Democrat Voters Confused: “I Didn’t Realize I Would Be The One Who Was Going to Pay F

[Native Floridian]

we gave the folks that could work but refused, free food, medical, free or discounted housing, utility bills, racial scholarships and appointments, transportation, phones, low income loans, affirmative action, and we even give a bunch of them tax returns when they paid nothing into taxes. Now we are going to give them BETTER medical care. Don't try to tell me they weren't receiving medical all along....the emergency rooms were full of them. I wonder at what age they can retire.

Yes, the ER's are full of people who can't afford to pay the bill. Which is the problem. Why we need to address healthcare at a national level.

Did you know that obamacare is a Heritage Foundation plan that obama dusted off? Doesn't get much more Xright than the Heritage Foundation!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[NHBandit]

Same standard of living as those of us who have earned it?

Just a technical point here - If a working person isn't out earning a welfare recipient then they are in all likelihood not paying any Federal taxes. because all welfare payments are paid by taxes collected by the government any persons not paying taxes aren't supporting anyone but themselves. And in fact when looked upon by someone who is paying taxes could be said to be getting a free ride. Not my view, but that thinking is out there.

The inverse of your thinking here, you being bothered by people on assistance being entitled to the same standard of living as those who earn it leads me to a question: Should a person who pays, let's say $100,000 a year in taxes be entitled to more from the government than a person who pays $10,000? I ask because you are saying these welfare recipients should get zero because they contribute zero. So following that reasoning, shouldn't the higher contributors get more?

If not why not?

That sure was a mouthful and I will admit you completely lost me so I'm going to try to consolidate it all into one simple question. If I drive a 10 year old Buick with 150k miles on it why should I be FORCED to have the same insurance coverage as a guy with a brand new Mercedes ? What's going on is an outrage. And it's not even a fair form of "Socialism" if that's what they're trying to do. My understanding of Socialism is that everyone gets an equal slice of pie but they ALL help make that pie. What we are seeing here is that a few hard working people are being expected to take care of everyones needs.

 

[Red James Cash]

The solution is simple and right in front of every bodies eyes.Stop paying your voluntary income taxes.

 

[onfire]

Boeing. Was offered the largest state tax break in U.S. history, $8.7 billion dollars by Washington State.

That wasn't enough. They also asked the union to give up their pensions, pay more for their healthcare, and agree to only a !% raise every other
year for the length of the contract. (this is to build the 787s)

Boeing CEO Jim McNerney makes $27,500,000.00 a year. His pension is a guaranteed $265,575.00 PER MONTH for life if he retired today. His healthcare
would also be paid for.

Boeings profits last year: $3.9 Billion Dollars. (that is after everything is paid for)

Damn greedy unions, they want way too much.

courtesy of Politics with Jarred and Dave.

Nice job on just the talking points. Actually there was a 10K signing bonus and wages at 27 to 44 dollars per hour. Guaranteed 20 years work. I think even you would take the 1% per year and the pension was for future hires. What's that you said about unions

 

[Native Floridian]

That sure was a mouthful and I will admit you completely lost me so I'm going to try to consolidate it all into one simple question. If I drive a 10 year old Buick with 150k miles on it why should I be FORCED to have the same insurance coverage as a guy with a brand new Mercedes ? What's going on is an outrage. And it's not even a fair form of "Socialism" if that's what they're trying to do. My understanding of Socialism is that everyone gets an equal slice of pie but they ALL help make that pie. What we are seeing here is that a few hard working people are being expected to take care of everyone's needs.

I lost you? You said people who pay zero should be entitled to zero. if that's how you think then what about people who pay more? Should they be entitled to more?

About having the same insurance as a guy with a brand new Mercedes? At the minimum levels set by your state you do have exactly the same insurance. Those who want more coverage pay for it. But, before you take that example too far, know that because all premiums are pooled, that the guy paying more for his Mercedes is subsidizing the guy with the old Buick. Just as someone who pays $100,000 in taxes is subsidizing those who pay only $10,000 in taxes.

No you say? Maybe this will help clear it up:

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread399530/pg1


While the working man complains about having to carry the poor, what about the wealthy carrying the working man? The working man points at them and claims they get all the breaks!

 

[NHBandit]

You said people who pay zero should be entitled to zero.

We're done talking. I refuse to try to have an honest discussion with people who lie and where I come from putting words in someones mouth or interpreting a comment differently than it was intended to suit their agenda is the same as lying. That's not what I said and you KNOW that's not what I said. Have a good day...

 

[loco oro]

boeing wanted to go to sc where nonunion and lower wages ,obama stoped it cause it hurt workers in washington !and where i sit that is effin wrong inevery aspect, it is just good bussiness to go to sc, i would ,most any bussiness minded individual would, obama oversteppedhis athurity ,the unions thought it is in their best interest to demand more ,the company thought it was in their best interest to pack up and move.the way i see it the unions demanded themselves out of a job. and then everyone crys when bussiness leaves this country for mexico, india,or china.

 

[NHBandit]

boeing wanted to go to sc where nonunion and lower wages ,obama stoped it cause it hurt workers in washington !and where i sit that is effin wrong inevery aspect, it is just good bussiness to go to sc, i would ,most any bussiness minded individual would, obama oversteppedhis athurity ,the unions thought it is in their best interest to demand more ,the company thought it was in their best interest to pack up and move.the way i see it the unions demanded themselves out of a job. and then everyone crys when bussiness leaves this country for mexico, india,or china.

I agree that's dead wrong. Obummer, the Pope or the Queen of England have NO right to tell any private company where they can open a plant or work out of an existing location that they own. Someone needs to point out to this clown that's he's not the Emperor of the World...

