Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Bankrupt trumps all insults!
If they WISH to receive FREE money from other taxpayers, then birth control should be MANDATORY. Why should they be able to keep bringing more welfare recipients into the country just because they can't control their sexual urges?
Once again, if you have NO PROBLEM with the spelling of the country being changed to AmeriKa, then I can see how many of your arguments make sense in your mind.
We are discussing generational welfare and it's contribution to the massive debt that WILL bankrupt this country. There is also a thing called "odds." You are obviously a terrible gambler . . . a lottery ticket buyer. "Somebody has to win!" Yes, and the odds say, it won't be you, just as they predict that 99% will NOT make a major contribution.
Everyone better hope these are "tin foil" hat wearers:
Everyone better hope these are "tin foil" hat wearers:
Everyone better hope these are "tin foil" hat wearers:
Everyone better hope these are "tin foil" hat wearers:
Do any zombie liberals ever think for themselves? Here's a bit of information for those who may be lurking and still believe that the ACA is good for the country.
1. Medicare/Medicaid patients do NOT receive the same treatment as private health care patients because Medicare/Medicaid screws doctors in what they will pay. That is a FACT.
2. Studies show that Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be less healthy than the general uninsured population . . ." -- That's not the general INSURED population, but the UN-INSURED.
3. The AFP is warning Virginians that the system “will cost Virginia taxpayers billions,” require “future tax hikes and budget cuts to vital services like schools, police and fire departments,” undermine the “doctor-patient relationship,” increase wait times and even endanger lives. -- Again, this is not made up. This is all true. Anyone who has run a business and provided insurance to their employees would know that these mandates and penalties are nothing but a new way to generate revenue for the gov't. Many have called it a new tax for this very reason.
Those pro-ACA (aka Obamacare), listen up, and learn something.
Say you are a company with 75 employees, and you currently provide a health insurance for your employees through Blue Cross. You, as the employer, pick up 75% of the premium, because you have several employees who are in the 50's , 60's, and even a few in their 70's working full time, and they have been with your company for decades. If they work full time, then Medicare cannot be their primary insurance, so having these older employees makes your premiums higher than normal. That is why you pay the 75% -- to make it affordable for your employees.
Now, the gov't steps in and sets a mandate on what they call affordable, and if you do not meet that standard, and even ONE employee qualifies for a tax subsidy on the exchanges, you, as an employer, will be subject to a $2,000-$3,000 penalty (a new type of tax) owed to the gov't. One of the consequences of the ACA are rising premiums for private insurance. It's just a FACT.
So, what if your renewal on your group plan makes it unaffordable for the company to pick up 75%, but because of the new rules on what is considered "affordable" for the employee, they (the small company) actually would be forced to pick up 85% in order to not have any employees qualify for the subsidy and force automatic penalties on the employer, who cannot afford them. The EMPLOYEES want to keep their PRIVATE Blue Cross plan, because they KNOW doctors and hospitals receive better payment than Medicaid and Medicare, and they understand that the exchange plans will be patterned after these.
What's the company now to do? They have limited choices. They could fire enough people to be able to pay 85% on the ones left, but that might place the business in a precarious spot, and it creates more unemployment. They could forget private insurance completely, pay the penalty, and let the employees fend for themselves, but they KNOW that it's not simply those at the VERY bottom of the pay scale having a difficult time affording insurance. They KNOW that the family making more than the percentages above the poverty lines that qualify for help from the gov't will not be able to afford health insurance if the company stops paying the 75% they were.
Because liberals on these board and across the country ONLY consider the BOTTOM 10% living in total, abject poverty, who might get free health insurance, instead of relying on emergency rooms, or just being unhealthy, they are willing to let health care and affordability deteriorate for the other 90%, and IT WILL. It will also lead to small company employees getting SCREWED if they are currently covered under private insurance.
Any THINKING American with real world experience running a business KNOWS this, so liberals with NO experience should just keep their mouths shut.
Do any zombie liberals ever think for themselves? Here's a bit of information for those who may be lurking and still believe that the ACA is good for the country.
