Obama Embarrasses Republicans by Pointing Out That They're Playing Politics

[red states rule]

You are attempting to assume an importance that your electoral results do not entitle you to.

If you refuse to get on board with the duly elected authorities carrying out the will of the voters, don't be surprised when you find yourself marginalized and ignored as irrelevant.

as you did during the 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush 41, and the 8 years of Bush 43?

Still no comment from the back bencher on the Carter economy and the similar policies Obama is following

 

[Taichiliberal]

Translation - Forget abut the huge tax increase for now, and lets talk about it after it is passed into law. That way it is too late to complain about it

No, you willfully ignorant lout.....let's discuss the most current information that is available, which by the way changes what you've been repeatedly touting here.

Sometimes I truly wonder is you're really this fucking stupid, insipidly stubborn or just some idiot, no nothing kid with a lot time on his hands. In any event, your tag doesn't say much for you. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by christiefan915
Since your numbers didn't answer my question, I went to the Tax Foundation and found this:

"The latest proposal—one of several floated on Capitol Hill in the past few days and the third analyzed by the Tax Foundation since Friday—would impose a surtax of 1 percent on married couples with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000); 1.5 percent on couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000); and 5.4 percent on couples earning more than $1 million (singles beyond $800,000).

The Tax Foundation released an initial report Friday based on another plan that had been floated that included a 4 percent surtax, as well as an updated report yesterday based on a three-tiered structured with a maximum rate of 3% for couples earning more than $1 million.

The Tax Foundation released an initial report Friday based on another plan that had been floated that included a 4 percent surtax, as well as an updated report yesterday based on a three-tiered structured with a maximum rate of 3% for couples earning more than $1 million."

If I paid the surtax at their highest rate, 4%, it would be much less than I pay now for the employee deduction.

I thought uit was so simple even a aliberal could find the WSJ article - but alas I was wrong

Seems you do ot care what others pay in taxes - or small business owners - only what YOU pay


A Reckless Congress
Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history.

Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Obama's February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren't nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.

Hyperbole? That's what people said when we warned about this last fall in "A Liberal Supermajority," but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness of today's national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details:

.A huge new income surtax. The bill's main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama's budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.

This would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.

The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.

House Democrats say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America's millionaires aren't that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn't materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.

Phony numbers. Democrats will have to come up with something, because even the surtax puts their bill at least $300 billion short of honest financing. The public insurance "option" doesn't even begin until 2013 and the costs are heavily weighted toward the later years, but the tax hikes start in 2011. So under Congress's 10-year budget window, the House bill is able to pay for seven years of spending with nine years of taxes. Andy Laperriere of the ISI Group estimates the bill would add $95 billion to the deficit in 2019 alone.

Then there's yesterday's testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf, that ObamaCare's cost "savings" are an illusion. Mr. Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it. But Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that "In the legislation that has been reported we don't see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."

Further on the public plan: "It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate."

No matter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is whisking the bill through House committees even before CBO has had a chance to score it in detail. As Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan put it to us, "We will not have read it, and we will not have a score of it, but we will have passed it out of committee."

A new payroll tax. Unemployment is at 9.5% and rising, but Democrats will nonetheless impose a new eight percentage point payroll tax on employers who don't provide health insurance for employees. This is on top of the current 15% payroll tax, and in addition to a new 2.5-percentage point tax on individuals who don't buy health insurance. This means that any employer with more than $400,000 in payroll would have to pay at least 25% above the salary to hire someone. Result: Many fewer new jobs, with a higher structural jobless rate, much as Europe has experienced as its welfare states have expanded.

Other new taxes, including an as yet undetermined levy on private health plans. This tax, which Democrats say could raise $100 billion or so, would make it even harder for private plans to compete with the government plan, which would already benefit from government subsidies and lower capital costs. For good measure, the House bill also gets the ball rolling on tax increases on foreign-source corporate income.

We could go on, and we will in coming days. But the most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779717982855785.html

And of course, your article DOES NOT contain any source information that Christie provided in hers. Essentially, you do the typical neocon slight-of-hand, presenting an article that is a series of supposition and conjecture in your favor (i.e., op-ed or feature pieces) rather than straight up specific information that addresses the point brought forth (in this case, by Christie).

 

[red states rule]

And of course, your article DOES NOT contain any source information that Christie provided in hers. Essentially, you do the typical neocon slight-of-hand, presenting an article that is a series of supposition and conjecture in your favor (i.e., op-ed or feature pieces) rather than straight up specific information that addresses the point brought forth (in this case, by Christie).

Translation - please stop with the facts on how huge a tax increase the Dems want. We were really wanting to get Obamacare passed in a hurry beofre anyone knew what was in it - then it would be too late to stop anything

 

[Taichiliberal]

Translation - please stop with the facts on how huge a tax increase the Dems want. We were really wanting to get Obamacare passed in a hurry beofre anyone knew what was in it - then it would be too late to stop anything

No stupid, as I pointed out earlier, the article you presented leaves out (or omits) the FACTS from bonafide USA sources that validate what Christie pointed out. All you can do is repeat the same thing over, and Over and OVER, hoping to obliterate all other information.

