At 11/7/12 04:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you even know what Obamacare is? It requires people to purchase their own insurance.

Right, it's manditory to buy (or provide, if you're an employer) insurance, regardless of if you can afford it or not.

The government is not entering the insurance market in a way they haven't already. The government still only operates Medicare and Medicaid.

Um, yes they are. They are requiring people to purchase it.

Actually, it's the Republicans who wanted that. Obamacare is an attempt to ensure that all people have some form of accessible healthcare at all stages, not just the emergency stage as it is now (and how the Republicans wants it to be).

Really? Hmm, the Republican running in the presidential race was saying the exact opposite. He was saying people should be able to buy their own insurance, not subsidize someone elses.

The biggest depressor of healthcare costs is Medicare. Health insurance rates are also heavily inflated by lack of access to preventative medicine because the insurance' copays and deductables are too inequitable. (treatment for an esophageal hole is about 1,000 times more expensive than a doctor's appointment and a lifetime prescription to generic prilosec, yet when the copay to get that prescription goes above $100, people don;t go to the doc until they get that hole, cost all of us higher premiums to pay for the expensive procedure that was wholly avoidable).

The fact that such an explanation is required is an example of how rediculous insurance lobbies, medical lobbies and the government have made this whole thing. IT IS NOT THIS COMPLEX. It can literally be as simple as Doc charges $100 for a check up, you pay out of pocket, the end. Insurance does not even need to be part of the equation at all.

That's why it's called INSURANCE. It's supposed to be there to INSURE you can pay for an expensive procedure. The need for insurance is based on risk, just like any other investment you make. It is not a healthcare solution. But the lobbies and government have fucked with it so much, it is now the ONLY way to pay for ANY medical procedure.

I find these walls of text very pretty. Perhaps I will put some up as wallpaper.

At 11/7/12 05:41 PM, DaKnOb3 wrote:

That just gave me a funny thought. Imagine thousands of people running for their lives yelling, "It's coming! Run for your lives! Freedom is coming!" Freedom and subjugation are just a philosophical constructs anyway, like: patriotism, happiness, or morality. No one really knows what they mean, but everyone pretends to know exactly what they are.

Replace the word "Subjugated" with "controlled and oppressed" than instead of trying to bastardize posts that sacred you into thinking about reality and not the politically correct propaganda they sell you on TV, Newspapers, and Hollywood.

At 11/7/12 05:49 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/7/12 05:41 PM, DaKnOb3 wrote:

That just gave me a funny thought. Imagine thousands of people running for their lives yelling, "It's coming! Run for your lives! Freedom is coming!" Freedom and subjugation are just a philosophical constructs anyway, like: patriotism, happiness, or morality. No one really knows what they mean, but everyone pretends to know exactly what they are.

Replace the word "Subjugated" with "controlled and oppressed" than instead of trying to bastardize posts that sacred you into thinking about reality and not the politically correct propaganda they sell you on TV, Newspapers, and Hollywood.

Wait a sec, so it is sacred to think about reality. I always thought reality and sacred stuff were not exactly the same thing. Also your stuff could just as easily be said to be propaganda, except wait...you know the truth and everyone else is confused. We can trust you, but the rest of the stuff is lies. You're just as likely to make stuff up as an tv network, newspaper, or hollywood company are. Also the constant, unrelenting and consistent references to certain topics in certain ways, with the same words seems awfully propagandist to me. Anyway, reality is an idea and no one, not every "you" can really comprehend it. Bias is built into the human experience after all.

At 11/7/12 05:57 PM, DaKnOb3 wrote:

Wait a sec, so it is sacred to think about reality. I always thought reality and sacred stuff were not exactly the same thing. Also your stuff could just as easily be said to be propaganda, except wait...you know the truth and everyone else is confused. We can trust you, but the rest of the stuff is lies. You're just as likely to make stuff up as an tv network, newspaper, or hollywood company are. Also the constant, unrelenting and consistent references to certain topics in certain ways, with the same words seems awfully propagandist to me. Anyway, reality is an idea and no one, not every "you" can really comprehend it. Bias is built into the human experience after all.

So the Fed is all about enriching people lives and the Government is your friend and would never lie to you. Bush/Obama are not mass murders but Bin Laded and Saddam are. In short the American Government is infallible and would never do anybody wrong and everything is just peachy :-) PS the Media always tells the truth because they are upholders of the statuesque.