1. Medicare/Medicaid patients do NOT receive the same treatment as private health care patients because Medicare/Medicaid screws doctors in what they will pay. That is a FACT.
2. Studies show that Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be less healthy than the general uninsured population . . ." -- That's not the general INSURED population, but the UN-INSURED.
3. The AFP is warning Virginians that the system “will cost Virginia taxpayers billions,” require “future tax hikes and budget cuts to vital services like schools, police and fire departments,” undermine the “doctor-patient relationship,” increase wait times and even endanger lives. -- Again, this is not made up. This is all true. Anyone who has run a business and provided insurance to their employees would know that these mandates and penalties are nothing but a new way to generate revenue for the gov't. Many have called it a new tax for this very reason.
Those pro-ACA (aka Obamacare), listen up, and learn something.
Say you are a company with 75 employees, and you currently provide a health insurance for your employees through Blue Cross. You, as the employer, pick up 75% of the premium, because you have several employees who are in the 50's , 60's, and even a few in their 70's working full time, and they have been with your company for decades. If they work full time, then Medicare cannot be their primary insurance, so having these older employees makes your premiums higher than normal. That is why you pay the 75% -- to make it affordable for your employees.
Now, the gov't steps in and sets a mandate on what they call affordable, and if you do not meet that standard, and even ONE employee qualifies for a tax subsidy on the exchanges, you, as an employer, will be subject to a $2,000-$3,000 penalty (a new type of tax) owed to the gov't. One of the consequences of the ACA are rising premiums for private insurance. It's just a FACT.
So, what if your renewal on your group plan makes it unaffordable for the company to pick up 75%, but because of the new rules on what is considered "affordable" for the employee, they (the small company) actually would be forced to pick up 85% in order to not have any employees qualify for the subsidy and force automatic penalties on the employer, who cannot afford them. The EMPLOYEES want to keep their PRIVATE Blue Cross plan, because they KNOW doctors and hospitals receive better payment than Medicaid and Medicare, and they understand that the exchange plans will be patterned after these.
What's the company now to do? They have limited choices. They could fire enough people to be able to pay 85% on the ones left, but that might place the business in a precarious spot, and it creates more unemployment. They could forget private insurance completely, pay the penalty, and let the employees fend for themselves, but they KNOW that it's not simply those at the VERY bottom of the pay scale having a difficult time affording insurance. They KNOW that the family making more than the percentages above the poverty lines that qualify for help from the gov't will not be able to afford health insurance if the company stops paying the 75% they were.
Because liberals on these board and across the country ONLY consider the BOTTOM 10% living in total, abject poverty, who might get free health insurance, instead of relying on emergency rooms, or just being unhealthy, they are willing to let health care and affordability deteriorate for the other 90%, and IT WILL. It will also lead to small company employees getting SCREWED if they are currently covered under private insurance.
Any THINKING American with real world experience running a business KNOWS this, so liberals with NO experience should just keep their mouths shut.
Do any zombie liberals ever think for themselves? Here's a bit of information for those who may be lurking and still believe that the ACA is good for the country.
1. Medicare/Medicaid patients do NOT receive the same treatment as private health care patients because Medicare/Medicaid screws doctors in what they will pay. That is a FACT.
2. Studies show that Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be less healthy than the general uninsured population . . ." -- That's not the general INSURED population, but the UN-INSURED.
3. The AFP is warning Virginians that the system “will cost Virginia taxpayers billions,” require “future tax hikes and budget cuts to vital services like schools, police and fire departments,” undermine the “doctor-patient relationship,” increase wait times and even endanger lives. -- Again, this is not made up. This is all true. Anyone who has run a business and provided insurance to their employees would know that these mandates and penalties are nothing but a new way to generate revenue for the gov't. Many have called it a new tax for this very reason.
Those pro-ACA (aka Obamacare), listen up, and learn something.
Say you are a company with 75 employees, and you currently provide a health insurance for your employees through Blue Cross. You, as the employer, pick up 75% of the premium, because you have several employees who are in the 50's , 60's, and even a few in their 70's working full time, and they have been with your company for decades. If they work full time, then Medicare cannot be their primary insurance, so having these older employees makes your premiums higher than normal. That is why you pay the 75% -- to make it affordable for your employees.
