# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  you know what really grinds my gears?

## webrockk

Almost everything the left advocates, proposes or enacts increases the costs of living, weakens the purchasing power of a dollar, and makes it more difficult to find gainful employment. 

Which hurts their "championed" poor and middle classes the most (all while bleating about the "WEALTH GAP!!" and screaming "REGRESSIVE!!!" upon any proposal to spread the ever increasing tax burden -- required by their overly benevolent Welfare State -- around more evenly among the citizenry)

Loose, inflationary monetary policy.
Loose fiscal policy.... demands higher taxes
39.6% profit taxes....embedded in the price of everything purchased
Coerced mortgage lending.... drove artificial demand for homes... and the bubble.
Overly exuberant environmental regulations.
Hamstringing, shuttering conventional energy exploration, extraction and production.
Loose student lending...driving artificial demand for college...and the tuition (and bailout) bubble.
Loose enforcement of immigration law.
Obamacare....transfers a huge chunk of health insurance costs to younger lower middle and middle class earners who are least likely to need health care services.

miss anything?

Oh, and the "solution" for their (purposeful?...to increase government dependency?) bullshit? 

Mandated "LIVING WAGES!!!"

which are, of course, inflationary, while having the added benefit of making jobs disappear.

----------

Hairball (07-24-2016),Invayne (07-24-2016),LFD (07-23-2016),Libhater (07-24-2016),OldSchool (07-23-2016),Quark (07-23-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016),Sheldonna (07-24-2016),Swedgin (07-25-2016)

----------


## webrockk

Okay, I feel better   :Smile:

----------

GreenEyedLady (07-23-2016),OldSchool (07-23-2016),pragmatic (07-23-2016),Quark (07-23-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## LFD

I only partially disagree with the jobs part, since expanding government programs is a huge job creator.

I believe liberals want to promote further dependence on the government, although both sides promote dependency on government to some degree.

----------

Rutabaga (07-24-2016),samspade (07-24-2016)

----------


## webrockk

> I only partially disagree with the jobs part, since expanding government programs is a huge job creator.
> 
> I believe liberals want to promote further dependence on the government, although both sides promote dependency on government to some degree.


The problem with expanding government programs to create jobs is the same problem a perpetual motion machine encounters

----------

2cent (07-24-2016),Quark (07-23-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## Calypso Jones

nobody screws the middle class like the left.

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016),Libhater (07-24-2016),Quark (07-23-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016),webrockk (07-23-2016)

----------


## webrockk

They think "Living Wages" will stay contained within the low skilled labor market.  Apparently believing the _skilled labor_ set that currently earns $15-$18 per hour will just shut up and take it when shelf stockers, burger flippers and brand new hires with no real world experience and no seniority earn the same as they do. 

 What about the single teacher with an expensive masters degree who earns $40K being outearned by two of their students who are playing house while making 30K a piece flipping burgers and ringing up groceries...

any gear grinding there?  any IMMEDIATE demands for pay hikes?

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016),pragmatic (07-23-2016),Quark (07-23-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Okay, I feel better


Well, we certainly don't want you to be unhappy. You might rant about evil libs. 

Bad for your triglycerides.

----------


## LFD

> The problem with expanding government programs to create jobs is the same problem a perpetual motion machine encounters


Not sure what a perpetual motion machine is, but I disagree with expanding government nonetheless.

----------


## Quark

> I only partially disagree with the jobs part, since expanding government programs is a huge job creator.
> 
> I believe liberals want to promote further dependence on the government, although both sides promote dependency on government to some degree.


Government jobs is not job creation.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (07-24-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## Quark

> Not sure what a perpetual motion machine is, but I disagree with expanding government nonetheless.


You have got to be kidding?

----------


## webrockk

> Well, we certainly don't want you to be unhappy. You might rant about evil libs. 
> 
> Bad for your triglycerides.


Well, though there are evil ones, and ones who lie, pathologically, most are just fucking stupid....perhaps conditioned to be that way by the evil and deceitful ones....or, perhaps it's congenital.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Well, though there are evil ones, and ones who lie, pathologically, most are just fucking stupid....perhaps conditioned to be that way by the evil and deceitful ones....or, perhaps it's congenital.


Do you ever consider that you may actually be demonizing a boogieman who does not exist?

----------


## LFD

> Government jobs is not job creation.


Are you saying the government does not create jobs?

Who do you think employs police, teachers, soldiers, firemen, scientists, and bureaucrats?

----------


## LFD

> You have got to be kidding?


No.

----------


## LFD

> Do you ever consider that you may actually be demonizing a boogieman who does not exist?


Both sides believe the other consists of idiots.

The real sign of idiocy is that both sides have been doing the same thing over and over. They are all morons.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Both sides believe the other consists of idiots.
> 
> The real sign of idiocy is that both sides have been doing the same thing over and over. They are all morons.


Not attempting blame assignment here, just an observation.

----------


## LFD

> Not attempting blame assignment here, just an observation.


Poor show. 

You are a libertarian. Never pass up an opportunity to rag on mainstream politics.

----------


## webrockk

> Do you ever consider that you may actually be demonizing a boogieman who does not exist?


I've likely read tens of millions of words written by lib/progs in my tenish years on these fora.  My opinions of liberals are not formed in a vacuum.  I also reside near and work in a state capitol city that contains two major universities and a large junior college.  

they are literally everywhere.   it's a minefield of uber-political correctness.   :Wink:

----------

LFD (07-23-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## LFD

> I also reside near and work in a state capitol city that contains two major universities and a large junior college. 
> 
> they are literally everywhere. it's a minefield of uber-political correctness.


College liberals are the worst.

I am with you there.

----------


## Dos Equis

> nobody screws the middle class like the left.



Because according to Karl Marx the Middle Class must be destroyed.

----------

2cent (07-24-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> I only partially disagree with the jobs part, since expanding government programs is a huge job creator.
> 
> I believe liberals want to promote further dependence on the government, although both sides promote dependency on government to some degree.


First off, how do you pay for these jobs? Secondly...you just said BOTH sides promote dependency? How's that?

----------

webrockk (07-23-2016)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Are you saying the government does not create jobs?
> 
> Who do you think employs police, teachers, soldiers, firemen, scientists, and bureaucrats?


How do you pay their salaries?

----------

webrockk (07-23-2016)

----------


## LFD

> First off, how do you pay for these jobs?


The government pays for those jobs by stealing from Americans. I oppose that.




> Secondly...you just said BOTH sides promote dependency? How's that?


As long as both sides support the state, then dependency is going to exist no matter what. 

Liberals just want more of it.

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Both sides believe the other consists of idiots.
> 
> The real sign of idiocy is that both sides have been doing the same thing over and over. They are all morons.


I have some news for you...but "both sides"...thanks to Mr Trump and...partly...to Bernie Sanders...have capitulated to good sense and there is now just one side.

----------


## LFD

> I have some news for you...but "both sides"...thanks to Mr Trump and...partly...to Bernie Sanders...have capitulated to good sense and there is now just one side.


Sorry mate, but you are dead wrong.

Trump offered no new policy. Trump offered no new promises. It is going to be more of the same, nor could  anything different be done within the confines of the system, that has not been tried before elsewhere in the world.

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Sorry mate, but you are dead wrong.
> 
> Trump offered no new policy. Trump offered no new promises. It is going to be more of the same, nor could  anything different be done within the confines of the system, that has not been tried before elsewhere in the world.


This was updated on the 16th. It's been around for several years. BTW: I do like your posts but you should consider using "IMO" to differentiate opinion from what you want anyone to believe as a fact. If nothing else...it's the polite thing to do.  :Thumbsup20: 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

----------


## LFD

> This was updated on the 16th. It's been around for several years. BTW: I do like your posts but you should consider using "IMO" to differentiate opinion from what you want anyone to believe as a fact. 
> http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm


Read it. More of the same empty promises. 

Just don't know how many more election cycles we are going to have to go through, before we acknowledge the system is broken. 




> If nothing else...it's the polite thing to do.


There is nothing wrong with being blunt or indecent.

The real enemies are hostility and personal prejudice.

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Read it. More of the same empty promises. 
> 
> Just don't know how many more election cycles we are going to have to go through, before we acknowledge the system is broken. 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with being blunt or indecent.
> 
> The real enemies are hostility and personal prejudice.


Uhhh...I would say that America has acknowledged that the system is broken.

BTW: I like everyone here. I don't like rancour and vitriol thrown at them. What can I say?   :Dontknow:

----------


## LFD

> Uhhh...I would say that America has acknowledged that the system is broken.


America has not.

Otherwise we would not continue working within the system. 




> BTW: I like everyone here. I don't like rancour and vitriol thrown at them. What can I say?


Being blunt and indecent, is not synonymous with rancour and vitriol.

Rancour and vitriol are however synonyms for hostility and personal prejudice. That is why I do not hold grudges or make personal attacks.

----------


## Dan40

> Almost everything the left advocates, proposes or enacts increases the costs of living, weakens the purchasing power of a dollar, and makes it more difficult to find gainful employment. 
> 
> Which hurts their "championed" poor and middle classes the most (all while bleating about the "WEALTH GAP!!" and screaming "REGRESSIVE!!!" upon any proposal to spread the ever increasing tax burden -- required by their overly benevolent Welfare State -- around more evenly among the citizenry)
> 
> Loose, inflationary monetary policy.
> Loose fiscal policy.... demands higher taxes
> 39.6% profit taxes....embedded in the price of everything purchased
> Coerced mortgage lending.... drove artificial demand for homes... and the bubble.
> Overly exuberant environmental regulations.
> ...


Just one edit, OBAMASCAM.

It does not transfer ANY insurance costs to younger healthy people.

The younger people DON'T BUY, they pay the fine.  The fine goes to the Treasury, NOT insurers.  People with pre-existing conditions DO buy policies and that multiplies insurance costs, borne by all people with insurance.

Hence the dramatically increasing prices.

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Northern Rivers

I don't know the numbers....

I'm here in Oz...so don't know what you "get"...but a friend was just out here and pays $560 a month in premiums and has a $10,000 deductible. Is this pretty normal???? Like I said...I don't know.

----------


## LFD

> I don't know the numbers....
> 
> I'm here in Oz...so don't know what you "get"...but a friend was just out here and pays $560 a month in premiums and has a $10,000 deductible. Is this pretty normal???? Like I said...I don't know.


No, that isn't normal.

----------


## Northern Rivers

> No, that isn't normal.


What is?

----------


## Hairball

What's really crazy is that I used to be a liberal. Oh, I thought I was doing so much good for the country and I cared about the babies and the animals and all. I thought people on foodstamps should get extra money for diapers, baby wipes, toilet paper, paper towels, etc.

