Print

[Tellitlikeitis]

It couldn't possibly be because some folks want to actually help people, would it?

Yeah, the people in favor of healthcare reform.  Now who do you suppose is against it and why?  Some here would like to see anyone who cares about his fellow non-righty just DIE.

[John Kopke]

So I say C-Span requests to televise negotiations between House and Senate on the Health Care Bill and TMT and LF respond by saying look over there. I think we all know why
Reid and Pelosi don't want it televised. They don't want the public looking in.

[crashbee]

Wolves in sheep's clothing leading the sheep!!

[T-M-T]

The bills passed by the House and Senate are 95% the same.  The only thing left to do is iron out the remaining 5%.  The Dems are wisely choosing not to involve the do-nothing obstructionist Republicans in the process or to make a media circus out of it.

Sorry John, you and your fellow Republicans had your chance. You lost. Try again in November.  B-bye.

[John Kopke]

The bills passed by the House and Senate are 95% the same.  The only thing left to do is iron out the remaining 5%.  The Dems are wisely choosing not to involve the do-nothing obstructionist Republicans in the process or to make a media circus out of it.

Sorry John, you and your fellow Republicans had your chance. You lost. Try again in November.  B-bye.

TMT:
Well I would say the liberal wing of Dems don't consider not
covering abortion or a lack of a public option minor, but maybe that's just me. Media circus you say? Since when has C-Span coverage in the chambers equated to a media circus? Face it TMT, long and short, you don't want the people seeing what
"their" honorable representatives are up to.

[PXaiver]

Yeah it's bull**** that the bill doesn't cover abortion.  That would have saved me thousands in the past.....damn republicans ruining everything for me....

[ducksoup]

Like anyother good socialist / communist policy the deeeeeeetails are seeping out about Obama / Dingel care.

Subscribers of the mandated policies that have a so called "Cadillac policy" will be forced to pay a 40% tax. Let us see how this works!

A Cadillac health plan is a plan who's cost is = or > then $8500 per year or plan year.

The average house hold plan equals about $13,500.00.

So that being said, $13500 - $8500 = $5000.



 I think I see a pattern here!

It is very hilarious that you can't argue your lame point without distorting the facts.  Comparing the single rate to the family rate was a lie.  Bold faced guyliner running lie.

Since when, in this world or any other, guyliner, is anything free.  Your GLORIOUS Patriot Act has cost multi billions, who knows maybe into the trillions.  But, for the number one cheerleader of the Republican party, that kind of wasteful "FREE" spending is just hunky dorey.

Again, wy is it okay with some to condemn others to death by not caring, or forced into extreme poverty to prop up your pocketbook.

It is the same as the deceptive Republican talking point atack, that 50% of the country doesn't pay taxes.  That is just lunacy to even say.  THere is no way anyone that lives in society escapes taxes.  Now, if it is just INCOME taxes it is still a falsehood.  Yes, 50% get a return from the govt.  But, they still pay income tax... Got it Kopke, they may get some of what they paid back, but they still paid.

I suggest, guyliner, that you work harder at the martyr syndrome, you are losing ground on the others.

[John Kopke]

It is very hilarious that you can't argue your lame point without distorting the facts.  Comparing the single rate to the family rate was a lie.  Bold faced guyliner running lie.

Since when, in this world or any other, guyliner, is anything free.  Your GLORIOUS Patriot Act has cost multi billions, who knows maybe into the trillions.  But, for the number one cheerleader of the Republican party, that kind of wasteful "FREE" spending is just hunky dorey.

Again, wy is it okay with some to condemn others to death by not caring, or forced into extreme poverty to prop up your pocketbook.

It is the same as the deceptive Republican talking point atack, that 50% of the country doesn't pay taxes.  That is just lunacy to even say.  THere is no way anyone that lives in society escapes taxes.  Now, if it is just INCOME taxes it is still a falsehood.  Yes, 50% get a return from the govt.  But, they still pay income tax... Got it Kopke, they may get some of what they paid back, but they still paid.

I suggest, guyliner, that you work harder at the martyr syndrome, you are losing ground on the others.