Now, the gov't steps in and sets a mandate on what they call affordable, and if you do not meet that standard, and even ONE employee qualifies for a tax subsidy on the exchanges, you, as an employer, will be subject to a $2,000-$3,000 penalty (a new type of tax) owed to the gov't. One of the consequences of the ACA are rising premiums for private insurance. It's just a FACT.
So, what if your renewal on your group plan makes it unaffordable for the company to pick up 75%, but because of the new rules on what is considered "affordable" for the employee, they (the small company) actually would be forced to pick up 85% in order to not have any employees qualify for the subsidy and force automatic penalties on the employer, who cannot afford them. The EMPLOYEES want to keep their PRIVATE Blue Cross plan, because they KNOW doctors and hospitals receive better payment than Medicaid and Medicare, and they understand that the exchange plans will be patterned after these.
What's the company now to do? They have limited choices. They could fire enough people to be able to pay 85% on the ones left, but that might place the business in a precarious spot, and it creates more unemployment. They could forget private insurance completely, pay the penalty, and let the employees fend for themselves, but they KNOW that it's not simply those at the VERY bottom of the pay scale having a difficult time affording insurance. They KNOW that the family making more than the percentages above the poverty lines that qualify for help from the gov't will not be able to afford health insurance if the company stops paying the 75% they were.
Because liberals on these board and across the country ONLY consider the BOTTOM 10% living in total, abject poverty, who might get free health insurance, instead of relying on emergency rooms, or just being unhealthy, they are willing to let health care and affordability deteriorate for the other 90%, and IT WILL. It will also lead to small company employees getting SCREWED if they are currently covered under private insurance.
Any THINKING American with real world experience running a business KNOWS this, so liberals with NO experience should just keep their mouths shut.
Do any zombie liberals ever think for themselves? Here's a bit of information for those who may be lurking and still believe that the ACA is good for the country.
1. Medicare/Medicaid patients do NOT receive the same treatment as private health care patients because Medicare/Medicaid screws doctors in what they will pay. That is a FACT.
2. Studies show that Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be less healthy than the general uninsured population . . ." -- That's not the general INSURED population, but the UN-INSURED.
3. The AFP is warning Virginians that the system “will cost Virginia taxpayers billions,” require “future tax hikes and budget cuts to vital services like schools, police and fire departments,” undermine the “doctor-patient relationship,” increase wait times and even endanger lives. -- Again, this is not made up. This is all true. Anyone who has run a business and provided insurance to their employees would know that these mandates and penalties are nothing but a new way to generate revenue for the gov't. Many have called it a new tax for this very reason.
Those pro-ACA (aka Obamacare), listen up, and learn something.
Say you are a company with 75 employees, and you currently provide a health insurance for your employees through Blue Cross. You, as the employer, pick up 75% of the premium, because you have several employees who are in the 50's , 60's, and even a few in their 70's working full time, and they have been with your company for decades. If they work full time, then Medicare cannot be their primary insurance, so having these older employees makes your premiums higher than normal. That is why you pay the 75% -- to make it affordable for your employees.
Now, the gov't steps in and sets a mandate on what they call affordable, and if you do not meet that standard, and even ONE employee qualifies for a tax subsidy on the exchanges, you, as an employer, will be subject to a $2,000-$3,000 penalty (a new type of tax) owed to the gov't. One of the consequences of the ACA are rising premiums for private insurance. It's just a FACT.
So, what if your renewal on your group plan makes it unaffordable for the company to pick up 75%, but because of the new rules on what is considered "affordable" for the employee, they (the small company) actually would be forced to pick up 85% in order to not have any employees qualify for the subsidy and force automatic penalties on the employer, who cannot afford them. The EMPLOYEES want to keep their PRIVATE Blue Cross plan, because they KNOW doctors and hospitals receive better payment than Medicaid and Medicare, and they understand that the exchange plans will be patterned after these.
