Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Obama open to taxing health care benefits

Health Care Taxing benefits 2009

  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#41 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 01:03 PM

Just like the dem's have been the 'fear mongers' for the last eight years? Goose, Ganders, pots and kettles. I think I'd die of shock if OT ever really changed.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#42 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 01:04 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

View PostPaul, on Mar 17 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

Just a few examples of the prototypical liberal on this board in action. Bitch, moan, and call names till a Republican does it then its all about how we need to grow up. You want to hold Bush's and the Republican's feet in the fire. That's fine. But when we do it for the Dems and you call us out on it, don't expect us to not say anything about your hypocracy.



These are your examples to prove that Baldy is a hypocrite? You'll have to be better than that, because to me she looks very consistent in her opinion.


She's consistent in her opinion, which I don't give a hoot about. She can hate Bush all she wants. What I have a problem with is when we (the conservatives) start raising issues with the Democrats in power (much like how she did prior) and then we are all of a sudden we're the "fear mongers." Its crap, and I'm calling her out on it.


b*llsh*t!  The 2 times that I called someone a name, Shrub and Bimbo it was in answer to one of G's over the top flamebaits.  As for the rest, I get to have an opinion too just like you, it's not crap and if you call me out like this again I'm taking it straight to the mods and admins.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#43 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 01:20 PM

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 17 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

View PostPaul, on Mar 17 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

Just a few examples of the prototypical liberal on this board in action. Bitch, moan, and call names till a Republican does it then its all about how we need to grow up. You want to hold Bush's and the Republican's feet in the fire. That's fine. But when we do it for the Dems and you call us out on it, don't expect us to not say anything about your hypocracy.



These are your examples to prove that Baldy is a hypocrite? You'll have to be better than that, because to me she looks very consistent in her opinion.


She's consistent in her opinion, which I don't give a hoot about. She can hate Bush all she wants. What I have a problem with is when we (the conservatives) start raising issues with the Democrats in power (much like how she did prior) and then we are all of a sudden we're the "fear mongers." Its crap, and I'm calling her out on it.


b*llsh*t!  The 2 times that I called someone a name, Shrub and Bimbo it was in answer to one of G's over the top flamebaits.  As for the rest, I get to have an opinion too just like you, it's not crap and if you call me out like this again I'm taking it straight to the mods and admins.

And when have I said you can't have an opinion?

Its when you call us names and post inflammatory comments (like your original post) for doing the same exact thing you did a few months ago is when I have a problem. And I will call you out on it each and every time.

As for the mods - the ones in this forum don't have my respect, because they repeatedly allow conservatives to be attacked time and time again, and do nothing about it. If you want to call them, fine. They can issue their worthless warnings and equally worthless bans. I will continue to defend myself as I see fit.

Edited by RobL, 17 March 2009 - 02:08 PM.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#44 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 01:35 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on Mar 17 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

If Obama taxes health care benefits, I'll have a good laugh, and then you might join me in a weep.

I will indeed.  For both.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#45 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 01:58 PM

Rob, Baldy, is this line really helpful? Let's remember what the actual topic is here.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#46 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 02:31 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 17 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

View PostPaul, on Mar 17 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

Just a few examples of the prototypical liberal on this board in action. Bitch, moan, and call names till a Republican does it then its all about how we need to grow up. You want to hold Bush's and the Republican's feet in the fire. That's fine. But when we do it for the Dems and you call us out on it, don't expect us to not say anything about your hypocracy.



These are your examples to prove that Baldy is a hypocrite? You'll have to be better than that, because to me she looks very consistent in her opinion.


She's consistent in her opinion, which I don't give a hoot about. She can hate Bush all she wants. What I have a problem with is when we (the conservatives) start raising issues with the Democrats in power (much like how she did prior) and then we are all of a sudden we're the "fear mongers." Its crap, and I'm calling her out on it.


b*llsh*t!  The 2 times that I called someone a name, Shrub and Bimbo it was in answer to one of G's over the top flamebaits.  As for the rest, I get to have an opinion too just like you, it's not crap and if you call me out like this again I'm taking it straight to the mods and admins.

And when have I said you can't have an opinion?

Its when you call us names and post inflammatory comments (like your original post) for doing the same exact thing you did a few months ago is when I have a problem. And I will call you out on it each and every time.

As for the mods - the ones in this forum don't have my respect, because they repeatedly allow conservatives to be attacked time and time again, and do nothing about it. If you want to call them, fine. They can issue their worthless warnings and equally worthless bans. I will continue to defend myself as I see fit.