Wow. I was in hook, line, and sinker! Glad I got over it. I still care but it's tempered with common sense. Throwing money at a cause or a specific group of people doesn't work. Liberalism doesn't work.

All we can do now is vote and pray or we're doomed.

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016),Quark (07-24-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## Jeffrey

> Government jobs is not job creation.


It is a short term way of injecting some money into the economy.  One downside of it is the money is usually borrowed.

----------


## Jeffrey

Coerced mortgage lending.... drove artificial demand for homes... and the bubble

What do you mean by coerced mortgage lending?

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Poor show. 
> 
> You are a libertarian. Never pass up an opportunity to rag on mainstream politics.


Ok, Libtards suck. Everyone happy?

----------


## Jeffrey

> What's really crazy is that I used to be a liberal. Oh, I thought I was doing so much good for the country and I cared about the babies and the animals and all. I thought people on foodstamps should get extra money for diapers, baby wipes, toilet paper, paper towels, etc.
> 
> Wow. I was in hook, line, and sinker! Glad I got over it. I still care but it's tempered with common sense. Throwing money at a cause or a specific group of people doesn't work. Liberalism doesn't work.
> 
> All we can do now is vote and pray or we're doomed.


I wish we didn't have to do it but taking care of those in need is just part of the cost of living in a civilized country. It may help to think that the welfare recipients, for the most part, were not always dependent on the dole and will someday be off the dole.  Can people really help having a disabling injury or a serious medical problem that puts them in need of help from the rest of us?

Granted, some people abuse the system, such as the welfare moms.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

Don't really understand why a thread was nessesary to castigate "Liberal stupidity." Don't you guys do that already in every thread as it is?

----------


## Jeffrey

> Don't really understand why a thread was nessesary to castigate "Liberal stupidity." Don't you guys do that already in every thread as it is?


It is safe to kibitz.  When one has no solutions to offer then he has to have a scapegoat, and the libs are it. Helps to make him feel superior and holy.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> It is safe to kibitz.  When one has no solutions to offer then he has to have a scapegoat, and the libs are it. Helps to make him feel superior and holy.


You silly liberals! Trump will thump the Obama train and Hillary will go down in flames!

Liberal libtard libs are too stupid to even bother living -- so they should just cut down on carbon dioxide and sacrifice themselves to their horned god! 

(How's that?)

----------


## Cedric

> Don't really understand why a thread was nessesary to castigate "Liberal stupidity." Don't you guys do that already in every thread as it is?


It's a bad idea to slack off on that, however, since Right of Center citizens had all but ceased criticizing the Left and their insane foolishness back in 2007 and then the next thing anyone knows we are staring at four years worth of Barack Obama's screwing over this nation while nation-hating leftists cheered.  It pays to stay on top of that sort of thing.

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016),Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## 2cent

> Because according to Karl Marx the Middle Class must be destroyed.


And there ^^ would be the short, and honest, answer to the OP.

----------

Rutabaga (07-24-2016)

----------


## Jeffrey

> It's a bad idea to slack off on that, however, since Right of Center citizens had all but ceased criticizing the Left and their insane foolishness back in 2007 and then the next thing anyone knows we are staring at four years worth of Barack Obama's screwing over this nation while nation-hating leftists cheered.  It pays to stay on top of that sort of thing.


Bigots are slow learners.

----------


## Quark

> Are you saying the government does not create jobs?
> 
> Who do you think employs police, teachers, soldiers, firemen, scientists, and bureaucrats?


Liberals, inherently stupid, mentally ill, and emotionally driven.

----------


## Quark

> The government pays for those jobs by stealing from Americans. I oppose that.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as both sides support the state, then dependency is going to exist no matter what. 
> 
> Liberals just want more of it.


WOW! Colossal ignorance and stupidity. No offense intend but how does one counter that or even educate against that?

----------


## Quark

> I don't know the numbers....
> 
> I'm here in Oz...so don't know what you "get"...but a friend was just out here and pays $560 a month in premiums and has a $10,000 deductible. Is this pretty normal???? Like I said...I don't know.


Yes that's normal for a single person. A family of four it's even higher, much higher.

----------


## Quark

> It is a short term way of injecting some money into the economy.  One downside of it is the money is usually borrowed.


No government job is a created job. All government jobs take money out of the economy not put money into the economy. Economics 101.

----------

2cent (07-24-2016)

----------


## Quark

> I wish we didn't have to do it but taking care of those in need is just part of the cost of living in a civilized country. It may help to think that the welfare recipients, for the most part, were not always dependent on the dole and will someday be off the dole.  Can people really help having a disabling injury or a serious medical problem that puts them in need of help from the rest of us?
> 
> Granted, some people abuse the system, such as the welfare moms.


That's what private charities are for and worked very well until women got the right to vote and discovered that they could rob the national treasury and no longer need a good husband or private charities.

----------


## LFD

> WOW! Colossal ignorance and stupidity. No offense intend but how does one counter that or even educate against that?


With a rebuttal.

----------


## Rutabaga

> What is?



im pretty normal...

before the aca,,i paid $48 per month, with a $20 co-pay, zero deductible...

after aca i pay $124 per month with a $2500 deductible...


im still waiting for my $2500 decrease in cost...

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Coerced mortgage lending.... drove artificial demand for homes... and the bubble
> 
> What do you mean by coerced mortgage lending?




it was caused by giving loans to people who would never had gotten them if they were properly vetted prior..so they defaulted because they really couldnt afford them in the first place...

in short,,the buyers bit off more than they could chew because the lenders relaxed to criteria for granting a loan...

----------


## LFD

> What is?


I cannot say for sure, but my best guess would be slashing that in half for most Americans.

----------


## Trinnity

> Almost everything the left advocates, proposes or enacts increases the costs of living, weakens the purchasing power of a dollar, and makes it more difficult to find gainful employment.


You're right. We had to replace a water heater not too long ago. Thanks to new regulations tacked onto Obamacare (!!!) it now costs double. DOUBLE.

----------


## Dan40

> im pretty normal...
> 
> before the aca,,i paid $48 per month, with a $20 co-pay, zero deductible...
> 
> after aca i pay $124 per month with a $2500 deductible...
> 
> 
> im still waiting for my $2500 decrease in cost...


Dat's yew deduckabull.  Iffn yew stays healthy fer a year, yous saves $2500.

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Dan40

> Coerced mortgage lending.... drove artificial demand for homes... and the bubble
> 
> What do you mean by coerced mortgage lending?



The Community Reinvestment Act passed under Carter and strengthened many times after that, DEMANDED lenders make loans to low income, no credit people.  And would revoke licenses if they did not make such loans.  That placed value on properties that had NO loan value.  That inflated the value of each tier above, and ALLOWED lenders to make sub prime loans that were illegal prior to the CRA.

----------

GreenEyedLady (07-24-2016),Jim Scott (07-25-2016),Quark (07-24-2016),Rutabaga (07-25-2016),webrockk (07-24-2016)

----------


## 2cent

> No government job is a created job. All government jobs take money out of the economy not put money into the economy. Economics 101.


Christ on a crutch!  You'd think it was rocket surgery to explain to people just who PAYS "government workers", and from where that money COMES!

----------

Quark (07-24-2016)

----------


## Dan40

> Christ on a crutch!  You'd think it was rocket surgery to explain to people just who PAYS "government workers", and from where that money COMES!


Liberals cannot be educated, they've been brainwashed.  Some evidently BLEACHED too.

----------

2cent (07-24-2016),Quark (07-24-2016)

----------


## 2cent

> That's what private charities are for and worked very well until women got the right to vote and discovered that they could rob the national treasury and no longer need a good husband or private charities.


Oh, please.  Now you're insulting MY intelligence.

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-24-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> it was caused by giving loans to people who would never had gotten them if they were properly vetted prior..so they defaulted because they really couldnt afford them in the first place...
> 
> in short,,the buyers bit off more than they could chew because the lenders relaxed to criteria for granting a loan...


That's part of the story. The other part is that financial institutions spent record amounts of cash on lobbyist to enact deregulation, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton and house Republicans.

Banks did this mostly to themselves.

----------


## Invayne

> You're right. We had to replace a water heater not too long ago. Thanks to new regulations tacked onto Obamacare (!!!) it now costs double. DOUBLE.


What does a water heater have to do with Obamacare? :Thinking:

----------


## Sheldonna

> Almost everything the left advocates, proposes or enacts increases the costs of living, weakens the purchasing power of a dollar, and makes it more difficult to find gainful employment. 
> 
> Which hurts their "championed" poor and middle classes the most (all while bleating about the "WEALTH GAP!!" and screaming "REGRESSIVE!!!" upon any proposal to spread the ever increasing tax burden -- required by their overly benevolent Welfare State -- around more evenly among the citizenry)
> 
> Loose, inflationary monetary policy.
> Loose fiscal policy.... demands higher taxes
> 39.6% profit taxes....embedded in the price of everything purchased
> Coerced mortgage lending.... drove artificial demand for homes... and the bubble.
> Overly exuberant environmental regulations.
> ...


And for proof that leftists are 'bad for the economy' (more like a bloody disaster)....one only has to examine the fruits of their liberalistic labor.  Take a gander at the most heavily liberal-run (into the ground) areas where liberals have run and ruined and run amuck with their leftist socialist, wealth-redistribution idiocy.  It's all there, for anyone willing and able to see.

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016),Mainecoons (07-24-2016),webrockk (07-24-2016)

----------


## Quark

> With a rebuttal.


I don't do stupid well. I have no time for it.

----------


## Quark

> it was caused by giving loans to people who would never had gotten them if they were properly vetted prior..so they defaulted because they really couldnt afford them in the first place...
> 
> in short,,the buyers bit off more than they could chew because the lenders relaxed to criteria for granting a loan...


And the relax of criteria was cause by government interference.

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Quark

> Christ on a crutch!  You'd think it was rocket surgery to explain to people just who PAYS "government workers", and from where that money COMES!


For some people it is rocket science.

----------


## Quark

> Oh, please.  Now you're insulting MY intelligence.


Sorry no offense to the Ladies on the forum you are the smart ones. It was the brain dead and Liberal women I was referring to. My bad.

The only people who should be able to vote are those men or women who actually pay taxes. We use to have, until the SCOTUS shot it down, a poll tax that everybody had to pay to have skin in the game. The tax wasn't designed to raise revenue but rather to make sure everybody who voted had paid some type of tax. Didn't want to pay the tax you couldn't vote. The tax was between $10.00 and $50.00 depending on where you lived.