What's the company now to do? They have limited choices. They could fire enough people to be able to pay 85% on the ones left, but that might place the business in a precarious spot, and it creates more unemployment. They could forget private insurance completely, pay the penalty, and let the employees fend for themselves, but they KNOW that it's not simply those at the VERY bottom of the pay scale having a difficult time affording insurance. They KNOW that the family making more than the percentages above the poverty lines that qualify for help from the gov't will not be able to afford health insurance if the company stops paying the 75% they were.
Because liberals on these board and across the country ONLY consider the BOTTOM 10% living in total, abject poverty, who might get free health insurance, instead of relying on emergency rooms, or just being unhealthy, they are willing to let health care and affordability deteriorate for the other 90%, and IT WILL. It will also lead to small company employees getting SCREWED if they are currently covered under private insurance.
Any THINKING American with real world experience running a business KNOWS this, so liberals with NO experience should just keep their mouths shut.
The big 4 banks OWN the country and the gov't. Those who still question this are beyond naive.
Geez. Use google. I'm not going to spoon feed you as well. Grow up please.
Do you ever think for yourself? Does anyone on this board?
1. Medicare patients do NOT receive the same treatment as private health care patients because Medicare screws doctors in what they will pay. That is a FACT. If you knew people on both types of insurance over time, you would not question this.
2. "While Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be less healthy than the general uninsured population . . ." -- Did you read this statement? They were not comparing the two types of insured. Too difficult to explain what this statement actually means, but think about it.
3. AFP is warning Virginians that the system “will cost Virginia taxpayers billions,” require “future tax hikes and budget cuts to vital services like schools, police and fire departments,” undermine the “doctor-patient relationship,” increase wait times and even endanger lives. -- Again, this is not made up. This is all true. If you had run a business and provided insurance to your employees, you would know that these mandates and penalties are nothing but a new way to generate revenue for the gov't. Many have called it a new tax for this very reason.
Listen up, and learn something.
Say you are a company with 75 employees, and you currently provide a health insurance for your employees through Blue Cross. You, as the employer, pick up 75% of the premium, because you have several employees who are in the 50's , 60's, and even a few in their 70's working full time, and they have been with your company for decades. If they work full time, then Medicare cannot be their primary insurance, so having these older employees makes your premiums higher than normal. That is why you pay the 75% -- to make it affordable for your employees.
Now, the gov't steps in and sets a mandate on what they call affordable, and if you do not meet that standard, and even ONE employee qualifies for a tax subsidy on the exchanges, you, as an employer, will be subject to a $2,000-$3,000 penalty (a new type of tax) owed to the gov't. One of the consequences of the ACA are rising premiums for private insurance. It's just a FACT.
So, what if your renewal on your group plan makes it unaffordable for the company to pick up 75%, but because of the new rules on what is considered "affordable" for the employee, they (the small company) actually would be forced to pick up 85% in order to not have any employees qualify for the subsidy and force automatic penalties on the employer, who cannot afford them. The EMPLOYEES want to keep their PRIVATE Blue Cross plan, because they KNOW doctors and hospitals receive better payment than Medicaid and Medicare, and they understand that the exchange plans will be patterned after these.
What's the company now to do? They have limited choices. They could fire enough people to be able to pay 85% on the ones left, but that might place the business in a precarious spot, and it creates more unemployment. They could forget private insurance completely, pay the penalty, and let the employees fend for themselves, but they KNOW that it's not simply those at the VERY bottom of the pay scale having a difficult time affording insurance. They KNOW that the family making more than the percentages above the poverty lines that qualify for help from the gov't will not be able to afford health insurance if the company stops paying the 75% they were.
Because the liberals on this board, and those across the country ONLY consider the BOTTOM 10% living in total, abject poverty, who might get free health insurance, instead of relying on emergency rooms, or just being unhealthy, they are willing to let health care and affordability deteriorate for the other 90%, and IT WILL.
Any THINKING American with real world experience running a business KNOWS this, so liberals with NO experience should just keep their mouths shut.
I forget that I have to really spell out everything accurately for liberals. I technically should have said "birth control implant." However, I'm sure they are working on an injection as well. Some form of birth control that will last months to years.
Finally, you obviously did not read the link, or you would have seen that the writer DOES suggest sterilization, and for all the reasons I stated, I tend to agree.
