), but websites that have comparative data?

My dad went through the depression. The 1930s depression. His was a large family. Some fared better than others. They took care of each other. But they didn't stop there. There were neighbors who lost everything, and they got helped too. He was a pretty conservative republican, but he viewed most people who lost everything as down on their luck. It could -- and did -- happen to anybody.

How does this relate to Romney? Romney told a particular audience what he thought they wanted to hear. He'd tell a different audience what he thought they wanted to hear. Is that why you liked him? Whoever you were, he gave you a quick way out with a comfortable story, so you didn't have to do any work to figure out -- for yourself -- what happened and what to do about it.
 
Living the effect of the law

Hi everyone,

For some the law has already had a very negative effect. I am one of those.
I work for a large local employer 3000+ employees. The industry is the entertainment and resort type. It operates with mostly PT employee's. Myself am one of the PT "regular" employee's that get almost full time hours and limited benefits including 401k and flex spending for health care. You make a decent living wage.

This has all changed under the new law.

Employee's working averaging over "X" number of hours, under the new law, MUST be given health care by the employer. Our company cannot just suddenly pull the money for several thousand employee's health care out of the thin air. So our hours have been cut drastically from 38-40 week to 20-25 week. More people hired to fill the gaps, FT employee's working constant OT.
My checks are almost 50% less now obviously due to the hourly reduction.
The flex spending health benefit which does not comply with the new law is now also gone. That's another $1200 a year hit out of my pocket. We can buy insurance after the first of the year but with the greatly reduced hours it is impossible to pay for.
And while I haven't seen it mentioned here the fact is if I don't buy into the healthcare system I get fined every month by the government.

I thought this was just our company, who is very highly regarded, being a "jerk". It is not. Other local companies that operate with a large staff of PT workers are doing the exact same things. They have to, its the law forcing them. We have had many meeting the past 8 months with HR reps explaining it all. My contacts in other companies locally are telling me their HR has been doing the same thing. We are all getting the same info so it is not just one companies reaction.

I am now forced to leave a job for a new one and have yet to find any. The job market stinks. Or I can tke or 1-2 other PT jobs and try and hope to make ends meet that way. Of course the H3LL with ever being home to see my family.

I'm no longer waiting to see the effect of the new law, I am already living it as are a large number of others just in the location I work at.

FWIW as this is my first post as I just rejoined BR, note I said rejoined...I am not a troll... was on here years back including advertising my shop services on banner ads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie's I fall in that category you speak of after 43 years of hard work and paying into the system. I am referring to those who don't want to work, nor to put any money into the system, their goal in life is to live off the sweat of our backs on government handouts. Over the years I have seen them have a better quality of life than myself as well as a less stressful one.

JLouis
 
Sorry to hear about your situation msorwan1975. Sadly, most on the left don't want to discuss or address the real ramifications of this bill (probably because they don't understand all of the tenants....hell, I've read much of it and I don't). Makes you wonder about those that voted for ACA.

Ultimately the libs will have to answer to results, not nanny-state "pie in the sky". In 5 - 10 years American voters should take a hard look at the following:

1) Has health care cost become more affordable or at least stayed flat relative to the CPI?

2) What has ACA done to employer provided? Up or down, and that's quantifiable. When elminated are the rates folks are paying in the exchange higher than what their employee contribution used to be? And is the coverage equivalent, better, or worse? Same holds for seniors with Medicare and supplemental.

3) Is the program solvent? In other words, can it fund itself or is it in the red like so many other federal entitlements?

4) What's the impact to health care delivery? Are efficiencies gained and waste curtailed? Or is it the proverbial bureaucratic snowball? (one guess where my money would land)

5) Adoption rates. We're told young Americans want health care options. So will they buy in or pay the penalty?

Bleeding hearts may get legislation passed but service quality and financial acumen is what it'll be graded on.

-Lee
www.singleactions.com
 
Sorry to hear about your situation msorwan1975. Sadly, most on the left don't want to discuss or address the real ramifications of this bill (probably because they don't understand all of the tenants....hell, I've read much of it and I don't). Makes you wonder about those that voted for ACA.

I too have read much of it and it is difficult to understand, that alone says a lot.

The HR folks, and we have a large dept obviously with 3k employees to be managed, put together a task force to research and try to understand the new law. Trouble is even the government doesn't have a clue as to what it all means and that is what they are admitting openly.
Kind of sad really.
All I know is at this point it has cost me a lot of money and will only cost more in the future unless I get really lucky in this poor job market. And at my age with certain health considerations restricting the type of employment I can do...it isn't going to happen I fear....
 
The claim that 60% oppose the ACA is just another false claim by the Tea Party types designed to mislead "low information" voters. But can we expect them to tell the truth--that they represent a small minority with extreme views? Extremists always try to convince the uninformed that they are in the mainstream. Every day the shutdown goes on, more and more people see the Tea Party for what it really is.

I guess even craziness has its benefits in the long run.



So........you want it and I don't.......


That makes 50% out of only 2 people. I can find LOTS more that don't want ACA.


If I ask the right 10 or 100 people out there......I can make the percentages look any way I want to.....for or against anything that's being polled.
 
I have a question.

The Goverment runs three health care programs now (not including the ACA). They are also involved in four others (for federal employees). All of them are a heavy drain on tax dollars and two of them are considered disastrous by politicians, meaning, they can not be maintained at current offerings.

Now, what makes people think they can run another???


Anybody watch the 60 minutes program last night about social security disability???


Hovis
 
Back
Top