Pluck the huge log out of your own eye.  President Obama hasn't been President long enough to do the type of damage that Bush has done to this country.  And the stuff that I am upset with Bush for more than half the country is upset with and he had 8 years to destroy this country.  You can't even give President Obama 6 months.  Anyway, I'm not a hypocrite because I hold a different opinion.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#47 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 02:59 PM

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 17 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Pluck the huge log out of your own eye.  President Obama hasn't been President long enough to do the type of damage that Bush has done to this country.  And the stuff that I am upset with Bush for more than half the country is upset with and he had 8 years to destroy this country.  You can't even give President Obama 6 months.  Anyway, I'm not a hypocrite because I hold a different opinion.

Obama has done more damage and put us into more debt than any other president in the history of the United States. His pork-stimulus bill and other spending dwarfs any wartime spending by Bush. At least Bush managed to take out people who would destroy this country if given the chance - all Obama has done is throw hard earned tax money that doesn't only belong to me, but to my grandchildren's grandchildren, down the crapper.

And when are you going to get it through your head, I don't give a f*ck about what your opinion is. Scott and I, for example, can have civilized conversations, even though we are on different ends of the spectrum. That's because he doesn't just lump everyone into one huge "Obama-hating conservative" group and can actually back up his claims.

Its when you call us "Chicken Littles" and other inflamatory comments, for being concerned about the direction this country is headed (much like you were) that I'm going to have an issue.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#48 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:19 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Obama has done more damage and put us into more debt than any other president in the history of the United States.  His pork-stimulus bill and other spending dwarfs any wartime spending by Bush.

False.  That dubious distinction belongs to George W. Bush.  By a lot.  You may play with this site to see for yourself.

Debt today------------: $11,033,157,578,669.78
Debt on Jan 20, 2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
Debt on Jan 22, 2001: $5,728,195,796,181.57 (the 20th was a Sunday)

Net debt accrued while GW Bush was president**: 4,898,681,252,731.43
Net debt accrued while Barack Obama has been president**: 406,280,529,756.70

Your assertion that he has "done more damage" than any other president in the history of the United States is not specific enough to shut down with numbers, nor is it likely to be provable (yet) as Obama hasn't been in office long enough for the effects of his policies to be readily apparent.  History will be the judge on that one.  However, I do believe he'll be hard pressed to match or exceed the damage done by Buchanan, GW Bush, Johnson, Pierce, Harding, Hoover, and/or Grant.

[Edited to add a footnote]
**Note, that this isn't a completely accurate picture of how much debt each president is actually responsible for, as some of the spending in the early part of Bush's term was due to laws signed by President Clinton, and likewise for Obama with Bush.

Edited by Nick, 17 March 2009 - 03:22 PM.


#49 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:31 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 17 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Pluck the huge log out of your own eye.  President Obama hasn't been President long enough to do the type of damage that Bush has done to this country.  And the stuff that I am upset with Bush for more than half the country is upset with and he had 8 years to destroy this country.  You can't even give President Obama 6 months.  Anyway, I'm not a hypocrite because I hold a different opinion.

Obama has done more damage and put us into more debt than any other president in the history of the United States. His pork-stimulus bill and other spending dwarfs any wartime spending by Bush. At least Bush managed to take out people who would destroy this country if given the chance - all Obama has done is throw hard earned tax money that doesn't only belong to me, but to my grandchildren's grandchildren, down the crapper.

And when are you going to get it through your head, I don't give a f*ck about what your opinion is. Scott and I, for example, can have civilized conversations, even though we are on different ends of the spectrum. That's because he doesn't just lump everyone into one huge "Obama-hating conservative" group and can actually back up his claims.

Its when you call us "Chicken Littles" and other inflamatory comments, for being concerned about the direction this country is headed (much like you were) that I'm going to have an issue.

Maybe I should go hunt up the inflammatory remarks that you've made, I won't but it would be interesting.  I must have hit a nerve, sorry about that.  But Obama has been President for less than 2 months and you're attributing more to him than you ever did to Bush, it really is quite amazing.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#50 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:39 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

Net debt accrued while Barack Obama has been president**: 406,280,529,756.70

400 billion in two months makes my point for me. And your also forgetting about the yet-to-be-spent trillions-upon-trillions of dollars in this pork barrel crap he's passing and has already signed into law, but has not hit circulation yet.  

As for the rest - time will tell. Hopefully these spend-a-hollics (dem and repub alike) will get tossed out in a year and a half.