So when you couple one man one vote, constitutional amendment eliminating the poll tax, and the fact women can replace that man with a government handout for a ton of kids well where we are was bound to happen.

----------


## Quark

> What does a water heater have to do with Obamacare?


You would not believe all the crap in AFCA that has nothing to do with health care.

----------


## Invayne

> You would not believe all the crap in AFCA that has nothing to do with health care.


LOL...I'm sure. I admit I never read it, but then neither did the people that voted for it.

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## 2cent

> Sorry no offense to the Ladies on the forum you are the smart ones. It was the brain dead and Liberal women I was referring to. My bad.
> 
> The only people who should be able to vote are those men or women who actually pay taxes. We use to have, until the SCOTUS shot it down, a poll tax that everybody had to pay to have skin in the game. The tax wasn't designed to raise revenue but rather to make sure everybody who voted had paid some type of tax. Didn't want to pay the tax you couldn't vote. The tax was between $10.00 and $50.00 depending on where you lived.
> 
> So when you couple one man one vote, constitutional amendment eliminating the poll tax, and the fact women can replace that man with a government handout for a ton of kids well where we are was bound to happen.


In my mind, it's a bit of a leap to go from 'eliminating the poll tax' to 'replacing men w/government handouts', but there is something about the poll tax where you might be able to educate me.
Truly, I don't know the history.

Yes, amazing as it is, it was as recent as 1964 that failure to pay a poll tax - or tax of any other kind - could not  result in a person's ability to vote - was added to the Constitution.
(Sorry that's so awkwardly put, but you get the gist.)

What I don't know is what lead up to that.  Do you happen to know the history behind it?  
There had to be a great number of people who were being denied the ability to vote - and a loud voice representing them - for something as large as an amendment to our Constitution to come about.

I have an educated guess, but would prefer not to jump to conclusions, or put words in other people's mouths, beforehand.

BTW, @Quark, apology graciously accepted.

----------


## GreenEyedLady

> it was caused by giving loans to people who would never had gotten them if they were properly vetted prior..so they defaulted because they really couldnt afford them in the first place...
> 
> in short,,the buyers bit off more than they could chew because the lenders relaxed to criteria for granting a loan...


Lenders were FORCED to relax the criteria by liberal idiots!

----------

MrMike (07-24-2016),Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I only partially disagree with the jobs part, since expanding government programs is a huge job creator.


Another rocket scientist. Geez, we're swimming in rocket scientists. 

Maybe that's part of the problem. Too many rocket scientists and not enough astronauts.

----------


## RobertLafollet

Inflationary monetary policy.  We are about 18 trillion in private debt.  We have about the same amount of public debt.  Two times before in the last 100 years we had these levels.  The first was at the end of WWII.  The next at the end of the Reagan administration.  I know Reagan was so stupid Tip always tricked.  You believe that you insult Reagan.  You also aren't half as smart as Reagan.  The way we got out of that was simple inflation.  

Loose Fiscal policy.  FDR did it and broke the Great Depression.  Kennedy/Johnson did it and got us to the moon.  Nixon followed that policy.  Reagan was a big spender who tripled the National debt.  No major war!  Tax cuts.  Bush (take your pick) both fought wars of choice and hid the cost of budget.  
I think Obama might have spent more if Ryan hadn't hamstrung since 2010.  That has extended stagflation.

39.9% tax rate.  Most small business with good accountants take enough deductions to avoid it.  We all know there are a lot of big businesses that pay no taxes.  If you're talking about individuals we should remove the cap on FICA.

Just what mortgage did G.W. Bush force the issue of?

Let us see.  West Virginia coal is the most dangerous and expensive to get.  Northwest coal is doing OK with all natural gas we've found under Obama it is cheaper then coal.  Now I invest in utilities.  Tell me why I shouldn't want the utilities I invest in to use natural gas.  I want them to expand wind, too.  I like experimental solar projects, too.  By the way Southern California Edison, a very well managed company, has been using wind for several decades.  

Energy exploration.  In 2008 we were an energy importers.  Now we are energy exporters.  Until we glutted the market the oil companies were doing great.

Student lending.  From at least back in the 60's every kid was told go to college to have a good life.  Trade schools are a good idea but they take loans now to.  Considering that the doctors usually end up a few hundred dollars in debt.  It's not young people paying these loans in higher doctor bills it is old people.

Immigration.  Well let's see the left complains that Obama has set deportation records. 

Obamacare.  The whole idea is to get young people to prepay for the claims they will put in in their 50's and up.

Living wage.  You'd rather put there people on welfare?  A lot of these people are working two or 3 jobs.  That is an insult to America.

Government jobs.   Soldier isn't a job?  Working on a government contract isn't a job?  Delivering the mail isn't a job?  Being a fireman isn't a job?  Without these things this country wouldn't work.

----------


## Northern Rivers

Here ya go. Ya need a lesson in reality. Maybe humility, too, while I'm at it. Second paragraph of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence: _"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

_This means that The People aren't idiots and don't...in all reality...bear any resemblance to those that want to do away with necessary adjunctive government employees you think we are not aware of. 15,000 new IRS accountants to ride herd on Obamacare is what Trump...and everyone else...is referring to. Not firemen, etc. But you know that. You just can't admit the bleedin' obvious point about too many government jobs.

Run this nonsense by people on another site, matey. We're all a bit more aware than you've considered....

 :Smiley20:

----------

2cent (07-25-2016),Jim Scott (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Lenders were FORCED to relax the criteria by liberal idiots!


No, this is incorrect. Deregulation was bi-partisan all the way, with Clinton happily signing it into law, but house Republicans leading the project.

This was not a liberal ass baby, no matter how hard Republicans try to rewrite it.

----------


## GreenEyedLady

The CRA was all liberal.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> The CRA was all liberal.


I'm talking about the deregulation of financial institutions that was enacted under Bill Clinton. 

What exactly are you implying?

----------


## GreenEyedLady

It goes further back than Clinton. Carter started it first, then clinton pushed it along. Forcing Banks to make loans foe people they knew couldn't afford the payments, all to satisfy the liberal cries of discriminatory lending practices.

----------


## Rutabaga

> What does a water heater have to do with Obamacare?




uh,,,if not for obama care she could afford a new water heater?

 :Headbang: 


me too!

now,,i just let the sun do the heating...

----------

Northern Rivers (07-25-2016)

----------


## Invayne

> uh,,,if not for obama care she could afford a new water heater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me too!
> 
> now,,i just let the sun do the heating...


No, really. What does a water heater have to do with Obamacare? Why and how did they slip water heater installation into a healthcare bill???? LOL!

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> It goes further back than Clinton. Carter started it first, then clinton pushed it along. Forcing Banks to make loans foe people they knew couldn't afford the payments, all to satisfy the liberal cries of discriminatory lending practices.


OK, I'm talking about what specifically brought about the housing bubble and its inevitable collapse. You're blaming it on Carter? Really? There is a huge difference in laws that prevented lenders from discriminating against homeowners based on race and laws that basically allowed burger flippers to purchase five rental houses without demonstrating that could repay the loan.

----------


## Rutabaga

> LOL...I'm sure. I admit I never read it, but then neither did the people that voted for it.




i still cant believe pelosi had the balls to stand in front of America and proudly say, "we have to pass it before we can see whats in it" without her being dragged off the podium and being soundly beaten...

uh,,,hello?!

you work for US!!!

thats why we employ YOU!!!

its the REASON you exist!!!

and you refuse to do the very thing we hire you to do!!

full knowledge of the laws you VOTE to pass that effects every man, woman and child in the country is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR JOB!

a job they all refused thus failed to do...




WHY DO THEY ALL CONTINUE TO SUCK AIR?!

----------

2cent (07-25-2016),Invayne (07-25-2016),Jim Scott (07-25-2016),Kodiak (07-25-2016)

----------


## Invayne

> i still cant believe pelosi had the balls to stand in front of America and proudly say, "we have to pass it before we can see whats in it" without her being dragged off the podium and being soundly beaten...
> 
> uh,,,hello?!
> 
> you work for US!!!
> 
> thats why we employ YOU!!!
> 
> its the REASON you exist!!!
> ...


Not to mention that every bill was going to be put forth to the American people so they could read it also, in this "transparent" administration...LOL

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016),Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## GreenEyedLady

> OK, I'm talking about what specifically brought about the housing bubble and its inevitable collapse. You're blaming it on Carter? Really? There is a huge difference in laws that prevented lenders from discriminating against homeowners based on race and laws that basically allowed burger flippers to purchase five rental houses without demonstrating that could repay the loan.


It isn't about race. It is about the government regulations that forced the banks to give out bad loans to people they knew couldn't afford to repay them.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> It isn't about race. It is about the government regulations that forced the banks to give out bad loans to people they knew couldn't afford to repay them.


OK, this is not going well. Do you have a point? You are saying that deregulation actually happened back in the 70's and people did not catch on until the 90's? That's what you are saying?

----------


## GreenEyedLady

I'm saying liberal policies are what led to the downturn in housing cycles of the late 80's early 90's, and the bubble burst of 2006.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> It goes further back than Clinton. Carter started it first, then clinton pushed it along. Forcing Banks to make loans foe people they knew couldn't afford the payments, all to satisfy the liberal cries of discriminatory lending practices.


It appears Ronald Reagan supported the push to end red lining, too.  He never said anything on it that I can remember.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> I'm saying liberal policies are what led to the downturn in housing cycles of the late 80's early 90's, and the bubble burst of 2006.


No, that's completely untrue. 

*Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system*

*By Martin McLaughlin 
1 November 1999*

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.
The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.
The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. The_Wall Street Journal_ wrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted....

*I am not certain how you are under the impression that deregulation was some kind of 'Liberal la la land utopia' that republicans were ever against, but it's completely untrue. 

You have to put down the kool-aid in order to understand it, though.*

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

*Campaign of influence-buying*

Banking, insurance and brokerage industry lobbyists combined their forces to mount the best-financed campaign of influence-buying ever seen in Washington. In 1997 and 1998 alone, the three industries spent over $300 million on the effort: $58 million in campaign contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates, $87 million in "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties, and $163 million on lobbying of elected officials.
The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, himself collected more than $1.5 million in cash from the three industries during the last five years: $496,610 from the insurance industry, $760,404 from the securities industry and $407,956 from banks...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/11/bank-n01.html


*These are the folks that wanted deregulation -- financial institutions, themselves.*

----------


## RobertLafollet

> It isn't about race. It is about the government regulations that forced the banks to give out bad loans to people they knew couldn't afford to repay them.