Now I know why trying to have a conversation or debate with a liberal is so infuriating. They only read what you post or write until they disagree, and then they stop and react with another rant or insult. At least I know why liberals are so very easy to brainwash now. Just as saying something that irritates them to begin, all the bankster-owned MSM and gov't have to do is begin with something that makes a liberal feel good. They stop listening then to the real plan of treason, anti-REPUBLIC, anti-Constitution, and methods for controlling and owning the sheeple, and they simply begin chanting something like "hope and change."
It's really pathetic and sad.
Here's why there were those who still voted NO for the debt ceiling. Because kicking the can down the road, which is all a bought and paid for Congress and an OWNED president will ever do, is condemning future generations. Like I said a thousand times, unless the Congress steps up and just says nothing in the federal gov't will get funded until the budget is balanced immediately, not one of these bogus 10-20 year plans of reducing how much they OVER-spend, or a President steps up and admits that the Congress is bought and paid for, and so he will go around them and oppose the bansters himself and risk life and limb, NOTHING will happen, and the course set for economic Armageddon will continue.
U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion — tops $17 trillion for first time
U.S. debt jumped a record $328 billion on Thursday, the first day the federal government was able to borrow money under the deal President Obama and Congress sealed this week.
The debt now equals $17.075 trillion, according to figures the Treasury Department posted online on Friday.
The $328 billion increase shattered the previous high of $238 billion set two years ago.
The giant jump comes because the government was replenishing its stock of “extraordinary measures” — the federal funds it borrowed from over the last five months as it tried to avoid bumping into the debt ceiling.
Under the law, that replenishing happens as soon as there is new debt space.
In this case, the Treasury Department borrowed $400 billion from other funds beginning in May, awaiting a final deal from Congress and Mr. Obama.
Usually Congress sets a borrowing limit, or debt ceiling, that caps the total amount the government can be in the red.
But under the terms of this week’s deal, Congress set a deadline instead of a dollar cap. That means debt will rise by as much as the government spends between now and the Feb. 7 deadline.
Judging by the rate of increase over the last five months, that could end up meaning Congress just granted Mr. Obama a debt increase of $700 billion or more.
Republicans initially sought to attach strings to the debt increase, but surrendered this week, instead settling on a bill that reopened the government and included some special earmark projects, but didn’t include any spending cuts.
Democrats insisted that the debt increase be “clean,” meaning without any strings attached. They say the debt increase only allows Mr. Obama to pay for the bills he and Congress already racked up, and that it doesn’t encourage new spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/us-debt-jumps-400-billion-tops-17-trillion-first-t/
Here's why there were those who still voted NO for the debt ceiling. Because kicking the can down the road, which is all a bought and paid for Congress and an OWNED president will ever do, is condemning future generations. Like I said a thousand times, unless the Congress steps up and just says nothing in the federal gov't will get funded until the budget is balanced immediately, not one of these bogus 10-20 year plans of reducing how much they OVER-spend, or a President steps up and admits that the Congress is bought and paid for, and so he will go around them and oppose the bansters himself and risk life and limb, NOTHING will happen, and the course set for economic Armageddon will continue.
U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion — tops $17 trillion for first time
U.S. debt jumped a record $328 billion on Thursday, the first day the federal government was able to borrow money under the deal President Obama and Congress sealed this week.
The debt now equals $17.075 trillion, according to figures the Treasury Department posted online on Friday.
The $328 billion increase shattered the previous high of $238 billion set two years ago.
The giant jump comes because the government was replenishing its stock of “extraordinary measures” — the federal funds it borrowed from over the last five months as it tried to avoid bumping into the debt ceiling.
Under the law, that replenishing happens as soon as there is new debt space.
In this case, the Treasury Department borrowed $400 billion from other funds beginning in May, awaiting a final deal from Congress and Mr. Obama.
Usually Congress sets a borrowing limit, or debt ceiling, that caps the total amount the government can be in the red.
But under the terms of this week’s deal, Congress set a deadline instead of a dollar cap. That means debt will rise by as much as the government spends between now and the Feb. 7 deadline.
