WebFire;1162907 wrote:yes

no

sleeper;1162740 wrote:Unfortunately that law is unconstitutional. You'd think after 4 years of a guy failing you'd look elsewhere.

It is unfortunate a court driven by a rightist philosophy will make a decision that will join dred scott v stanford, plessey v ferguson and citizens united v FEC in infamy. The temporary roadblock brought by these fanatics in no way diminshes the imperative to provide healtcare for all americans.

Lol...it's not imperative. It's a choice by the people.

isadore;1163119 wrote:no

yes

isadore;1162575 wrote:then take in more.

Only if that's what the collective people want. Currently I don't think that's the case and if it is we can't keep spending more than we take in.

WebFire;1163132 wrote:yes

no

Con_Alma;1163131 wrote:Lol...it's not imperative. It's a choice by the people.

it is imperative for the health of our nation.

Con_Alma;1163142 wrote:Only if that's what the collective people want. Currently I don't think that's the case and if it is we can't keep spending more than we take in.

we will see, that is why we have elections in our representative democracy. It should be interesting when the Bush tax cuts reach their deadline.

"Tax the shit out of the people so that people don't have to earn what's given to them." - isadore 2012

Arguing against aiding the needy
“If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population” Ebenezer Scrooge, 1843
“yes” Webfire, 2012

isadore;1163149 wrote:we will see, that is why we have elections in our representative democracy. It should be interesting when the Bush tax cuts reach their deadline.

Interesting indeed. What's even more interesting is that even if those tax cuts expire it still won't generate enough revenue to cover or expenditures.

Con_Alma;1163199 wrote:Interesting indeed. What's even more interesting is that even if those tax cuts expire it still won't generate enough revenue to cover or expenditures.

The whole class warfare is really a hollow and insufficient argument to anyone with a little common sense. Over the past 60 years or so, despite significant changes in tax policy and structure, the gubmit has averaged a pretty tight range collecting @18% of GDP, and rarely getting to 20-21%. Obama thinks 24% of GDP is sustainable, but truthfully the only way I see that they can get that extra 6% consistently (@ $900B currently) is with a VAT.

Truthfully a large chunk of the population doesn't care where the money comes as long as it doesn't come from them. But as Obama & Friends floor the bus toward a massive debt crisis, ultimately the poor and the middle class will suffer the most in that scenario. People with money will have already taken steps to protect their assets and wealth. You're free handout really isn't "free", you're just deferring the payment. I guess the hope is that you die before the bill comes due and don't have to suffer the pain and hardship resulting.

What is the largest cause of our continuing deficit problem, it must be tanf, food stamps or Medicaid.\\
No the largest factor with our continuing deficits is the bush era tax cuts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_n_864812.html
And their repeal would take the major step to solving our deficit problems
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ending-bush-tax-cuts-shrink-deficit-20110413-085135-056.html
And how about Social Security, what will clear that up, ending the cap on wages collected while continuing the cap on benefits, problem solved.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_could_r.html
But that would not satiate the blood lust of our social Darwinists, who want to slash the safety net and see American poor getting by on three dollars a day so they will know what real hardship is.

isadore;1163317 wrote:What is the largest cause of our continuing deficit problem, it must be tanf, food stamps or Medicaid.\\
No the largest factor with our continuing deficits is the bush era tax cuts

You obviously failed math, which is probably indicative of the real problem behind your unsatisfactory financial situation.

Isadore...you could tax the weathy at 100% and stll not have enough revenue to continue the current pace of spending.

We must cut spending or there will not be any social saftey nets at all.

Con_Alma;1163657 wrote:Isadore...you could tax the weathy at 100% and stll not have enough revenue to continue the current pace of spending.

We must cut spending or there will not be any social saftey nets at all.

see above, seems to be some disagreement about it

gut;1163529 wrote:You obviously failed math, which is probably indicative of the real problem behind your unsatisfactory financial situation.

gosh I got my $3 a day that you want to guarantee to all the American needy.

it is imperative for the health of our nation.

It is imperative to the health of the Democratic party.

isadore;1163672 wrote:see above, seems to be some disagreement about it

There's no doubt that there's a lot of disagreement about it.

HitsRus;1163683 wrote:It is imperative to the health of the Democratic party.

without a doubt