Since I was a victim of red lining when I lived in downtown LA let me respond.  1) I'm white.  2)  I moved from an area that to me was a lot more dangerous where I was able to get renters insurance.  3) After I came to the first renewal I was told we do not sell insurance to people in that area.  Carter fixed that.

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016)

----------


## GreenEyedLady

Sure. It's the same as what happened with ACA. It was pushed through by liberals.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Sure. It's the same as what happened with ACA. It was pushed through by liberals.


No, no and NO. House Republicans working WITH Clinton, led to deregulation. Who are these "liberals" you speak of?

----------


## GreenEyedLady

> Since I was a victim of red lining when I lived in downtown LA let me respond.  1) I'm white.  2)  I moved from an area that to me was a lot more dangerous where I was able to get renters insurance.  3) After I came to the first renewal I was told we do not sell insurance to people in that area.  Carter fixed that.


Insurance is different. It's not a mortgage. I have seen homes, even today, that will not be insured for various reasons.

----------


## LFD

> Not to mention that every bill was going to be put forth to the American people so they could read it also, in this "transparent" administration...LOL


Isn't that already possible?

Every time I ever wanted to find the text of a bill going through congress, all I had to do was search for it on google.

----------


## 2cent

> No, that's completely untrue. 
> 
> *Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system*
> 
> *By Martin McLaughlin 
> 1 November 1999*
> 
> An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.
> The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.
> ...





> *Campaign of influence-buying*
> 
> Banking, insurance and brokerage industry lobbyists combined their forces to mount the best-financed campaign of influence-buying ever seen in Washington. In 1997 and 1998 alone, the three industries spent over $300 million on the effort: $58 million in campaign contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates, $87 million in "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties, and $163 million on lobbying of elected officials.
> The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, himself collected more than $1.5 million in cash from the three industries during the last five years: $496,610 from the insurance industry, $760,404 from the securities industry and $407,956 from banks...
> 
> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/11/bank-n01.html
> 
> 
> *These are the folks that wanted deregulation -- financial institutions, themselves.*


Yes, and yes, but that's got little to nothing to do with the housing bubble that the DEMS wanted and helped to burst.

The *C*ommunity *R*einvestment *A*ct, was, indeed, first started under the Carter administration.  It lay to rest for many years.
CLINTON, decided to revitalize it.  Henceforth, came Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae loans where people could _borrow_ the down payment on the homes they wished to purchased.  This is what is referred to as subprime loans, and was always against the law/banking regulations, and for a good reason:  It showed little to zero credibility and/or ability to pay back the loan.

Do you not recall all the ACORN video's proving, time and again, how people were hustled into purchasing homes, and/or giving specific pointers on how they could get a loan they did not qualify for?  
It was a block-buster, and how ACORN, at least for the time-being, was sent to it's (sadly, only temporary) grave.

Sens., Barney Frank, (*D* - MA) and Chris Dodd (*D* - CT, were in charge of this whole Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae set-up, aka, CRA.  (Community Reinvestment Act.)
President Bush asked them, personally, time and again, to give reassurance that all was on the up-and-up, and the CRA was working as it should.  They repeatedly told him 'all was well.'
Well, they lied, and knew that they were lying, but couldn't afford to tell the truth because too much money was rolling in.  They had people to serve, dontcha know.

This article from U.S. News explains a good part of it very well:



> Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit),  that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the  government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial  Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House  did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate  Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped  out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in  2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie  into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it  didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the  form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions  from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out _$1 trillion_ worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste.


You are, btw, dead wrong that it was the Republicans fault.  They fought to end it.



> Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored  by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all  the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which  the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from  speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged.


BUT!  The jerk, McCain, dropped the ball.  (As you may recall, a good number of us were fed up w/the guy.)

The ONLY honest Democrat in the whole group was Sen. Artur Davis:



> If nothing else, shouldn't we salute Democratic Rep. Artur Davis for  saying, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to  appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their  efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I  should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004.  Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to  Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."


Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac | US News Opinion

And them, Sir, are the facts of what caused the worst recession, (I'd call it depression, but who am I to decide?), in recent history.

I'm no huge fan of Republicans of late, but most of this lies right smack at the feet of the Democrats. 
My main beef with Former President Bush was his constant naivety for taking people at their word.

----------


## Quark

> In my mind, it's a bit of a leap to go from 'eliminating the poll tax' to 'replacing men w/government handouts', but there is something about the poll tax where you might be able to educate me.
> Truly, I don't know the history.
> 
> Yes, amazing as it is, it was as recent as 1964 that failure to pay a poll tax - or tax of any other kind - could not  result in a person's ability to vote - was added to the Constitution.
> (Sorry that's so awkwardly put, but you get the gist.)
> 
> What I don't know is what lead up to that.  Do you happen to know the history behind it?  
> There had to be a great number of people who were being denied the ability to vote - and a loud voice representing them - for something as large as an amendment to our Constitution to come about.
> 
> ...


Glad to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.

First, our government was set up as a republic. As a republic not everyone gets to vote. Some of the usual criteria is one must be a citizen of that republic. One has to be literate and one has to pay taxes. In the case of our Founding Fathers, one had to own property which usually meant real estate or slaves as real estate, slaves, and tangible private property were taxed. The concept was/is that only the people required to pay for government should be the only ones allowed to vote. This would prevent the run away government that we have today.

Second, I'm not sure when the poll tax was enacted but I do remember people coming around to collect the poll tax. I also remember my folks telling me that the poll tax was collected every four years to allow citizens to vote for president. If you didn't pay your tax you could not vote for president. The tax was always low enough so that just about anyone interested enough in voting for president could afford the tax.

Over the years Progressives (Liberals) have been very successful in eliminating all blocks to voting so that they could gain power and stay in power. They were successful in getting the "one man, one vote" concept put into place so that no one now has to own any kind of property or pay any kind of tax to vote. They also have eliminated literacy test for voting, (boy, as a former election judge can I vouch for that one). And they have also eliminated the poll tax for voting for president.

Progressivism on the march!

Now as to the Ladies getting the right to vote. 

First, lets look at "where have all the good men gone". When I started my tax career about 12+ years ago one comment I heard over and over again from executive/professional women over and over again is where have all the good men gone. Now these were the type of women who had chosen career over a relationship, were now into their fifties, making an income well over $50,000+ a year, well established in those careers and now looking friendship, companionship, and love.

Also I've noticed in my tax career that a fair number of Executive/professional type women who did get married are divorcing in their late forties on up after twenty years of marriage and up. 

Being a philosopher by avocation, I asked myself where are the good men and then where there ever any good men to begin with. 

The answer was a resounding NO! It's a man's nature to think only of themselves and no one else. It's a woman's nature to think of her family before herself. 

I'm a short, fat, ugly guy always have been always will be although ugly part might be subjective but I'm a nice guy. I'm a male lesbian (I'll post a link before I sigh off), my theology is to follow and serve the Divine Feminine Principle, and to serve my wife as best as my talents and abilities will allow. This does not mean I'm hen pecked or that we don't have a serious disagreement from time to time. She has kept me around for 39 years and married for 30 of those years. She says maybe other women let me go but she sure wasn't going to and says she was lucky and smart to glam on when she could. I might add that SHE in true Celtic and Viking fashion asked me out and the rest as they say is history. I'm one of the few good men and you can probably see why.

Because there are so few good men and today's women has so many opportunities that her forbears did not, two of those opportunities being able to vote monies from the US Treasury and science, women have not had to be so picky in choosing a mate. If the mate they chose is a real dud why it's off to the abortion mill or the welfare office. If you are a poorly educated woman and if being pregnant isn't a real problem in the 'hood why being a Baby Mommy with those great welfare checks is a real good way to make a living and never ever have to pay taxes. Prior to being able to vote women had to be a whole lot more circumspect about who they chose as mate knowing that if they goofed and their families or private charities could not or would not help they and their children were in deep deep do-do. But after women got the right to vote it did not take them long to figure out that if they made a bad choice for a mate that the government would be right there to replace that mate. Progressives of course, made sure women understood that as it help put progressives into power and kept progressives in power.

Now obviously there are good women of all religious persuasions who think before they act and those women tend to be in the conservative camp but it's also obvious that the numbers of good women is pretty far, few, between.

Hope this helps @2cent.

The male lesbian concept link: The  Concept

----------

2cent (07-25-2016),Jim Scott (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> I'm no huge fan of Republicans of late, but most of this lies right smack at the feet of the Democrats. 
> My main beef with Former President Bush was his constant naivety for taking people at their word.


Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act This was the specific act that led to the collapse of the housing bubble. Please note who passed it:

S. 900 (106th): Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- GovTrack.us

No democrats voted for it in the House as in NONE, ZILTCH, ZERO. Clinton, however, signed it into law after it passed in the Senate. 

I can see why republicans would like to distance themselves from this disaster, though.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> They think "Living Wages" will stay contained within the low skilled labor market.  Apparently believing the _skilled labor_ set that currently earns $15-$18 per hour will just shut up and take it when shelf stockers, burger flippers and brand new hires with no real world experience and no seniority earn the same as they do. 
> 
>  What about the single teacher with an expensive masters degree who earns $40K being outearned by two of their students who are playing house while making 30K a piece flipping burgers and ringing up groceries...
> 
> any gear grinding there?  any IMMEDIATE demands for pay hikes?


An educator making $40K a year doesn't have an expensive or desired degree. That's simply survival wages! Barely enough to afford to live, and obtain health insurance, let alone housing. This is the Democratic-Liberal policy. BTW, the burger flippers, if they are making $30K, are performing a job that a robot probably will take over in the next 5-10 years, and they don't do anything at minimum, or just above the minimum wage that would justify a $30K salary than postal clerks performing exactly the same job and starting out at $50K with full health benefits and union protection! A burger flipper will actually physically handle more currency in a year than a U.S. Postal Clerk (and the burger flippers are nicer - you ever run into a nice postal clerk at the P.O)? Entire agency should be sold outright to UPS which has been trying to purchase it from the government for 15-years. $40K job? Would turn it down in a second if offerred..........

----------


## Crunch



----------


## Dan40

> Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act This was the specific act that led to the collapse of the housing bubble. Please note who passed it:
> 
> S. 900 (106th): Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- GovTrack.us
> 
> No democrats voted for it in the House as in NONE, ZILTCH, ZERO. Clinton, however, signed it into law after it passed in the Senate. 
> 
> I can see why republicans would like to distance themselves from this disaster, though.



I put liberals on IGNORE because they love to lie so why bother with liars?

*FROM YOUR LINK.