Judging by the rate of increase over the last five months, that could end up meaning Congress just granted Mr. Obama a debt increase of $700 billion or more.
Republicans initially sought to attach strings to the debt increase, but surrendered this week, instead settling on a bill that reopened the government and included some special earmark projects, but didn’t include any spending cuts.
Democrats insisted that the debt increase be “clean,” meaning without any strings attached. They say the debt increase only allows Mr. Obama to pay for the bills he and Congress already racked up, and that it doesn’t encourage new spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/us-debt-jumps-400-billion-tops-17-trillion-first-t/
Here's why there were those who still voted NO for the debt ceiling. Because kicking the can down the road, which is all a bought and paid for Congress and an OWNED president will ever do, is condemning future generations. Like I said a thousand times, unless the Congress steps up and just says nothing in the federal gov't will get funded until the budget is balanced immediately, not one of these bogus 10-20 year plans of reducing how much they OVER-spend, or a President steps up and admits that the Congress is bought and paid for, and so he will go around them and oppose the bansters himself and risk life and limb, NOTHING will happen, and the course set for economic Armageddon will continue.
U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion — tops $17 trillion for first time
U.S. debt jumped a record $328 billion on Thursday, the first day the federal government was able to borrow money under the deal President Obama and Congress sealed this week.
The debt now equals $17.075 trillion, according to figures the Treasury Department posted online on Friday.
The $328 billion increase shattered the previous high of $238 billion set two years ago.
The giant jump comes because the government was replenishing its stock of “extraordinary measures” — the federal funds it borrowed from over the last five months as it tried to avoid bumping into the debt ceiling.
Under the law, that replenishing happens as soon as there is new debt space.
In this case, the Treasury Department borrowed $400 billion from other funds beginning in May, awaiting a final deal from Congress and Mr. Obama.
Usually Congress sets a borrowing limit, or debt ceiling, that caps the total amount the government can be in the red.
But under the terms of this week’s deal, Congress set a deadline instead of a dollar cap. That means debt will rise by as much as the government spends between now and the Feb. 7 deadline.
Judging by the rate of increase over the last five months, that could end up meaning Congress just granted Mr. Obama a debt increase of $700 billion or more.
Republicans initially sought to attach strings to the debt increase, but surrendered this week, instead settling on a bill that reopened the government and included some special earmark projects, but didn’t include any spending cuts.
Democrats insisted that the debt increase be “clean,” meaning without any strings attached. They say the debt increase only allows Mr. Obama to pay for the bills he and Congress already racked up, and that it doesn’t encourage new spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/us-debt-jumps-400-billion-tops-17-trillion-first-t/
Here's why there were those who still voted NO for the debt ceiling. Because kicking the can down the road, which is all a bought and paid for Congress and an OWNED president will ever do, is condemning future generations. Like I said a thousand times, unless the Congress steps up and just says nothing in the federal gov't will get funded until the budget is balanced immediately, not one of these bogus 10-20 year plans of reducing how much they OVER-spend, or a President steps up and admits that the Congress is bought and paid for, and so he will go around them and oppose the bansters himself and risk life and limb, NOTHING will happen, and the course set for economic Armageddon will continue.
U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion — tops $17 trillion for first time
U.S. debt jumped a record $328 billion on Thursday, the first day the federal government was able to borrow money under the deal President Obama and Congress sealed this week.
The debt now equals $17.075 trillion, according to figures the Treasury Department posted online on Friday.
The $328 billion increase shattered the previous high of $238 billion set two years ago.
The giant jump comes because the government was replenishing its stock of “extraordinary measures” — the federal funds it borrowed from over the last five months as it tried to avoid bumping into the debt ceiling.
Under the law, that replenishing happens as soon as there is new debt space.
In this case, the Treasury Department borrowed $400 billion from other funds beginning in May, awaiting a final deal from Congress and Mr. Obama.
Usually Congress sets a borrowing limit, or debt ceiling, that caps the total amount the government can be in the red.
But under the terms of this week’s deal, Congress set a deadline instead of a dollar cap. That means debt will rise by as much as the government spends between now and the Feb. 7 deadline.