At 11/7/12 06:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
So the Fed is all about enriching people lives and the Government is your friend and would never lie to you. Bush/Obama are not mass murders but Bin Laded and Saddam are. In short the American Government is infallible and would never do anybody wrong and everything is just peachy :-) PS the Media always tells the truth because they are upholders of the statuesque.

Did I say anything about the Fed, or the Government, or Bush/Obama or anything you just mentioned? No, but if you want to have a two sided conversation with yourself go ahead.

At 11/7/12 05:43 PM, Feoric wrote:

It's funny how you don't mind tax payers going to build parks and bridges and roads and stuff like that because of the General Welfare clause, but when it goes to people, well, nah.

I support Infrastructure. Aid to States. Tax Holidays. Tax Rebates. Because the benefit a large sector of the population. See, we all benefit from infrastructure. We all use the roads, therefore we all pay.

Food stamps, Social Security, and "entitlements" do not. They benefit those that the government chooses, at the expense of others. Social Security, medicare, food stamps, benefit me not in a single way. So why should I pay for it? Why should I have to forego my own survival, so others can?

Get it?

At 11/7/12 06:09 PM, DaKnOb3 wrote:

At 11/7/12 06:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
So the Fed is all about enriching people lives and the Government is your friend and would never lie to you. Bush/Obama are not mass murders but Bin Laded and Saddam are. In short the American Government is infallible and would never do anybody wrong and everything is just peachy :-) PS the Media always tells the truth because they are upholders of the statuesque.

Did I say anything about the Fed, or the Government, or Bush/Obama or anything you just mentioned? No, but if you want to have a two sided conversation with yourself go ahead.

The point is you seem to unwittingly and unquestionably trust the sources that lie, cheat and steal our futures away from us but somehow I am the bad guy for bring these atrocities to light .

At 11/7/12 06:31 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Food stamps, Social Security, and "entitlements" do not. They benefit those that the government chooses, at the expense of others. Social Security, medicare, food stamps, benefit me not in a single way. So why should I pay for it? Why should I have to forego my own survival, so others can?

Get it?

"Why should I help other people? Fuck them."

a large boot descends from the sky and steps on the faces of poor people forever

At 11/7/12 06:31 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/7/12 05:43 PM, Feoric wrote:

It's funny how you don't mind tax payers going to build parks and bridges and roads and stuff like that because of the General Welfare clause, but when it goes to people, well, nah.

I support Infrastructure. Aid to States. Tax Holidays. Tax Rebates. Because the benefit a large sector of the population. See, we all benefit from infrastructure. We all use the roads, therefore we all pay.

Food stamps, Social Security, and "entitlements" do not. They benefit those that the government chooses, at the expense of others. Social Security, medicare, food stamps, benefit me not in a single way. So why should I pay for it? Why should I have to forego my own survival, so others can?

Get it?

So what about disability payments I guess people with legit disabilities are not worth the basics such as food, clothing, shelter, love, Internet and a pat on the back for not being a POS on society ?

At 11/7/12 06:35 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Did I say anything about the Fed, or the Government, or Bush/Obama or anything you just mentioned? No, but if you want to have a two sided conversation with yourself go ahead.

The point is you seem to unwittingly and unquestionably trust the sources that lie, cheat and steal our futures away from us but somehow I am the bad guy for bring these atrocities to light .

There must be some major cognitive dissonance going on there, because what I've said and what you think I've said are extremely far apart.

On another note, I remember you saying you weren't from the United States at some point. Just curious what country you are from, since you seem pretty hung up about the US for someone who doesn't actually live here.

At 11/7/12 06:37 PM, Feoric wrote:

a large boot descends from the sky and steps on the faces of poor people forever

The unwitting ironic nature of your statement is a bit humiliating and humbling to me.

At 11/7/12 06:38 PM, DaKnOb3 wrote:

On another note, I remember you saying you weren't from the United States at some point. Just curious what country you are from, since you seem pretty hung up about the US for someone who doesn't actually live here.

Dual Citizenship and ex pat in the process to relinquish my US Citizenship 100%.

At 11/7/12 06:40 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
The unwitting ironic nature of your statement is a bit humiliating and humbling to me.