"It was not the final Senate vote on the bill. See the history of S. 900 (106th) for further details."*

When the Senate did their FINAL vote for the bill, 38 democrats voted for it, 7 against.

And the bill was simply a strengthening of the CRA passed under Carter.

If the issue is, "Will Republicans buy the votes of the STUPIDS with bullshit just like Democrats do?  Then the answer is, of course they will.

Politicians main loyalty is to reelection, not party, not the people, not the nation.  Election and Reelection.

Republicans lie 98-99% of the time.  Democrats lie 100% of the time and would lie more if they could.

----------

Quark (07-25-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I'm saying liberal policies are what led to the downturn in housing cycles of the late 80's early 90's, and the bubble burst of 2006.


Let me point out that 1981 to 1988 were the Regan years.  1988 to 1992 were the Bush 1 years.  So most of the time you are talking about we were under a Repulican administration.  What actually caused the 80's housing downturn was marking mortgages to market which destroyed the S&L industry

----------

Quark (07-25-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> i still cant believe pelosi had the balls to stand in front of America and proudly say, "we have to pass it before we can see whats in it" without her being dragged off the podium and being soundly beaten...
> 
> uh,,,hello?!
> 
> you work for US!!!
> 
> thats why we employ YOU!!!
> 
> its the REASON you exist!!!
> ...


They also work for people like me.

----------


## 2cent

> Glad to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
> 
> First, our government was set up as a republic. As a republic not everyone gets to vote. Some of the usual criteria is one must be a citizen of that republic. One has to be literate and one has to pay taxes. In the case of our Founding Fathers, one had to own property which usually meant real estate or slaves as real estate, slaves, and tangible private property were taxed. The concept was/is that only the people required to pay for government should be the only ones allowed to vote. This would prevent the run away government that we have today.
> 
> Second, I'm not sure when the poll tax was enacted but I do remember people coming around to collect the poll tax. I also remember my folks telling me that the poll tax was collected every four years to allow citizens to vote for president. If you didn't pay your tax you could not vote for president. The tax was always low enough so that just about anyone interested enough in voting for president could afford the tax.
> 
> Over the years Progressives (Liberals) have been very successful in eliminating all blocks to voting so that they could gain power and stay in power. They were successful in getting the "one man, one vote" concept put into place so that no one now has to own any kind of property or pay any kind of tax to vote. They also have eliminated literacy test for voting, (boy, as a former election judge can I vouch for that one). And they have also eliminated the poll tax for voting for president.
> 
> Progressivism on the march!
> ...


Quark, I was tempted to shorten your post in my reply, but it was so well-grounded that I can't help posting the whole thing.  From start to finish, you nailed it.  

I'm too young to remember the poll tax, but considering that deleting it was passed in 1964, (I was 6), I'm thinking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had his hand in that.  Which isn't to discount your take on women's suffrage playing well into that hand, as well, in the least.  It's an excellent point.  It's just that the timing sounds all too familiar, and if it was 1964, then we know who was responsible.  Sadly, the most irresponsible of all.

No doubt you've noticed that I'm not much the "feminazi" type.  I'm far too old fashioned and feminist for that.  I always did hold to the adage that, "Behind every great man, there is a woman."  You said it well, and it's easy to see that you and your wife share the same mutual respect that my husband I do.  (He puts me on a pedestal, and I put him on a ladder. lol)
No, seriously, if not for him, I would not be the woman I am today.  I'm fairly certain he'd say the same in return.

Remember _Mary Poppins?_  I always did get a hoot out of that line, "Though we adore men, individually; we agree, that as a group, they're rather stupid."  LOL  

While women are long over being treated like idiots who need to be patted on the head and told not to worry our pretty little heads over something so complicated as banking, we did miss the boat in our own responsibilities along the way.  
#1 Responsibility:  The Family.

You covered that well.  I wish we'd not got around to thinking that, "I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget that you're a man,"  because it's that last part that got forgotten.  
She also forgot that she was a woman, desirable for all the things a woman is supposed to be desirable _for_.

Yes, women needed to have a say-so.  However, one thing I've noticed over the years is that, in order to obtain something, it takes going over the top to finally find a sensible mid-ground.

Thanks for your reply, @Quark.  Might've gotten a little side-tracked from my initial question, but it does answer it, and does have a good deal to do with, "What Grinds My Gears."  ~wink~

----------

Quark (07-25-2016)

----------


## Dan40

> They also work for people like me.


And isn't that really sad.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> *I put liberals on IGNORE because they love to lie so why bother with liars?*
> 
> *FROM YOUR LINK.
> 
> "It was not the final Senate vote on the bill. See the history of S. 900 (106th) for further details."*
> 
> When the Senate did their FINAL vote for the bill, 38 democrats voted for it, 7 against.
> 
> And the bill was simply a strengthening of the CRA passed under Carter.
> ...


That's an "untruth." 

 :Cool20: 

You put people on ignore because you're a coward when it comes to actual debate.


Yes, Einstein, I understand that it had to pass the Senate and I made note of it. The first vote, like I indicated, had NO Democrat support. 

I did not blame deregulation squarely on Republicans. What I was inferring, however, was that deregulation had BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

----------


## Quark

Did you ever get a chance to click on the link, The Concept? It's very interesting reading and my wife says it describes me about 98%.

----------

2cent (07-25-2016)

----------


## Quark

> Let me point out that 1981 to 1988 were the Regan years.  1988 to 1992 were the Bush 1 years.  So most of the time you are talking about we were under a Repulican administration.  What actually caused the 80's housing downturn was marking mortgages to market which destroyed the S&L industry


Damn, you actually got some right. Will miracles never cease.

----------

RobertLafollet (07-25-2016)

----------


## 2cent

> Did you ever get a chance to click on the link, The Concept? It's very interesting reading and my wife says it describes me about 98%.


No.  My apologies for having forgotten.  I've got about 10 minutes to spare atm.  Seems I could do it now.

*EDIT:  Read it.  What a loving wife you have.

----------

Quark (07-25-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> They also work for people like me.



are you equally outraged about the deception and lack of ethics?

----------

Kodiak (07-25-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> are you equally outraged about the deception and lack of ethics?


I am outraged we have a crook as the Republican and a lier as the Democrat.  Yes Hillary maybe a crook, too.

----------


## 2cent

> I am outraged we have a crook as the Republican and a lier as the Democrat.  Yes Hillary maybe a crook, too.


What did the English language ever do to YOU?

----------

Mainecoons (07-25-2016)

----------


## Mainecoons

Robert went to kollage an gott a degre.

OK but they did teach him how to be an ignorant liberal.

 :Rofl:

----------


## Dan40

> That's an "untruth." 
> 
> 
> 
> You put people on ignore because you're a coward when it comes to actual debate.
> 
> 
> Yes, Einstein, I understand that it had to pass the Senate and I made note of it. The first vote, like I indicated, had NO Democrat support. 
> 
> I did not blame deregulation squarely on Republicans. What I was inferring, however, was that deregulation had BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.


The First vote is NOT the bill that passed.  Perhaps the first bill lacked enough taxpayer paid freebies to satisify Democrats.

The bill that passed and was signed into law by the Democrat president got 38 Democrat votes with only 7 Democrat against it.

So in essence, YOU LIED.  You do not argue, you do not debate, you lie.

I've seen other liberal lying trolls come and go on this forum.  You are just another one.  And debate, I welcome debate with FACTS.  You liberals use lies, not facts.  No sense in bothering with your lying nonsense.

SOON the mods will know without any doubt, that you are just another lying liberal, here to cause trouble and disruption.  That is your only mission.  Another in a long line of lying liberal trolls.

Here temporarily.

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> The First vote is NOT the bill that passed.  Perhaps the first bill lacked enough taxpayer paid freebies to satisify Democrats.
> 
> The bill that passed and was signed into law by the Democrat president got 38 Democrat votes with only 7 Democrat against it.
> 
> So in essence, YOU LIED.  You do not argue, you do not debate, you lie.
> 
> I've seen other liberal lying trolls come and go on this forum.  You are just another one.  And debate, I welcome debate with FACTS.  You liberals use lies, not facts.  No sense in bothering with your lying nonsense.
> 
> SOON the mods will know without any doubt, that you are just another lying liberal, here to cause trouble and disruption.  That is your only mission.  Another in a long line of lying liberal trolls.
> ...


No, I did NOT lie, I pointed out that the initial vote in the house (which later passed the Senate) passed without ANY dems voting for it. Why is that so flipping hard for you to wrap your brain around?

Time to put me back on ignore, Dan. You can't handle a simple discussion without resorting to calling me a liar. Sucks to be you.

----------


## Dan40

> No, I did NOT lie, I pointed out that the initial vote in the house (which later passed the Senate) passed without ANY dems voting for it. Why is that so flipping hard for you to wrap your brain around?
> 
> Time to put me back on ignore, Dan. You can't handle a simple discussion without resorting to calling me a liar. Sucks to be you.


You just lied again.  As a liberal you don't even realize you are lying.

Bills in progress mean NOTHING.  Final bills are voted up or down and are signed or vetoed.

The bill in PROGRESS did not get Democrat votes---------------WHY?  But no matter, that bill in progress was CHANGED AND THE FINAL Graham-Biley Bill that Passed both Houses and was SIGNED into law by the Democrat president got 38 Democrat votes in the Senate.

Now you do KNOW how the back and forth bill creation works, so the singular conclusion can only be that you are lying, intentionally lying to promote a position that never existed.

Debate you, an earthworm can make your liberal lies look like the foolish lies they are.

And you are ALWAYS om IGNORE.  The IGNORE list is for my convenience, not yours.

----------

Jim Scott (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> You just lied again.  As a liberal you don't even realize you are lying.
> 
> Bills in progress mean NOTHING.  Final bills are voted up or down and are signed or vetoed.
> 
> The bill in PROGRESS did not get Democrat votes---------------WHY?  But no matter, that bill in progress was CHANGED AND THE FINAL Graham-Biley Bill that Passed both Houses and was SIGNED into law by the Democrat president got 38 Democrat votes in the Senate.
> 
> Now you do KNOW how the back and forth bill creation works, so the singular conclusion can only be that you are lying, intentionally lying to promote a position that never existed.
> 
> Debate you, an earthworm can make your liberal lies look like the foolish lies they are.
> ...


Eat a peach, Dan! I'm a fan!  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Dan40

> Eat a peach, Dan! I'm a fan!


Another lie.

You're a troll.