Judging by the rate of increase over the last five months, that could end up meaning Congress just granted Mr. Obama a debt increase of $700 billion or more.
Republicans initially sought to attach strings to the debt increase, but surrendered this week, instead settling on a bill that reopened the government and included some special earmark projects, but didn’t include any spending cuts.
Democrats insisted that the debt increase be “clean,” meaning without any strings attached. They say the debt increase only allows Mr. Obama to pay for the bills he and Congress already racked up, and that it doesn’t encourage new spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/us-debt-jumps-400-billion-tops-17-trillion-first-t/
Watch to the end.
And the reason it won't happen is because the Pres. is OWNED by the banksters, and if he doesn't play nice, you get a tape of 1963 in Dallas delivered to you to watch as a reminder.
My solution to being eligible for welfare is to require a birth control shot each time you apply and reapply, but I like this better, because this guy is correct -- for 99.9% of these people, no matter their color, nothing will ever change. They spawn generation after generation of criminals and welfare recipients, so limiting this specific population is good for the most people. The liberal argument of "you can't legislate what people do with their bodies" is pure crap. Sure you can, especially when it negatively affects the population. They do it all the time, or all drugs would be legal, if you only did it to yourself, etc.
http://grouchyoldcripple.com/2013/08/triumf-of-edukashon/
My solution to being eligible for welfare is to require a birth control shot each time you apply and reapply, but I like this better, because this guy is correct -- for 99.9% of these people, no matter their color, nothing will ever change. They spawn generation after generation of criminals and welfare recipients, so limiting this specific population is good for the most people. The liberal argument of "you can't legislate what people do with their bodies" is pure crap. Sure you can, especially when it negatively affects the population. They do it all the time, or all drugs would be legal, if you only did it to yourself, etc.
http://grouchyoldcripple.com/2013/08/triumf-of-edukashon/
My solution to being eligible for welfare is to require a birth control shot each time you apply and reapply, but I like this better, because this guy is correct -- for 99.9% of these people, no matter their color, nothing will ever change. They spawn generation after generation of criminals and welfare recipients, so limiting this specific population is good for the most people. The liberal argument of "you can't legislate what people do with their bodies" is pure crap. Sure you can, especially when it negatively affects the population. They do it all the time, or all drugs would be legal, if you only did it to yourself, etc.
http://grouchyoldcripple.com/2013/08/triumf-of-edukashon/
Like I said, you obviously didn't read all the comments and discussion, or you would have seen the talk about that very issue as well.
On another note, my solution to being eligible for welfare is to require a birth control shot each time you apply and reapply, but I like this better, because this guy is correct -- for 99.9% of these people, no matter their color, nothing will ever change. They spawn generation after generation of criminals and welfare recipients, so limiting this specific population is good for the most people. The liberal argument of "you can't legislate what people do with their bodies" is pure crap. Sure you can, especially when it negatively affects the population. They do it all the time, or all drugs would be legal, if you only did it to yourself, etc.
http://grouchyoldcripple.com/2013/08/triumf-of-edukashon/
You take what you read as "fact" as readily as you claim Christians do the Bible, which you believe a fairy tale.
Not that it would change anything, as you and I would read the following (I did read it and all of the comments), and you would think those arguing for radioactive dating and evolution made the most sense, and I would argue the Biblical comments do the same. However, it is thought-provoking and well worth the read of both sides.
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/
Like I said, liberals have a difficult time comprehending simple speak.
I did not say the Republicans or Tea Party people had any victory, unlike moron Cruz. So, I am not "parroting" anyone. I said, Cruz and those who first suggested that Barry come to the table and negotiate things, including the ACA, that will ADD to the national debt, should have shut down ALL the federal gov't. They did not do that. They began from a position of weakness, rather than strength. If they truly believed that a little pain now would prevent major pain later, then they should have had the guts to SHUT IT ALL DOWN, rather than playing the political games of offering up opening up certain parts that they hoped the American people would see as being "compassionate" or "intelligent." This simply gave Barry leverage. By the time they were nearing the end of a losing battle, most of the gov't was still running.