Edit - and in playing on that site, I find that during Bush's first two months, the Debt actually went DOWN 2 billion. Wish we can say that now.

Edit 2 - and in dividing GWB's total debt by 96 months, I find that per month his average debt is 51,027,929,715. Still a hell of a lot less than Obama when added up, so far.

Edited by RobL, 17 March 2009 - 04:04 PM.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#51 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:41 PM

View PostGodeskian, on Mar 16 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

View PostCaptain Jack, on Mar 16 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

Really?  Because the fact that he IS considering is worrisome enough.  What else would he be willing to "consider"?  The fact is, he should not be considering this at all!  Zero.

I disagree. He should consider all ideas, even if only to discard them after having considered them. One should never be critisised for considering all options.

He flat out promised he wouldn't ever tax health care benefits.  That he now is willing to even CONSIDER it is a direct contradiction to that statement.  It proves that what he said in his campaign is completely lacking in any credibility.  This is not some minor issue.  This was a MAIN point in his campaign.  "I will not tax health care benefits."  No way around it.  Either he was lying then or he is SO spineless that he is willing, this soon into his presidency, to consider this.  Period.

Lil

Edited by Bad Wolf, 17 March 2009 - 03:42 PM.

Posted Image

#52 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:56 PM

View PostGodeskian, on Mar 17 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

Just like the dem's have been the 'fear mongers' for the last eight years? Goose, Ganders, pots and kettles. I think I'd die of shock if OT ever really changed.

And the Dems aren't?  They've been using people's fear of the nation's economy, and health care to their advantage.  They've been playing this since Obama's and Hillary's campaign days.  And they're playing it in order to "justify" spending hundreds of billions of dollars because they claim we have no other choice.  And that's total B.S.  We have had a choice all along.  We should have let things be.  AIG alone has been squandering the money they've recieved alone.  The rest of it just seems to have disappeared.  What did it all do?  Nothing except stick an entire nation in a deeper debt hole.  Dems used fear-mongering by playing the economy card to get their pet projects passed.  They used fear-mongering to pass a 1000 page bill that no one has had a chance to go over.  No other administration has ever spent this much money in less than three months than this one.  And it is not because they had no other choice.  They had the choice to be more careful, to plan better, and spend a whole lot less, or even better, nothing at all.  Instead, they saw an opportunity to take advantage of the publics worries.  Dems are no saints either.  It doesn't make it right, but it should be recognized which a lot of Obama fan-boys/girls here refuse to do so.

And, or course Obama should consider a lot of options, but there are some he should not even want anything to do with.  This is one of them.  Just typical of a democrat to justify it anyway under that excuse.  Bush considered going to war, and people raised hell.  Obama considers taxing health care and making US soldiers pay for their own war injuries is okay though.  Wow.  Love th double standards.

Bad Wolf said:

He flat out promised he wouldn't ever tax health care benefits. That he now is willing to even CONSIDER it is a direct contradiction to that statement. It proves that what he said in his campaign is completely lacking in any credibility. This is not some minor issue. This was a MAIN point in his campaign. "I will not tax health care benefits." No way around it. Either he was lying then or he is SO spineless that he is willing, this soon into his presidency, to consider this. Period.

Lil

Lil said it better than I could, and she nailed it with a home run.

Edited by Captain Jack, 17 March 2009 - 03:57 PM.

Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#53 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:57 PM

It's all far too complicated for me.  There's something to be said for listening to all sides and changing with circumstances rather than standing on a statement that no longer fits the circumstances.

For me, it's the results that count and it's far too soon for results - or lack thereof - to be measured.  

My assumption would also be that he has access to more information now than when he was running.  In addition, the economy wasn't in the toilet for most of the time he was campaigning.

The honeymoon may be over but it's too soon to call the hangman.
Cats will never be extinct!

#54 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:57 PM

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

Net debt accrued while Barack Obama has been president**: 406,280,529,756.70

400 billion in two months makes my point for me. And your also forgetting about the yet-to-be-spent trillions-upon-trillions of dollars in this pork barrel crap he's passing and has already signed into law, but has not hit circulation yet.  

As for the rest - time will tell. Hopefully these spend-a-hollics (dem and repub alike) will get tossed out in a year and a half.

No it doesn't.  Your statement remains false and the vast majority of that 400 billion was Bush's anyway.  Spending from bills signed by Obama has barely begun yet and as of right now, there's around 2 trillion heading out the door.  This is not a complete picture, however, as he hasn't done any of his promised cuts or tax changes to offset this spending.  The actual amount he spends is yet to be determined.