----------


## GreenEyedLady

> Let me point out that 1981 to 1988 were the Regan years.  1988 to 1992 were the Bush 1 years.  So most of the time you are talking about we were under a Repulican administration.  What actually caused the 80's housing downturn was marking mortgages to market which destroyed the S&L industry


mortgages that were passed out because of CRA.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Another lie.
> 
> You're a troll.


Have a great day Dan. Here's a coupon for you.... 



"You're welcome!" 

 :Smiley20:

----------


## Rutabaga

> I am outraged we have a crook as the Republican and a lier as the Democrat.  Yes Hillary maybe a crook, too.



im talking about the deceit and lack of ethics thats is obamacare...

are you outraged that they lied about it?

are you incensed that they thought so little of you that they bold faced lied to you knowing in the end its a clusterfuck of high cost increases with fewer choices?

are you subsidized?

because the only ones who didnt get screwed are the ones everybody else is paying for.

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016),LFD (07-25-2016)

----------


## LFD

> because the only ones who didnt get screwed are the ones everybody else is paying for.


The argument is that the vast majority of Americans got lower premiums.

Who gives a fuck though? It does not legitimize screwing over even one good person.

----------


## Rutabaga

> The argument is that the vast majority of Americans got lower premiums.
> 
> Who gives a fuck though? It does not legitimize screwing over even one good person.




that argument is bullshit...ask ANYBODY..

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016)

----------


## LFD

> that argument is bullshit...ask ANYBODY..


What? That obamacare is injust because it screws people over?

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016)

----------


## Jeffrey

> Glad to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
> 
> First, our government was set up as a republic. As a republic not everyone gets to vote. Some of the usual criteria is one must be a citizen of that republic. One has to be literate and one has to pay taxes. In the case of our Founding Fathers, one had to own property which usually meant real estate or slaves as real estate, slaves, and tangible private property were taxed. The concept was/is that only the people required to pay for government should be the only ones allowed to vote. This would prevent the run away government that we have today.
> 
> Second, I'm not sure when the poll tax was enacted but I do remember people coming around to collect the poll tax. I also remember my folks telling me that the poll tax was collected every four years to allow citizens to vote for president. If you didn't pay your tax you could not vote for president. The tax was always low enough so that just about anyone interested enough in voting for president could afford the tax.
> 
> Over the years Progressives (Liberals) have been very successful in eliminating all blocks to voting so that they could gain power and stay in power. They were successful in getting the "one man, one vote" concept put into place so that no one now has to own any kind of property or pay any kind of tax to vote. They also have eliminated literacy test for voting, (boy, as a former election judge can I vouch for that one). And they have also eliminated the poll tax for voting for president.
> 
> Progressivism on the march!
> ...


Nowadays there are millions of people who do not own a home but pay rent for their lodging to a land lord. Are you implying  they should not be allowed to vote?

If it were not for dead beat dads then a lot of single moms would not have such a hard time of it.


Your elitist outlook seems to be at odds with the theme of  the Trump movement, that being  that even the little people have a voice in their government.

----------


## Dan40

> Nowadays there are millions of people who do not own a home but pay rent for their lodging to a land lord. Are you implying  they should not be allowed to vote?
> 
> If it were not for dead beat dads then a lot of single moms would not have such a hard time of it.
> 
> 
> Your elitist outlook seems to be at odds with the theme of  the Trump movement, that being  that even the little people have a voice in their government.



Actually, THE FOUNDING FATHERS  of the UNITED STATES clearly said.  To vote, you must own land.

Did you not know that?

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016),Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Actually, THE FOUNDING FATHERS  of the UNITED STATES clearly said.  To vote, you must own land.
> 
> Did you not know that?


The Constitution does not require land ownership as a qualification to vote.

Only one office in the original U.S. Constitution is popularly elected: the members of the House of Representatives. On the question of who is entitled to vote for a representative, the Constitution says only that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." (Art. 1, sec. 2.)

In most states, that meant male property owners, but not all of them. By the time the Constitution was ratified, any male taxpayer could vote in Pennsylvania, whether he owned land or not. By 1792, New Hampshire had universal male suffrage, with no tax or land ownership requirement.

When drafting the Constitution why did the Founding Fathers require land ownership as a qualification to vote? - Quora

----------


## Northern Rivers

> What? That obamacare is injust because it screws people over?


It doesn't screw the insurance companies over.

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016),Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> The argument is that the vast majority of Americans got lower premiums.
> 
> Who gives a fuck though? It does not legitimize screwing over even one good person.


Illegals are exempt, right? Employers don't have to ante up over $3K per yr per illegal, right? Why hire a citizen?

----------


## Rutabaga

> No, really. What does a water heater have to do with Obamacare? Why and how did they slip water heater installation into a healthcare bill???? LOL!



what do they always tell you to do in an emergency?

boil some water! 
[i dont know why, it just keeps people busy]

when i could afford a hot water heater i could start with hot water and cut the time spent reaching the boiling temp. in half thus saving millions of lives!

but since barrys new water heater regulations driving the cost to double, i can no longer afford hot water so those who die from waiting twice as long for my cold water to boil will now end up at urgent care thus increasing the load/strain on the cost of barrycare...

 :Headbang:

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016),Kodiak (07-25-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> What? That obamacare is injust because it screws people over?



no,,that the vast majority saw their premiums drop...

----------


## Quark

> Nowadays there are millions of people who do not own a home but pay rent for their lodging to a land lord. Are you implying  they should not be allowed to vote?
> 
> If it were not for dead beat dads then a lot of single moms would not have such a hard time of it.
> 
> 
> Your elitist outlook seems to be at odds with the theme of  the Trump movement, that being  that even the little people have a voice in their government.


It's true that renters pay a portion of the landlords property tax but most renters are to stupid to know that and before you get on my case I both own and rent. There are a lot of hidden taxes that people pay now days they don't even know about. There are no free lunches.

There two reasons for dead beat dads; one, wanton women, and two, unjust courts. Less wanton women and more justice in the courts and that problem would be greatly diminished. 

The Trump movement is not about giving the "little" people a voice in their government as they have too much voice as it is, it's about giving the tax paying productive people a voice in their government which they don't have now.

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Nowadays there are millions of people who do not own a home but pay rent for their lodging to a land lord. Are you implying  they should not be allowed to vote?
> 
> If it were not for dead beat dads then a lot of single moms would not have such a hard time of it.
> 
> 
> Your elitist outlook seems to be at odds with the theme of  the Trump movement, that being  that even the little people have a voice in their government.



the female chooses the mate...not the other way around...

poor choices leads to poor outcomes...poor outcomes leads to single mother homes...single mother homes leads to crime, ignorance and social decay...

----------

Quark (07-25-2016)

----------


## Kodiak

> what do they always tell you to do in an emergency?
> 
> boil some water! 
> [i dont know why, it just keeps people busy]
> 
> 
> when i could afford a hot water heater i could start with hot water and cut the time spent reaching the boiling temp. in half thus saving millions of lives!
> 
> but since barrys new water heater regulations driving the cost to double, i can no longer afford hot water so those who die from waiting twice as long for my cold water to boil will now end up at urgent care thus increasing the load/strain on the cost of barrycare...



Love your sense of humor....................I think.  :Thinking:

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-25-2016),Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## LFD

> the female chooses the mate...not the other way around...
> 
> poor choices leads to poor outcomes...poor outcomes leads to single mother homes...single mother homes leads to crime, ignorance and social decay...


There has been a steep rise in single father homes too.

I also feel divorce in our society happens mutually most of the time, and people just don't take marriage that seriously. Even when they have children.

----------


## Quark

> the female chooses the mate...not the other way around...
> 
> poor choices leads to poor outcomes...poor outcomes leads to single mother homes...single mother homes leads to crime, ignorance and social decay...


Right on! My wife chose me and we are better than ever even after 39 years of living together with 30 years of that married.

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> There has been a steep rise in single father homes too.
> 
> I also feel divorce in our society happens mutually most of the time, and people just don't take marriage that seriously. Even when they have children.




"steep rise?"

i dont know,,but i know the numbers have increased...

now,,what difference do we see between the two instances...

do single fathers make better single parents than single mothers?

are they more stable, supportive and caring?
do deadbeat moms pay child support more consistently than their opposite gender?

the answers are easy to find...

----------


## LFD

> .
> 
> now,,what difference do we see between the two instances...
> 
> do single fathers make better single parents than single mothers?


It depends on the person.

Society tends to look more favorably on single fathers in my experience. I myself have found homes with a single father to be better off than homes with a single mother,.

----------


## Rutabaga

> It depends on the person.
> 
> Society tends to look more favorably on single fathers in my experience. I myself have found homes with a single father to be better off than homes with a single mother,.



we are not discussing individuals..

just gender...

society panders to the single mom by blaming the father [who she may not know who he is and he may not know hes a father] and by rewarding them with gifts..section 8 housing, free hospital treatment,  food stamps, cash, grants, preferential hiring etc..

and punish the male single father by not warding child support equally...

btw,,,deadbeat moms are far more prevalent in numbers compared to deadbeat dads..in other words,,if 10 dads out of 100 are dedbeat dads,,60 out of 100 are deadbeat moms.

----------


## LFD

> btw,,,deadbeat moms are far more prevalent in numbers compared to deadbeat dads..in other words,,if 10 dad\s out of 100 are dedbeat dads,,60 out of 100 are deadbeat moms.


Is that an actual statistic?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Is that an actual statistic?



i read somewhere its 6 to 1..

6 times more females default on child support than males...

add to that the fact females are less likely to be put on child support, and you have a vast difference in how society views male vs female court ordered support...

----------

LFD (07-25-2016)

----------


## Invayne

> The argument is that the vast majority of Americans got lower premiums.


Really?? Wrong....everyone I talk to has had their premiums AND deductibles raised to an outrageous amount. Might as well not have insurance at all.

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Invayne

> no,,that the vast majority saw their premiums drop...


 :Thinking:

----------


## Rutabaga

> Really?? Wrong....everyone I talk to has had their premiums AND deductibles raised to an outrageous amount. Might as well not have insurance at all.




the ONLY ones happy with it are the ONES GETTING IT FREE OR PAID FOR BY EVERYONE ELSE..

FACT.

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> 





that was the lie...

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016)

----------


## Invayne

> the ONLY ones happy with it are the ONES GETTING IT FREE OR PAID FOR BY EVERYONE ELSE..
> 
> FACT.


I don't know anyone getting anything for free, but I'm old, so what do I know? Maybe the youngsters are...lol

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

people,,,just use a tiny, teeny bit of logic here...

IF obamacare delivered as promised,,,,

WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYBODY NOT LIKE IT?!

use your heads!