Your signature doesn't appear to be working. Just figured I'd let you know, since it prevents the people of Newgrounds from realizing that you think Obama and Adolf Hitler are one and the same.

At 11/7/12 04:10 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: No it was Murder and disgusting that many of Humanity feels that murder is no big thing. Bin laden had a family and mom to just like Bush.

I was just flicking through the thread when I read this and it made me literally lol, just cos everyone's talking about taxes and politics then leanlifter comes in and argues that Bin Laden's killing was "Murder and disgusting that many of Humanity feels that murder is no big thing", followed by that he "had a family and mom to just like Bush". And the subject matter being broken by leanlifter's bizarre opinions was just too funny.

but on a serious note

At 11/7/12 03:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/7/12 02:47 PM, jimbobmuffincake wrote: Nice isn't it? Why do we have high unemployment in the first place?

A multitude of factors. Globalism. Lack of adequate demand. Lack of adequate training. Severe loss of respect for the value of the worker.

I agree with this in general. Obama and political nudges in general appear weak and ineffective in the powerful global marketplace.

yeah he does have a way of derailing threads tho

At 11/7/12 06:51 PM, Earfetish wrote:

And the subject matter being broken by leanlifter's bizarre opinions was just too funny.

Ya we really are fucked in a world were murder is not considered bizarre.

At 11/7/12 07:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Ya we really are fucked in a world were murder is not considered bizarre.

I'm reluctant to engage you in conversation, but Bin Laden was essentially responsible for the murder of thousands of people on 9/11, as well as countless deaths in the Middle East and other terrorist murders across the world, and he would have been tricky to capture and safely hold. In fact, he would almost certainly have preferred to die than be detained by the US for the rest of his life, which was the only possible alternative.

Bin Laden was almost certainly planning to kill innocent people at the time he was arrested, and eliminating the threat he poses will very likely save numerous lives. Lives of non-murdering people, no less.

Why would you ignore Bin Laden's probable wishes? Would you rather the US didn't try to capture him?

What would you have done with (former) active terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden?

At 11/7/12 07:32 PM, Mfan wrote:

At 11/7/12 03:40 PM, JMHX wrote:

Barack 'The Islamic Shock' Hussein SuperAllah Obama

hahahahaha , that's the best nick name I've seen for obummer yet !, i just may have to steal it

we as a people should of seen obama as a threat to our nation's businesses , he wants to deter TOP employers by taxing the literal shit out of them, what's going to happen is that the biggest corporations will ship more of our jobs over seas , some may just leave the nation all together , and the super wealthy will take what investments they have in this nation and put them into foreign interests .

I know, dude. Our marginal tax rates are through the roof. Obama is going to destroy this country this never before seen tax rates.

At 11/7/12 07:39 PM, Feoric wrote:
I know, dude. Our marginal tax rates are through the roof. Obama is going to destroy this country this never before seen tax rates.

That 7% marginal tax rate before WWI sounds pretty awesome though. Then again I would have had a good chance of dying of the seasonal flu, so I guess its not such a bad tradeoff.

Republican logic: Instead of giving this dollar to the needy, let's give it to this rich guy and the rich guy will decide how much of this dollar to give to the needy.

Also taxing a business is retarded. I never got that. Tax the salaries, not the business.

At 11/7/12 07:52 PM, Mfan wrote:

At 11/7/12 07:39 PM, Feoric wrote:

I know, dude. Our marginal tax rates are through the roof. Obama is going to destroy this country this never before seen tax rates.

corporate tax rates , not over-all taxation

Right, well. Taxation of corporations, as the abstract legal entities that they are, is, in practice, rarely (if ever) the correct thing to do, because unlike rich people, a corporation or company is usually going to reinvest all of its income, thus creating new employment either directly or indirectly. Of course, that's only in theory. In the real world, you'd be appalled at how much cash these Fortune 500 companies are just sitting on. It's literally incomprehensible. The constant trick question about the corporate tax rate is that somehow what major corporations pay never really looks anything like our stated corporate tax rate. In the real world, smaller folks who incorporate will have to pay a bunch while really really rich people can get straight subsidized.

But none of this should really matter to you because Obama wants to decrease the corporate tax rate to 28%. He endorsed cutting the rates by 10% during the debates. And you know what? I'm actually okay with that, as long as loopholes are closed which brings in more revenue.