Duck:
It could be 1Republican was simply mistaken, and he was, but you sure are quick to accuse him of intentionally lying. Could be he was like the guy who said defense spending was 70% of the Federal budget. I corrected him, but I didn't believe it was done
in terms of being an intentional lie. You remember him don't you?

And I believe I have mentioned that 47% of households pay no Federal Income taxes and I stand by it. Just did a google for "47% payed no Federal Income Tax". Look it up.

[Frenchfry]

Duck:
It could be 1Republican was simply mistaken, and he was, but you sure are quick to accuse him of intentionally lying. Could be he was like the guy who said defense spending was 70% of the Federal budget. I corrected him, but I didn't believe it was done
in terms of being an intentional lie. You remember him don't you?

And I believe I have mentioned that 47% of households pay no Federal Income taxes and I stand by it. Just did a google for "47% payed no Federal Income Tax". Look it up.

It's "paid"

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly falsely asserted that "50 percent of Americans don't pay any federal income tax" and that therefore "the other half is waging the whole war on terror." He also claimed that the estate tax is "unconstitutional," an assertion the Supreme Court rejected in a 1921 decision that has been repeatedly upheld over the years.

While O'Reilly claimed that half of all Americans do not pay income taxes, figures from the Tax Policy Center show that only 37.2 percent of total tax units -- single people or married couples -- pay either zero or negative taxes, or do not file at all, leaving 62.8 percent who do pay taxes.

O'Reilly's claim that the "the other half is waging the whole war on terror" is also false. Most Americans are funding the federal government's expenses, including military spending and foreign aid, though Social Security payroll taxes. The vast majority* of wage-earning Americans pay Social Security taxes on those wages, and as the Congressional Budget Office explains: "Although separate taxes are collected for Social Security, the money left over after benefits are paid is used to fund other government programs or to pay down the debt held by the public." In 2004, that surplus was $151.1 billion, approximately 6.6 percent of the total outlays of the federal government. By contrast, President Bush requested $82 billion in February to fund U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Previously, Congress had allocated $25 billion during fiscal 2005 for those operations.

Further, the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) reportedPDF file in February 2004 that 61 percent of U.S. corporations paid no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000.

In addition, O'Reilly asserted that the estate tax -- which many conservatives refer to as the "death tax," a name that, as Republican pollster Frank Luntz found, polls better for conservatives than "estate tax" -- was unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court's decision in the 1921 case New York Trust Co. v. Eisner upheld its constitutionality. In September 2001, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in Jameson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue PDF file, that "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected attempts to portray the estate tax as an unconstitutional direct tax." In the unanimous opinion, the three-judge panel further ruled that "based on the variety of constitutional challenges to it that have been made and uniformly rejected, we see no basis for invalidating the federal estate tax."

More here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200506100002

[lordfly]

Lordfly:
So are you saying that because the (R) were whining the public should not be allowed to watch their governent go through the
process of enacting a piece of legislation that will have a significant impact on their lives?

The Republicans did nothing. If they really wanted to help, they could have, I dunno, offered some solutions to the problem? Instead, they simply voted no, no no no no no no. ANd then no. ANd then threatened to vote no.

You could have replaced them with petulant six year olds for all the good they did during the legislative process. At least now they can go home and tell their constituents they said "NO" to big government (but gladly accept stimulus money and health care anyway).

[ducksoup]

[

While O'Reilly claimed that half of all Americans do not pay income taxes, figures from the Tax Policy Center show that only 37.2 percent of total tax units -- single people or married couples -- pay either zero or negative taxes, or do not file at all, leaving 62.8 percent who do pay taxes.

37.2 percent seems much sloser to reality.  When you take into account all the seniors that retired and pay no tax, that leave most of the workers paying income tax.  Now, that is still aside from all the other taxes that pretty well everyone pays.

But, aside from that, I don't see why the tea party/caucus/born again former R's push for lower taxes for the very wealthy, making the rest of the workers pay the wealthy 's share.  It all goes back to the lame R idea of trikkle down econ.  Sure, someone has to own and invest in busines, but why do the tea/caucus/born again supposedly former R's want the average worker to suffer even more so the rich can get even richer.  Why can't the working man get a share of the pie and earn a decent living wage.  Why do you think that the common man deservs to be dirt poor, starving, and homeless?