Grow up, asshole. You can't eliminate the information of a post by merely pretending it doesn't exists.

 

[christiefan915]

and where states do have it - it has failed


Look at this example from the blue state of

Now Dems want to take it nation wide

Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon
Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide


The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.

The incident has spilled over the state border into Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

I checked out this story. Her condition was diagnosed 4 years ago and she had all the conventional treatments available at that time.

"A lifelong smoker, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 and quit. The state-run Oregon Health Plan generously paid for thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy, radiation, a special bed and a wheelchair, according to Wagner."

Her cancer went into remission and returned in 2007. The docs prescribed Tarceva.

"The cancer went into remission, but in May, Wagner found it had returned. Her oncologist prescribed the drug Tarceva to slow its growth, giving her another four to six months to live. But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive "palliative" or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years. "

I looked up info on Tarceva and found that it was only in the clinical trial stages when Mrs. Wagner developed her cancer and didn't have a proven record yet. "The likelihood of no response to the drug is 92 percent, yet 19 percent of patients develop toxic side effects like diarrhea and rash. Based on the low indicators of effectiveness, Oregon Health Plan denied coverage."
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/sensationalizing_a_sad_case_ch.html

Then the drug company supplied Tarceva to Mrs. Wagner at no cost.
"... at the request of her doctor, the pharmaceutical company Genentech is giving her Tarceva free of charge for one year. Sadly, it turned out Tarceva didn't help Wagner and she lived only a short time after starting the drug."

Then I looked up the drug on my own insurance plan and found that they didn't approve it either, in the same time period Mrs. Wager wanted it. They finally approved it in 2009, after years of clinical trials.

The bottom line is, you're blaming this on the state and generalizing it to a national health program when the issue belongs to the insurance companies and their reluctance to pay for pricey drugs that haven't completed the testing phase. People who weren't on the Oregon plan were also denied the drug because companies didn't want to pay the price.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I checked out this story. Her condition was diagnosed 4 years ago and she had all the conventional treatments available at that time.

"A lifelong smoker, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 and quit. The state-run Oregon Health Plan generously paid for thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy, radiation, a special bed and a wheelchair, according to Wagner."

Her cancer went into remission and returned in 2007. The docs prescribed Tarceva.

"The cancer went into remission, but in May, Wagner found it had returned. Her oncologist prescribed the drug Tarceva to slow its growth, giving her another four to six months to live. But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive "palliative" or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years. "

I looked up info on Tarceva and found that it was only in the clinical trial states when Mrs. Wagner developed her cancer and didn't have a proven record yet. "The likelihood of no response to the drug is 92 percent, yet 19 percent of patients develop toxic side effects like diarrhea and rash. Based on the low indicators of effectiveness, Oregon Health Plan denied coverage."
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/sensationalizing_a_sad_case_ch.html

Then the drug company supplied Tarceva to Mrs. Wagner at no cost.
"... at the request of her doctor, the pharmaceutical company Genentech is giving her Tarceva free of charge for one year. Sadly, it turned out Tarceva didn't help Wagner and she lived only a short time after starting the drug."

Then I looked up the drug on my own insurance plan and found that they didn't approve it either, in the same time period Mrs. Wager wanted it. They finally approved it in 2009, after years of clinical trials.

The bottom line is, you're blaming this on the state and generalizing it to a national health program when the issue belongs to the insurance companies and their reluctance to pay for pricey drugs that haven't completed the testing phase. People who weren't on the Oregon plan were also denied the drug because companies didn't want to pay the price.

Once again Christie, you show the neocon parrots what a little honest research can do.

 

[red states rule]

I checked out this story. Her condition was diagnosed 4 years ago and she had all the conventional treatments available at that time.

"A lifelong smoker, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 and quit. The state-run Oregon Health Plan generously paid for thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy, radiation, a special bed and a wheelchair, according to Wagner."

Her cancer went into remission and returned in 2007. The docs prescribed Tarceva.

"The cancer went into remission, but in May, Wagner found it had returned. Her oncologist prescribed the drug Tarceva to slow its growth, giving her another four to six months to live. But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive "palliative" or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years. "

I looked up info on Tarceva and found that it was only in the clinical trial stages when Mrs. Wagner developed her cancer and didn't have a proven record yet. "The likelihood of no response to the drug is 92 percent, yet 19 percent of patients develop toxic side effects like diarrhea and rash. Based on the low indicators of effectiveness, Oregon Health Plan denied coverage."
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/sensationalizing_a_sad_case_ch.html

Then the drug company supplied Tarceva to Mrs. Wagner at no cost.
"... at the request of her doctor, the pharmaceutical company Genentech is giving her Tarceva free of charge for one year. Sadly, it turned out Tarceva didn't help Wagner and she lived only a short time after starting the drug."