----------


## Rutabaga

> I don't know anyone getting anything for free, but I'm old, so what do I know? Maybe the youngsters are...lol




its a sliding scale...the bottom gets it free and the subsidized, [the greatest portion] gets it paid for by a little from them and the majority from all of us...

----------


## Invayne

Thankfully I don't have to deal with the shit. I have Tricare, which means y'all pay for me...LMAO!

Don't worry, though...I don't use it much. I try to avoid doctors as much as possible!  :Wink: 

Yes, some would say I'm a hypocrite...maybe  I am.

----------

Rutabaga (07-25-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Thankfully I don't have to deal with the shit. I have Tricare, which means y'all pay for me...LMAO!
> 
> Don't worry, though...I don't use it much. I try to avoid doctors as much as possible!




i dont use obamcare either...i cant afford it,,so i decided to never converse with the government again...i get no refunds, they get nada...my doctor and i have a agreement..he'll treat me and i pay him a reasonable amt. in return for his services...

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016)

----------


## Invayne

> i dont use obamcare either...i cant afford it,,so i decided to never converse with the government again...i get no refunds, they get nada...my doctor and i have a agreement..he'll treat me and i pay him a reasonable amt. in return for his services...


You don't get fined??

----------


## LFD

> Yes, some would say I'm a hypocrite...maybe  I am.


It is never good to become complacent with a character flaw. 

I can't judge you though, since I am guilty of being hypocritical myself.

----------


## LFD

> You don't get fined??


Earlier @Rutabaga said he pays premiums and a deductible, so my guess is he just gets medical care off the books so he can get back his full deductible.

There really is no way to opt out of the PPACA.

----------


## Rutabaga

> You don't get fined??




i refuse to file and have no taxes taken out of my pension...

the only way to collect the tax, is through income tax returns...that may change, but its more likely obamacare will be scrapped/retooled before they get to me..


time is on my side...

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016),LFD (07-25-2016),Puzzling Evidence (07-26-2016)

----------


## LFD

> Really?? Wrong....everyone I talk to has had their premiums AND deductibles raised to an outrageous amount. Might as well not have insurance at all.


I looked it up just to reassure myself. The majority of legitimate sources will tell you that premiums stayed the same or dropped for most people. That is why the bill has never been seriously revised or abolished after dozens of attempts, since there are Republican holdouts that support it. 

I definitely would not formulate a statistic from what others tell you, especially since most Americans do not even seem to understand their own healthcare plan.

At any rate, I oppose the PPACA for many reasons.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Earlier @Rutabaga said he pays premiums and a deductible, so my guess is he just gets medical care off the books so he can get back his full deductible.
> 
> There really is no way to opt out of the PPACA.



i told you what the exchange told me...they quoted my premiums and deductable..

i told them, no thanks...

if i ever feel the need for hospitalization, im getting in my truck [which has full coverage, including medical] and driving into a tree...

 :Thumbsup20:

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016),Kodiak (07-26-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I looked it up just to reassure myself. The majority of legitimate sources will tell you that premiums stayed the same or dropped for most people. That is why the bill has never been seriously revised or abolished after dozens of attempts, since there are Republican holdouts that support it. 
> 
> I definitely would not formulate a statistic from what others tell you, especially since most Americans do not even seem to understand their own healthcare plan.
> 
> At any rate, I oppose the PPACA for many reasons.



the majority of legitimate sources are lying their collective asses off...

please show us these legitimate sources...

i have sources, you have sources, everbodys got a source...

IM MY SOURCE.

----------

Invayne (07-25-2016)

----------


## LFD

> IM MY SOURCE.


So you formulate a statistic based on what happens to you personally?

To summarize your message: All non-empirical knowledge is shit. 

Okay, I guess we just never verify a statistic.

----------


## Invayne

> i refuse to file and have no taxes taken out of my pension...
> 
> the only way to collect the tax, is through income tax returns...that may change, but its more likely obamacare will be scrapped/retooled before they get to me..
> 
> 
> time is on my side...


Good for you...LOL  :Thumbsup20:

----------

Rutabaga (07-26-2016)

----------


## Invayne

> I looked it up just to reassure myself. The majority of legitimate sources will tell you that premiums stayed the same or dropped for most people. That is why the bill has never been seriously revised or abolished after dozens of attempts, since there are Republican holdouts that support it. 
> 
> I definitely would not formulate a statistic from what others tell you, especially since most Americans do not even seem to understand their own healthcare plan.
> 
> At any rate, I oppose the PPACA for many reasons.


I talk to friends that are living with this crap. Not sure who you're sources are.

A few of MY sources are friends that loved the idea of Obamacare, until they had to pay for it. LOL

----------

Rutabaga (07-26-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> So you formulate a statistic based on what happens to you personally?
> 
> To summarize your message: All non-empirical knowledge is shit. 
> 
> Okay, I guess we just never verify a statistic.



most non-empirical knowledge garnered through the web is shit...

theres little here [on the web] without an agenda to promote..

i could post thousands of links [yes, thousands or more] that support my position..

you can probably find thousands that support yours...

i can only trust what i know personally, from talking to friends, relatives, neighbors the people at the store etc.

i have yet to find ANYONE who says they are happy with the ACA..

but then, i dont know any who qualify for the subsidy..[free/greatly reduced]...perhaps you know more that do..

----------

2cent (07-26-2016),Invayne (07-26-2016)

----------


## 2cent

FWIW, @Rutabaga, you and I are in about the exact same boat where insurance in concerned.  Helps to be a little circumspect, eh?

I do want to thank you for the vehicle idea, though.

----------

Rutabaga (07-26-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> FWIW, @Rutabaga, you and I are in about the exact same boat where insurance in concerned.  Helps to be a little circumspect, eh?
> 
> I do want to thank you for the vehicle idea, though.




the aca WILL BE scrapped or at least heavily tweaked..

it has to be as exchange after exchange goes belly up...

time is on our side, and utilizing auto ins. is just one way to [pardon my fellow cat lovers] to skin a cat...

----------

2cent (07-26-2016)

----------


## 2cent

> the aca WILL BE scrapped or at least heavily tweaked..
> 
> it has to be as exchange after exchange goes belly up...
> 
> time is on our side, and utilizing auto ins. is just one way to [pardon my fellow cat lovers] to skin a cat...


Smart way of thinking.  And yes, time is on our side.  

I'm thinking you know that there's a clause in the ACA stating that they CANNOT take any personal assets for refusal to buy in to this insurance scam.  While I understood that some people absolutely needed, or wanted, health insurance for one reason or another, I did my level best to convince people who did NOT want it to opt out.  Just stinking don't buy it!

"But I'll get fined!"  Not if you're careful, you won't.  Besides, if enough people who did not want insurance refused to pay said FINE, we'd have numbers on our side.

Wimps.

----------

Rutabaga (07-26-2016)

----------


## Dan40

> Smart way of thinking.  And yes, time is on our side.  
> 
> I'm thinking you know that there's a clause in the ACA stating that they CANNOT take any personal assets for refusal to buy in to this insurance scam.  While I understood that some people absolutely needed, or wanted, health insurance for one reason or another, I did my level best to convince people who did NOT want it to opt out.  Just stinking don't buy it!
> 
> "But I'll get fined!"  Not if you're careful, you won't.  Besides, if enough people who did not want insurance refused to pay said FINE, we'd have numbers on our side.
> 
> Wimps.



Only healthy people NEED health insurance, and THEY, not the govt should decide if they wish to purchase a policy.

Sick people don't need health insurance, that ship has sailed.  Sick people need health CARE, not an insurance co deciding how much and when they get care.  And I respect all insurers.  I've had millions of dollars of business with many insurers, and thousands of clients covered.  Without EVER a single non-pay by any insurer.  And that is for an agency covering 15 states with well over 100 agents.

Insurers PAY.  They investigate,,,,,seriously and deeply, but they pay.  But there is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO INSURE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY SICK.  Only healthy people CAN be insured.  Force insurers to take on people with pre-existing conditions and IN care, is demanding the insurers pay out more money than they take in.

I think everyone, but a liberal, can deduce the long term effects of that.

----------

Rutabaga (07-26-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> It's true that renters pay a portion of the landlords property tax but most renters are to stupid to know that and before you get on my case I both own and rent. There are a lot of hidden taxes that people pay now days they don't even know about. There are no free lunches.
> 
> There two reasons for dead beat dads; one, wanton women, and two, unjust courts. Less wanton women and more justice in the courts and that problem would be greatly diminished. 
> 
> The Trump movement is not about giving the "little" people a voice in their government as they have too much voice as it is, it's about giving the tax paying productive people a voice in their government which they don't have now.



I agree with a lot of what you say, but child support is set up on  imputed income - not real income.  If the payor loses their job it does  not changes.  Income of the receiving spouse is rarely considered.  Cost  of living of the payor is irrelevant as is accesss to the kids.  If you  are unaware of the order - maybe deployed in Afghanistan - until  collection starts and that includes back payments you might not find  out.

----------


## RobertLafollet

Insurance companies, not necessarily the whole amount.  Insurance companies do often dishonor procedures.  Insurance companies do deny procedures.  Dan40 if you do what you say you know this.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Smart way of thinking.  And yes, time is on our side.  
> 
> I'm thinking you know that there's a clause in the ACA stating that they CANNOT take any personal assets for refusal to buy in to this insurance scam.  While I understood that some people absolutely needed, or wanted, health insurance for one reason or another, I did my level best to convince people who did NOT want it to opt out.  Just stinking don't buy it!
> 
> "But I'll get fined!"  Not if you're careful, you won't.  Besides, if enough people who did not want insurance refused to pay said FINE, we'd have numbers on our side.
> 
> Wimps.




as of now,,they take any income tax return and apply it to the tax/fine...

no return, no tax taken...

wait em out...

----------


## Dan40

> Insurance companies, not necessarily the whole amount.  Insurance companies do often dishonor procedures.  Insurance companies do deny procedures.  Dan40 if you do what you say you know this.


Really?  CITE a provable example.

obama made a few claims of insurance non payment.  One even about his own mother.  ALL of obama's examples turned out to be TOTAL LIES.  One obama claim,  a man HAD insurance and the insurer refused to pay for his cancer treatment, AND HE DIED.

That was obama's LIE.

The truth, The man had recently purchased a policy.  When he developed cancer shortly after buying the policy, the insurer investigated..

He was still within the 2 year contestability period.  After that, the insurer is stuck with the insured.  The insurer found that the man had FAILED to list a pre-existing condition on his application.

That is grounds for the insurer to rescind the policy and they did.  And returned all premiums to him.

He appealed.  In his appeal he admitted to not disclosing a condition, but that that condition WAS NOT cancer or PRE CANCER.