[Monique]

But, aside from that, I don't see why the tea party/caucus/born again former R's push for lower taxes for the very wealthy, making the rest of the workers pay the wealthy 's share.  It all goes back to the lame R idea of trikkle down econ.  Sure, someone has to own and invest in busines, but why do the tea/caucus/born again supposedly former R's want the average worker to suffer even more so the rich can get even richer.  Why can't the working man get a share of the pie and earn a decent living wage.  Why do you think that the common man deservs to be dirt poor, starving, and homeless?

X2, duck!! My answer is that they are just inherently GREEDY! They want it all for themselves. Gluttons!

[John Kopke]

It's "paid"

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly falsely asserted that "50 percent of Americans don't pay any federal income tax" and that therefore "the other half is waging the whole war on terror." He also claimed that the estate tax is "unconstitutional," an assertion the Supreme Court rejected in a 1921 decision that has been repeatedly upheld over the years.

While O'Reilly claimed that half of all Americans do not pay income taxes, figures from the Tax Policy Center show that only 37.2 percent of total tax units -- single people or married couples -- pay either zero or negative taxes, or do not file at all, leaving 62.8 percent who do pay taxes.

O'Reilly's claim that the "the other half is waging the whole war on terror" is also false. Most Americans are funding the federal government's expenses, including military spending and foreign aid, though Social Security payroll taxes. The vast majority* of wage-earning Americans pay Social Security taxes on those wages, and as the Congressional Budget Office explains: "Although separate taxes are collected for Social Security, the money left over after benefits are paid is used to fund other government programs or to pay down the debt held by the public." In 2004, that surplus was $151.1 billion, approximately 6.6 percent of the total outlays of the federal government. By contrast, President Bush requested $82 billion in February to fund U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Previously, Congress had allocated $25 billion during fiscal 2005 for those operations.

Further, the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) reportedPDF file in February 2004 that 61 percent of U.S. corporations paid no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000.

In addition, O'Reilly asserted that the estate tax -- which many conservatives refer to as the "death tax," a name that, as Republican pollster Frank Luntz found, polls better for conservatives than "estate tax" -- was unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court's decision in the 1921 case New York Trust Co. v. Eisner upheld its constitutionality. In September 2001, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in Jameson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue PDF file, that "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected attempts to portray the estate tax as an unconstitutional direct tax." In the unanimous opinion, the three-judge panel further ruled that "based on the variety of constitutional challenges to it that have been made and uniformly rejected, we see no basis for invalidating the federal estate tax."

More here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200506100002

Duck:
If it is deducted from your pay check and you get it all back in a return you didn't pay anything. The exact percentage not paying income taxes is not that important to me. The thing is all people are being taxed through inflation and deficits weakening the value of the dollar.

[John Kopke]

Quote from: John Kopke on Today at 12:31:02 PM
Lordfly:
So are you saying that because the (R) were whining the public should not be allowed to watch their governent go through the process of enacting a piece of legislation that will have a significant impact on their lives?

Quote LF:
"The Republicans did nothing. If they really wanted to help, they could have, I dunno, offered some solutions to the problem? Instead, they simply voted no, no no no no no no. ANd then no. ANd then threatened to vote no.

You could have replaced them with petulant six year olds for all the good they did during the legislative process. At least now they can go home and tell their constituents they said "NO" to big government (but gladly accept stimulus money and health care anyway)."

LF:
I understand you believe the Republicans offered nothing and just say no to Dems ideas. Yet still you continue to tap dance around the main point as to whether the people should be allowed to watch the House and Senate merge their bills on C-Span. It doesn't have a damn thing to do
with what the Republicans are doing, or not doing.

[lordfly]

LF:
I understand you believe the Republicans offered nothing and just say no to Dems ideas. Yet still you continue to tap dance around the main point as to whether the people should be allowed to watch the House and Senate merge their bills on C-Span. It doesn't have a damn thing to do
with what the Republicans are doing, or not doing.

Have you been watching C-span, or are you just trying to egg progressives on a campaign promise Obama made?

How many public debates have the Republicans initiated, or even promised on? Patriot Act? Iraq War? Medicare overhauls? Anything? Bueller?

I know you're fishing for a talking point, it's as clear as day. It's a wonder why I bother in this cesspool of political fappery anymore.