Then I looked up the drug on my own insurance plan and found that they didn't approve it either, in the same time period Mrs. Wager wanted it. They finally approved it in 2009, after years of clinical trials.

The bottom line is, you're blaming this on the state and generalizing it to a national health program when the issue belongs to the insurance companies and their reluctance to pay for pricey drugs that haven't completed the testing phase. People who weren't on the Oregon plan were also denied the drug because companies didn't want to pay the price.

So like with Obamacare - she should just die and save the government money

Got it -thanks

 

[christiefan915]

Once again Christie, you show the neocon parrots what a little honest research can do.

My current insurance company won't pay for some drugs that the former one did. It's all about the money, and anybody who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves.

 

[christiefan915]

So like with Obamacare - she should just die and save the government money

Got it -thanks

Shooting off a one-liner really doesn't address the points I made, does it?

 

[red states rule]

My current insurance company won't pay for some drugs that the former one did. It's all about the money, and anybody who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves.

That is the goal of Obamacare - take as much of our money and give it to others - while cutting and rationing care

The old, young, and sick had just better start getting their affiars in order, and stop being a huge expense to the state

 

[Cancel4]

I wonder what possible benefit the rightwingnuts expect to reap by lying about health care reform. Do they think the insurance companies will reward them?

They keep spouting patent untruths, like referring to "Obamacare", which doesn't exist, and claim that reform is socialized medicine.

What's being proposed in Congress is not socialized or nationalized medicine. It;s not single-payer medicine.

The compassionless conservatives seem obsessed with repeating the canard that President Obama wants to "take over" healthcare by imposing a government-run system like in the United Kingdom, where the government owns the hospitals and doctors are government employees.

None of that is true, and since I assume they can read, I have to think they know they are misrepresenting the issues.

 

[Taichiliberal]

My current insurance company won't pay for some drugs that the former one did. It's all about the money, and anybody who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves.

And this is the psychosis of the neocons....they swear that Obama's plan will do EXACTLY what's going on now in healthcare....while at the same time telling you and me that all is well and NOTHING needs to be changed and all is well. You can present case after documented case, they don't care. They'll just ignore what you present and then squawk some stupid one liner that either distorts, diverts or ignores what you said and presented.

 

[christiefan915]

That is the goal of Obamacare - take as much of our money and give it to others - while cutting and rationing care

The old, young, and sick had just better start getting their affiars in order, and stop being a huge expense to the state

You're deluding yourself if you think this isn't about the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

 

[christiefan915]

That is the goal of Obamacare - take as much of our money and give it to others - while cutting and rationing care

The old, young, and sick had just better start getting their affiars in order, and stop being a huge expense to the state

Both of the plans I'm talking about started during the bush administration.

 

[Cancel4]

Right now elderly people with insurance are dealing with not being able to pay for their medicine that they need to survive.

People who have paid premiums for years are having to choose whether to get treatment for cancer or keep their home.

The fact that over half of all bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical bills isn't due to illegal aliens. Medical bankruptcies have risen over 2200% percent (that isn't a typo) in the last 25 years.

Yet compassionless conservatives assure us that all is well on the health care front and reform isn't needed.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Right now elderly people with insurance are dealing with not being able to pay for their medicine that they need to survive.

People who have paid premiums for years are having to choose whether to get treatment for cancer or keep their home.

The fact that over half of all bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical bills isn't due to illegal aliens. Medical bankruptcies have risen over 2200% percent (that isn't a typo) in the last 25 years.

Yet compassionless conservatives assure us that all is well on the health care front and reform isn't needed.

Hey, you just shut up with all that liberal media propaganda......the system works, and it's your fault if you didn't plan your finances to anticipate illness or HMO cop outs. You libbies just want to tear down everything for a socialist take over----where's Obama's birth certificate? I want my country back! Yeeeaaaggghhhhh!

 

[Cancel4]

Health care costs are skyrocketing under the status quo system.

The administrative costs for private insurers are approximately four times the size as those for Medicare, yet compassionless conservatives continue to insist we can't afford reform that includes competition with their corporate buddies.

Instead of providing coverage to all who need it, profitable private insurers have a layer of bureaucracy to “cherry pick” their customers. They take on people who are less likely to get sick and deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Health care costs are skyrocketing under the status quo system.

The administrative costs for private insurers are approximately four times the size as those for Medicare, yet compassionless conservatives continue to insist we can't afford reform that includes competition with their corporate buddies.

Instead of providing coverage to all who need it, profitable private insurers have a layer of bureaucracy to “cherry pick” their customers. They take on people who are less likely to get sick and deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

But that's okay....according to the GOP punditry.

 

[maineman]

what does the gates 911 call have to do with this discussion?