#55 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:59 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

Net debt accrued while Barack Obama has been president**: 406,280,529,756.70

400 billion in two months makes my point for me. And your also forgetting about the yet-to-be-spent trillions-upon-trillions of dollars in this pork barrel crap he's passing and has already signed into law, but has not hit circulation yet.  

As for the rest - time will tell. Hopefully these spend-a-hollics (dem and repub alike) will get tossed out in a year and a half.

No it doesn't.  Your statement remains false and the vast majority of that 400 billion was Bush's anyway.  Spending from bills signed by Obama has barely begun yet and as of right now, there's around 2 trillion heading out the door.  This is not a complete picture, however, as he hasn't done any of his promised cuts or tax changes to offset this spending.  The actual amount he spends is yet to be determined.

Obama's administration has spent more money than any other before his in just his first 3 months in office, not counting what was passed before him taking office.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#56 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:00 PM

He is considering having Vets use own insurance to pay for their injuries!!!!! I had to search this one since I couldn't believe that any president would even consider such nonsense. But here is an article:

Obama's plan for our wounded soldiers!

I have been trying to give this President a chance, but he keeps making it harder and harder for me. Sheesh, Obama...get a clue.

LoP

#57 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:04 PM

Bad Wolf said:

He flat out promised he wouldn't ever tax health care benefits. That he now is willing to even CONSIDER it is a direct contradiction to that statement. It proves that what he said in his campaign is completely lacking in any credibility. This is not some minor issue. This was a MAIN point in his campaign. "I will not tax health care benefits." No way around it. Either he was lying then or he is SO spineless that he is willing, this soon into his presidency, to consider this. Period.

Lil

What's with this black-and-white with us or against us mentality?  This is nothing more than a "I'll hear you out."  If, after hearing them out, he comes back with "my answer's still 'no'."  Then what's the problem?

Besides, a president with the ability to change his mind in light of new information rather than stubbornly sticking to the original plan, results be damned, is a good thing, imho.  (with the caveat that, in this case, I don't think he should back down--but it's fine with me that he's at least willing to listen to alternative ideas)

#58 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:05 PM

View PostCaptain Jack, on Mar 17 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

Obama's administration has spent more money than any other before his in just his first 3 months in office, not counting what was passed before him taking office.

No he hasn't.  Repeating a lie does not make it true.

#59 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:09 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

View PostRobL, on Mar 17 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

View PostNick, on Mar 17 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

Net debt accrued while Barack Obama has been president**: 406,280,529,756.70

400 billion in two months makes my point for me. And your also forgetting about the yet-to-be-spent trillions-upon-trillions of dollars in this pork barrel crap he's passing and has already signed into law, but has not hit circulation yet.  

As for the rest - time will tell. Hopefully these spend-a-hollics (dem and repub alike) will get tossed out in a year and a half.

No it doesn't.  Your statement remains false and the vast majority of that 400 billion was Bush's anyway.  Spending from bills signed by Obama has barely begun yet and as of right now, there's around 2 trillion heading out the door.  This is not a complete picture, however, as he hasn't done any of his promised cuts or tax changes to offset this spending.  The actual amount he spends is yet to be determined.

Dude, are you even reading what you are saying?

Spending from bills signed by Obama has barely begun yet and as of right now, there's around 2 trillion heading out the door.

Two trillion dollars. Heading out the door. Right now. No matter how incompetent Bush may have been, he's never even come close to doing anything on this level.

Bring back Darthsikle!


#60 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:24 PM

You know what, Nick, lets play the numbers game.

Let's use this one as our base: 406,280,529,756.70. that's the number you provided for Obama's first two months. We'll ignore the two trillion stimulus for now.

Divide that by half: 203,140,264,878.35.. That's the one month total.

Now, lets assume Obama serves a full eight years (96 months). Multiply the monthly total by 96: 19,501,465,428,321.60. That's the grand total that Obama will spend, if he stays at the current level.

Bush's grand total (per your post): 4,898,681,252,731.43

19,501,465,428,321.60= Obama
  4,898,681,252,731.43= Bush


Now, I'm no math expert, but from playing with these numbers, It looks like Obama, if he keeps up this spending level, will spend 14,602,784,175,590.17 more than Bush did during his term.

Not counting the stimulus, of course.

Edited by RobL, 17 March 2009 - 04:29 PM.

Bring back Darthsikle!




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, Taxing benefits, 2009

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users