Call it what you will, because we simply disagree. I believe this "cut the deficit" BS is simply that. When you are drowning in debt, you don't simply slow the amount of ADDITIONAL debt. You STOP spending more than you take in, plain and simple. IF the Republicans were serious, they should halt the federal gov't until a completely balanced budget is presented based on current income levels from current taxation. Simple. Easy. Would get results after about 2 weeks of NO federal gov't spending.
You call it insane, stupid, irrational. I call following the same debt path off the cliff and screwing our children and grandchildren the same and worse. You and DC think only about themselves and the current problems this would cause. I consider the future of those who come after and prefer not to have them curse this generation as selfish, spineless SOB's.
If your grandchild, or that of a DC insider, were in a room with you, and a lunatic came in and said he was going to take a life, and it was your/their choice who, I feel sorry for the younger generation.
Blocking it was not the mistake. Caving in in the end WAS. They should have shut down the entire thing, not bits and pices, and said to Barry, "When you are willing to compromise 50%, instead of saying you get 100% or no talking allowed, then we will reopen the federal gov't. The ball is in YOUR court, no matter how the MSM, which you control, tells the people things really are."
If you commit to doing what is right, then you see it through. You don't fold like OWNED politicians, as they ALL are. Everything is theatrics and show with both sides of this clown circus. The fact that some don't see that speaks volumes for their intelligence.
And you will continue in your pride until you DO know something. Most unfortunate.
Fortunately and unfortunately, this answer will only come at our deaths. If you are correct, I will know nothing. If I am correct, you will regret everything. And eternity is a very long time.
I have them, but I don't get paid to have them, nor would anyone listen. The morons in DC DO, yet all they think about is posturing and campaigning and wining and dining. If they used the 2/3s of the year they DO NOTHING to actually THINK, the country would not be bankrupt, and the needy populations would be far less in numbers.
In the words of one of your wise leaders, "It depends on what is is," or in this case, "It depends on what poor is." Some have no problem stealing from Americans for illegals, and some do. Some have no problem stealing from Americans for those with families that could provide but refuse, and some do. Some have no problem stealing from Americans for the lazy, and some do.
There are fair ways to deal with large problems and take care of the TRULY needy and disabled, but the liberal solution to everything is simply to tax more, print more, and spend more. Make the net as wide as possible so as not to miss capturing everyone, regardless if there is 50% waste and graft.
Amazing there are a few States that understand what the "foot in the door" actually means for the 80% with healthcare.
Of course THEY planned it. BOTH sides planned it. They plan and execute anything at will. This one was to keep the markets moving higher so they all become richer and richer. The fact that idiots continue to debate the Repub vs Democ garbage is laughable. It is one body playing with the sheeple, and the sheeple don't even realize it.
You can actually look at the complexity of life and the human race and believe it all came to be through chance? I call that existing in "nonsense neverlands."
I guess we both post in broad statements and are a bit reactionary, because you are incorrect that I oppose regulation, or at least well-thought out laws for Wall Street, minimum wages, tax reform, etc. I offer one or two SIMPLE changes and ask why a liberal would disagree, yet I always get a reply back such as yours. The problem IS DC, and it IS on BOTH sides, no matter if the liberals continue to believe that those who think socially like them actually are any better humans than the other side. I call that delusional. It's being unwilling to see the reality.
Sheeple's worship of entertainment is the root cause. Funny how the Bible nails so many things -- LOVE of money is the root of all evil. DC is run on that statement alone.
No, mine was making a point. Capitalism will work, if you don't pick and choose what you like, and you don't allow those in DC to corrupt the system when and where they can. Trash the tax code and the IRS. Flat 20-25% sales tax at retail level with level exemptions per household for basic necessities of life. This one thing would cure so much, but the main thing it cures is the elimination of graft in DC and the ability to manipulate the system to put $$$ in politicians pockets, so it will never happen. Everything in DC is now a crooked shell game. They allow the sheeple to see the pea just enough to keep them all playing. Ludicrous and insane, and it will eventually bankrupt the country and lead to total chaos.
McCain is a mindless zombie. Hilarious that the liberal crowd has adopted this guy. They love the mindless. That's for certain.