The insurer relented, THEY LEGALLY DID NOT HAVE TO, and re-issued a policy with a rider exempting the non disclosed, non cancerous condition.

And they paid for years of cancer treatment until the insured's doctors said he was in remission.

The man dies 4 years after his cancer treatment ENDED and he did not die of cancer.

And obie the liar's mother's insurer did pay his mothers claim.  As I stated, they investigate.  But they PAY.

I've had policies rescinded because applicants did not disclose problems.  And I always told applicants that they had to tell all or the policy would be rescinded.

The absolute routine non pay complaint about health insurance comes from "Schedule of Benefits" low priced policies.  We never sold that crap.  But I ran into it all the time.

50's man and wife buy a SoB policy. $40.00 per month premium. It states in the policy, Broken leg $2000.  Broken arm $1200.  Tonsils, $800.  [numbers of convenience, not actual but not far off]  Gall bladder surgery $7000.  Cancer $5000.  etc, etc.

The prospective CLIENT bitches the policy DID NOT PAY FOR HIS WIFE'S GALL BLADDER REMOVAL.  I read the policy, it states Gall bladder surgery $7000.  I ask, "How much was the surgery?"  He says, $12,000 something."  And I ask, "This insurance didn't pay the $7000.00?"  He says YES they paid that, but the bill was for $over 12,000.!"

The insurer paid EXACTLY what they said they would pay.  You don't get a $1200 per month EACH major medical policy for $40 bucks a month.  Now young agents with a family to raise might write such policies, and might tell the client ANYTHING to get a sale.  That's why we as an agency did not make such crap policies available to agents.

I NEVER had any insurer refuse to pay a claim.  Not one.  I heard about that story many times about other agencies.  But NEVER saw a bonifide example from my agency or a competitor's agency.

Had one EVER refused to pay a valid claim, THAT DAY, every sheet of their sales literature and applications would have been in the dumpster.

----------

Rutabaga (07-26-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> i refuse to file and have no taxes taken out of my pension...
> 
> the only way to collect the tax, is through income tax returns...that may change, but its more likely obamacare will be scrapped/retooled before they get to me..
> 
> 
> time is on my side...


When the IRS finds you you will owe the taxes, penealties and interest.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> i told you what the exchange told me...they quoted my premiums and deductable..
> 
> i told them, no thanks...
> 
> if i ever feel the need for hospitalization, im getting in my truck [which has full coverage, including medical] and driving into a tree...


If you're off the books, your healthcare would be free. No deductable. Very little co-pay

----------


## Rutabaga

> When the IRS finds you you will owe the taxes, penealties and interest.




life is a gamble...risks are calculated and observed...

in numbers there is safety...

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> as of now,,they take any income tax return and apply it to the tax/fine...
> 
> no return, no tax taken...
> 
> wait em out...


So you're a criminal and a dishonest law breaker? I never would have guessed.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> life is a gamble...risks are calculated and observed...
> 
> in numbers there is safety...


Dude, pay your taxes. The IRS will get you, especially bragging about it online.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> the aca WILL BE scrapped or at least heavily tweaked..
> 
> it has to be as exchange after exchange goes belly up...
> 
> time is on our side, and utilizing auto ins. is just one way to [pardon my fellow cat lovers] to skin a cat...


Keep on dreaming. It's worked so well up till this point!

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> i told you what the exchange told me...they quoted my premiums and deductable..
> 
> i told them, no thanks...
> 
> if i ever feel the need for hospitalization, im getting in my truck [which has full coverage, including medical] and driving into a tree...


I'm very surprised that you even have insurance on your truck!

----------


## Kodiak

> Dude, pay your taxes. The IRS will get you, especially bragging about it online.


Yea, they do have a tendency to go after those who lean right.

----------


## Rutabaga

> So you're a criminal and a dishonest law breaker? I never would have guessed.




and you?

never broke any law?

thats dishonest...

but not surprising as most people have...

----------


## Rutabaga

> Dude, pay your taxes. The IRS will get you, especially bragging about it online.




im not worried about it,,,the irs is kinda busy with more important things...

----------


## Rutabaga

> Keep on dreaming. It's worked so well up till this point!



LOL!
 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 
keep on denying  the truth..

soon, your gonna have to pay your own way without help from the middleclass..

----------


## Rutabaga

> I'm very surprised that you even have insurance on your truck!



i have insurance on all my vehicles...all 6 of them...

do you cover your hoopty?

----------


## Invayne

> So you're a criminal and a dishonest law breaker? I never would have guessed.


Is it criminal to want to keep everything you earn?

Fuck paying taxes. If you can get away with it, more power to ya.

----------

Rutabaga (07-26-2016)

----------


## Dan40

> Is it criminal to want to keep everything you earn?
> 
> Fuck paying taxes. If you can get away with it, more power to ya.


The IRS itself taught me all about income taxes when I was but a wee tyke.  Unemployment was terrible.  My brother-in-law, sister and their baby son came to live with us.  Pappy paid 100% of their living for more than a year.  He did his tax return and claimed the grandson as a dependent.  IRS rejected the grandson dependent.  So Pappy consulted a tax man.  He said, retract the return, claim the grandson and your married daughter and your son-in-law, since you did provide 100% support to all three and your regular family.

So the new return was filed.  IRS THEN agreed to accept the grandson.,,,,,,,,,,,only.

So they taught me that income tax is NOT a law, it is a negotiation.

----------

RobertLafollet (07-27-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> and you?
> 
> never broke any law?
> 
> thats dishonest...
> 
> but not surprising as most people have...


I see, but, but everyone else does it,!!!

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> im not worried about it,,,the irs is kinda busy with more important things...


I agree that you aren't important enough for them to mess with.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> LOL!
> 
> keep on denying  the truth..
> 
> soon, your gonna have to pay your own way without help from the middleclass..


You don't know shit about me. I know enough a bout you to understand that you're mooching of the government.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Yea, they do have a tendency to go after those who lean right.


Horsefeathers, the IRS will hunt you down for your money, no matter who you are. Libs get it all the time.

----------

Northern Rivers (07-26-2016)

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Horsefeathers, the IRS will hunt you down for your money, no matter who you are. Libs get it all the time.





> By - The Washington Times - Sunday, June 5, 2016More than three years after it admitted to targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, the IRS has finally released a near-complete list of the organizations it snagged in a political dragnet.
> The tax agency filed the list last month as part of a court case after a series of federal judges, fed up with what they said was the agency’s stonewalling, ordered it to get a move on. The case is a class-action lawsuit, so the list of names is critical to knowing the scope of those who would have a claim against the IRS.
> But even as it answers some questions, the list raises others, including exactly when the targeting stopped, and how broadly the tax agency drew its net when it went after nonprofits for unusual scrutiny.
> PHOTOS: Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
> The government released names of 426 organizations. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit.
> That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ inspector general identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long — potentially illegal — delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities. Tea party and conservative groups said they was the target of unusually heavy investigations and longer delays,
> Edward D. Greim, the lawyer who’s pursuing the case on behalf of NorCal Tea Party Patriots and other members of the class, said the list also could have ballooned toward the end of the targeting as the IRS, once it knew it was being investigated, snagged more liberal groups in its operations to try to soften perceptions of political bias.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

Tl dr there Dudley!

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Horsefeathers, the IRS will hunt you down for your money, no matter who you are. Libs get it all the time.


I don't pass the threshold here in Oz to actually "pay" US taxes...but I still have to file or it's a $10K fine per offence. I also have to declare any bank account balance over $10k/US or...$10K fine. Many people skip doing this...it's about $2000 a year for compliance...so they skip it. Guess what? When any foreign person dies here...the death certificate lists your native land...and they get notified. If you haven't filed your paperwork each year...even though you don't owe anything and simply just can't pay $2000 a year in compliance costs because you are retired...the IRS will debit your estate when your will is read...for $10K each year. Many have been cleaned out.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Tl dr there Dudley!


Awww, too bad.  But predictable...

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> LOL!
> 
> keep on denying  the truth..
> 
> soon, your gonna have to pay your own way without help from the middleclass..


Go cyberstalk someone else.

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Awww, too bad.  But predictable...


You too, following me around to every fucking thread I post in get a life.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> You too, following me around to every fucking thread I post in get a life.


Not my fault you post on almost every thread.   

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted debate.  You posted a statement, I posted a response, with a link.  You are getting mad...hmmm :Dontknow:

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> Not my fault you post on almost every thread.   
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted debate.  You posted a statement, I posted a response, with a link.  You are getting mad...hmmm


Dude, just leave me the fuck alone. Are you disabled or something?  Are you high? Knock it the fuck off already.

----------


## Ginger

*you know what really grinds my gears?*sand in the transmission?

----------


## Kodiak

> *you know what really grinds my gears?*
> 
> 
> sand in the transmission?


That'll do it!

----------


## RobertLafollet

> If you're off the books, your healthcare would be free. No deductable. Very little co-pay


Not really, unless you get medicaid.  Emergency rooms only handle emergencies.  Say you get EBOLA they will just treat he symptoms and send you home.  Nothing is free.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> life is a gamble...risks are calculated and observed...
> 
> in numbers there is safety...


If you work for someone the IRS gets a report of what is paid to you.  Bank records can be gotten.  Credit card records frequently have to be reported.  Unless you are totally in the underground economy, they are just building a case.  

Remember 300 million is a small number for acomputer.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I agree that you aren't important enough for them to mess with.


If the IRS thinks you are a tax protester they think you are important even if you have virtually nothing.  Bragging about it on line is a bit like waving a flag in front of a bull.

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-27-2016)

----------


## Dan40

> Not really, unless you get medicaid.  Emergency rooms only handle emergencies.  Say you get EBOLA they will just treat he symptoms and send you home.  Nothing is free.


The "certain group" that utilizes the ER as their family doctor will come in to an ER with a bleeding hand and say I need stitches,,,,,,,,,AND I HAVE CHEST PAINS.   The hospital treats the cut or the headache or the sprained ankle FREE and the chest pains go away.

And the hospital charges it off to "indigent care."

----------

Puzzling Evidence (07-27-2016)

----------


## Puzzling Evidence

> If the IRS thinks you are a tax protester they think you are important even if you have virtually nothing.  Bragging about it on line is a bit like waving a flag in front of a bull.


I am shocked how many people think that if pay no taxes, yet brag about your six vehicles, that the IRS could not find out where you live. 

I hate paying taxes too, but until they abolish federal taxes, you have to pay them or they take your house. Paying taxes is a civic responsibility to go along with being a legal matter.

----------