 

[loco oro]

what was it that princess on star wars say? (so this is the response to the death of liberty, ..a roaring applause!

 

[Native Floridian]

We're done talking. I refuse to try to have an honest discussion with people who lie and where I come from putting words in someones mouth or interpreting a comment differently than it was intended to suit their agenda is the same as lying. That's not what I said and you KNOW that's not what I said. Have a good day...

And where i come from people who read offense into comments that have none have a reading comprehension problem. You are reading something wrong. I haven't twisted your words. In your post above you talk about having to support those who do not support themselves. Actually, you complain about it. What I've done is twist the situation. Taking it to another point of view. One in which the tax paying wage earner instead of being burdened is the burden. And, the truth is what it is. Without the wealthy everyone else would be SOL.

Sorry if you don't like it. I thought the attachment explained it quite well.

And yes, it applies to Obamacare as well!

BTW, I asked your opinion on this directly, you didn't answer. My point - many middle income earners don't realize someone's carrying their water too.

 

[Mad Machinist]

Same standard of living as those of us who have earned it?

The inverse of your thinking here, you being bothered by people on assistance being entitled to the same standard of living as those who earn it leads me to a question: Should a person who pays, let's say $100,000 a year in taxes be entitled to more from the government than a person who pays $10,000? I ask because you are saying these welfare recipients should get zero because they contribute zero. So following that reasoning, shouldn't the higher contributors get more?

If not why not?

NO, they should NOT be entitled to the same standard of living as those who earned it. And for one simple reason. I'll use my situation as an example.

I've spent over 20 years of my life learning everything I can to get where I am at. I now earn over 6 figures a year. I have EARNED the right to live the way I do. Now in order to "equalize" the standard of living, this would mean my standard of living would have to be reduced in order to raise the standard of living of someone who does not work. That is THEFT, plain and simple.

The public welfare system was NEVER designed to be lived off of. It was designed for people to get the necessities of life while going through a hard time. I looked here the other day and the max benefit on food stamps for a family of 4 was $668 a month. My wife and I don't spend that much on the 5 of us and we eat steak, lobster, shrimp, and all the other goodies.

And before you complain about the lack of jobs, you had better look at places like monster. There is no lack of jobs, there is simply a lack of people willing to do what it takes to earn a living.

And by the way, the only thing I want from the gov't is to leave me the hell alone to live my life how I see fit.

 

[Mad Machinist]

Yes, the ER's are full of people who can't afford to pay the bill. Which is the problem. Why we need to address healthcare at a national level.

Did you know that obamacare is a Heritage Foundation plan that obama dusted off? Doesn't get much more Xright than the Heritage Foundation!

Yea we do need to address healthcare at a national level. And the first move is to get gov't out of healthcare. Now we have an abortion of a healthcare bill that most will never understand. And considering what they have done to Social Security, this is gonna get real interesting, real quick.

Provide a credible link to the Heritage Foundation Plan.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Put thread back on topic, all off topic posts after this one will be deleted.

 

[Dave44]

NF is all about rants, Mad. As most on the left they throw an offhand comment trying to show fault in conservatism, But he doesn't show facts to back up their claims. As a self described "health insurance expert" I would expect more.

Heritage foundation did come up with an alternative to clintons wreck. But it didn't reflect lucifercare. I am not surprised NF throws out these tidbits though, he read it on some left wing kook site like media matters or msnbc.

Usually they can't understand anything that happened before 2011, their agenda will not allow it.

 

[Dave44]

Why on earth would I respond to an off topic post on this thread Matt? I thought this thread was about the left finally understanding THEY had to chip into Lucifercare?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Put thread back on topic, all off topic posts after this one will be deleted.

Appears some missed mod request to put thread back on topic. ....

Off topic posts will be deleted, please keep posts ON TOPIC...

 

[packerbacker]

Whether this was an idea adopted from the Heritage Foundation or not, has nothing to do with the present "law" and how it's being enforced. This law is an aberration of anything ever conceived for a nation wide healthcare program. It's the epitome of Socialism, and as such, will have the same eventual negative effect on our country and our society as a whole. There are many versions of this "law" that were proposed and we ended up with the worst version. We gotta pass this bill to see what's in it is one of the dumbest things ever said about a law before passing it.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

seems you left out major portions of the message posted above.

quote:
California spokesman Dana Howard maintained that in public presentations the exchange has always made clear that there will be winners and losers under Obamacare.

"Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance," he said, "but most people will not."

Covered California officials note that at least 570,000 of the 1.9 million people who buy their own insurance should be eligible for subsidies that will reduce their premiums.

Even those who don't qualify for the tax subsidies could see their rates drop because Obamacare doesn't allow insurers to charge people more if they have pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and cancer, he said.
unquote:

 

[Dave44]

seems you left out major portions of the message posted above.

quote:
California spokesman Dana Howard maintained that in public presentations the exchange has always made clear that there will be winners and losers under Obamacare.

"Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance," he said, "but most people will not."

Covered California officials note that at least 570,000 of the 1.9 million people who buy their own insurance should be eligible for subsidies that will reduce their premiums.

Even those who don't qualify for the tax subsidies could see their rates drop because Obamacare doesn't allow insurers to charge people more if they have pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and cancer, he said.
unquote:

A lot of could, should, many, some and maybe possibles in that fellas quote. What it means is he has no idea what he is talking about. But it makes a nice quote for some people, maybe?

 

[packerbacker]

When first passed, everyone was going to be a winner is what I heard. A miracle law to appease the masses!