Image of the day

From the
ATWB Customer Gallery

My First WOW image

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Mr. Obama Agrees To Renew Bush Tax Cuts

Started by AstroMart, 04/07/2018 03:51PM

Poll Results:


0 Total Votes
Posted 11/05/2010 03:52PM #10
Ok, I'll bite...I objected to the Medicare B Prescription Bill too. However, unlike Obamacare, Medicare B Prescription Bill didn't effectively nationalize our healthcare system. I also would dispute that it's more expensive than Obamacare, since once the Feds own our healthcare, everything becomes moot anyway.
Posted 11/05/2010 04:00PM #11
Your statement seems like a non-sequitur...what is the referent, the efficacy of tax reductions, the cost of government run healthcare, the 'science' behind the anthropogenic global warming hoax? wink
Posted 11/05/2010 05:13PM | Edited 11/05/2010 05:17PM #12

<<>>
They have not been minimal since they raised the deficit by about 600 billions U$ with a negligible effect on
job creation.

<<< You should know that our current issues were caused by certain banks making loans to certain segments of our population that could not pay them back, and had no intention of doing so.>>>

The financial crisis was initiated by Lehman Brothers , Citibank and Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac, who sliced and repackaged
doubtful mortgages into securities that were
subsequently traded in wall street.
The securitization got the mortgages off the lender's books and brought in more cash that was then used to
finance other mortgages and so on. This could be sustained only by constantly supplying mortgages to the securitization machine which then led to the practice of predatory lending and subprime market to support the scheme.

Do you really think that "certain segments of the population" could have triggered a
planetary financial crisis of the banking and insurance system ?
There is no excuse to ignore the real cause of this mess. The information is out there.




<>
The economy does not feed on itself, it is impossible to grow the economy without creating value through investment
and balancing the trade deficit.
What you are describing is a self perpetuating autarchic system that constantly redistributes a declining wealth.
It is more complicated than what you suggest.


Posted 11/05/2010 07:15PM #13
Excellent points, but you're using logic, which is verboten amongst the progressives... :S

steve hoff said:


Further, why do so many always want us to be like every other country?? I've been taught that progressives love diversity, so why do you guys always want everything to be the same?? Shouldn't we embrace the diversity in the world that the U.S. provides??
Posted 11/06/2010 05:39AM #14
LOL! The world is diverse and the U.S. is different than the rest of the world. Just as France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, etc all once were. They all sported their own unique languages and cultures that made them all a pleasure to visit in their own way. Even the different countries within the Middle East are diverse. So why do all those "progressives" want to be like them? The answer is simple, they DO NOT! They only want the "sheep" to be like that and "play nice together" while those in power have their freedoms to roam about with the riches they take from the sheep.

Mark Lancaster said:

Excellent points, but you're using logic, which is verboten amongst the progressives... :S

steve hoff said:


Further, why do so many always want us to be like every other country?? I've been taught that progressives love diversity, so why do you guys always want everything to be the same?? Shouldn't we embrace the diversity in the world that the U.S. provides??
Posted 11/06/2010 05:57AM #15
Norm, you do know all you have to do is turn the channel. wink

Obamacare is not about reducing the deficit. It is about government control and redistribution of wealth. That is by their own words too.. The "health care" portion is just a tiny part, and a smokescreen. Evidence has already surfaced by the private insurers having to raise their policy rates. Even the AARP, who supported the bill, has announced even they too have to take more money from the elderly because of it.

There was a lot of opposition to the Bush Medicare part B legislation as well. But it at least was not an attempt to take over control and put private insurers out of business.

Just try and find a doctor or hospital that accepts Medicare. They are few and far between and are going to be even fewer since Obamacare again reduces the compensation for their services. If it was really about health care, then why are they pulling the plug on the elderly?

Norm Peer said:

Nice civil discussion expept for Mike's first post.
I have to say I HATE these political discussions on my hobby websites though. I have hobbies to get away from the small minded, cruel, and devisive bickering that is so prevalent on the rest of the web. Astromart...knock it off!
Before I go, I'm going to stir the pot though (you started it A-mart). I thought the Healthcare bill was supposed to lower the deficit within 10 years, so I suppose the objection to this is NOT related to government spending. Also, why so little objection to Bush passing the medicare B prescription bill, which is actually more expensive than Obamacare?
Posted 11/06/2010 06:04AM #16
That's because the government (including State/local governments) also raised and/or created other taxes and added more hand-tying, business stifling regulations. What was given with one hand, was taken with the other two-fold.

Luca Grella said:

<>
That is quite a naive statement considering that tax cuts have been in place for the
last 10 years and that obviously did not happen.
Posted 11/06/2010 06:05AM #17
Cold hard cash for those at the top of the pyramid. wink

Karl Zimmerman said:

Your statement seems like a non-sequitur...what is the referent, the efficacy of tax reductions, the cost of government run healthcare, the 'science' behind the anthropogenic global warming hoax? wink
Posted 11/06/2010 10:07AM | Edited 11/06/2010 10:07AM #18
During the 8 Bush's years there were no regulations in place, but his tax cuts policies only produced 2 or 3 millions jobs
and virtually zero growth.
Jeffrey Counsil said:

That's because the government (including State/local governments) also raised and/or created other taxes and added more hand-tying, business stifling regulations. What was given with one hand, was taken with the other two-fold.

Luca Grella said:

<>
That is quite a naive statement considering that tax cuts have been in place for the
last 10 years and that obviously did not happen.
Posted 11/16/2010 06:23PM #19
Hmmm. So we're a bunch of whiners because we don't want to be taxed anymore than we already are for more government waste? Great logic, Les. "Renewing the tax cuts is irresponsible because it will increase the deficit by $700B/yr." Yeah that's it. Raise taxes on those who create jobs to pay for the $700B + stimulus bill that has kept the unemployment under 10% like it was supposed to and create all those long lasting government jobs. That's brilliant thinking.