At 11/7/12 08:13 PM, Mfan wrote:

At 11/7/12 08:05 PM, poxpower wrote: Republican logic: Instead of giving this dollar to the needy, let's give it to this rich guy and the rich guy will decide how much of this dollar to give to the needy.

Democrat logic: "I'm entitled to everything that the 1% has , and i'm going to stand right here, on this corner with my guy fawkes mask on and my little cardboard sign , shouting things at big buildings hoping that what i think society owes me will just magically appear , and those rich guys will go to jail for being richer than me "

Right, I'm sure those protesters wanted yachts and apartments overlooking Central Park, and not like, oh, I dunno, affordable healthcare or detesting the bush tax cuts or calling for financial regulation or calling for the prosecution who brought about the global financial crisis. It was all about poor people wanting beluga caviar.

holy shit taxing must be a crime... surely we can print more to pay it of.... right?

At 11/7/12 02:47 PM, jimbobmuffincake wrote: Nice isn't it? Why do we have high unemployment in the first place? Obama taxing business. Job crisis is going to get a lot worse. Jobs don't come out of more heavily taxed business. What the fuck, there will be nothing left when the end of Obama's four years is over

Ok, enough of the completely false and misleading Republican talking points. Here's the truth: higher taxes do NOT correspond to businesses having less money. Oh wait...how could that be? It's not economix 101, it's the 102 class. Read on.

Dudes (and gals) here's a point to consider that NO ONE has touched on which may completely change your perspective.

Businesses are a tax SHELTER. When taxes are RAISED on business, the owners have to look for tax SHELTERS, which means that they are more likely to reinvest in the business. Higher taxes leads to HIGHER employment, and any businessman who isn't getting paid by the GOP will tell you the same thing.

If you LOWER taxes on businesses, you definitely give people more money. However, that money will be taken out of the business and turned into personal income of the owners. They will then spend it on luxuries, yachts, trips, etc., not putting it back in business. Because why would they?

The stock market didn't double under Obama for no reason. Consider true business principles and tax law instead of talking points from paid pundits and you'd do a lot better.

just because that person never made anything of themselves in life, or even tried

oh so just because there poor, they're lazy fuckers

At 11/7/12 08:29 PM, Mfan wrote: define "affordable healthcare", because the middle class working american doesn't appreciate having to pay a tax to flip another person's medical care bill, just because that person never made anything of themselves in life, or even tried

Sure. I'm awfully sure the middle class would love to not have to worry about going bankrupt due to medical costs if it meant their taxes would go up a little bit. but hey! What do I know? Maybe the middle class actually loves skyrocketing medical costs due to privatization.

bush's tax cuts are what slowed our nations debt

but we were in the middle of a war at the time

so , tax cuts did little to slow our debt

I'll just leave this there for you to look at for a while, and then maybe you can tell me what's wrong here.

financial regulation would mean leashing our capitalist market , which is the best and biggest in the world of it's kind , choking our market to death is the last thing we need

Oh my god.

and no single person was directly responsible for the market's crash, how can you prosecute when you have no proof , and what court would hear the case ?

Hi. Hello.

At 11/7/12 08:29 PM, Mfan wrote: define "affordable healthcare", because the middle class working american doesn't appreciate having to pay a tax to flip another person's medical care bill, just because that person never made anything of themselves in life, or even tried

If you think the 1% is where they are because they "made something of themselves" and not because of preexisting connections, family wealth, or being at the right place at the right time, you're flat out deluded.

The regular middle class worker already pays a good amount of taxes, in the form of property taxes, payroll taxes, medicare taxes, FICA, and sales taxes. If you think they don't pay anything, again, you're deluded.

bush's tax cuts are what slowed our nations debt , but we were in the middle of a war at the time so , tax cuts did little to slow our debt

Hold the phone. You're trying to say a MASSIVE reduction of revenue slowed the increase of debt? If what crazy math world does that make sense?

financial regulation would mean leashing our capitalist market , which is the best and biggest in the world of it's kind , choking our market to death is the last thing we need

The market did a good job of going a bit too far with its auto-erotic asphyxia in the past decade. Not massive regulations needed there.

and no single person was directly responsible for the market's crash, how can you prosecute when you have no proof , and what court would hear the case ?

Then why is the Right blaming Obama for the current recession?

At 11/7/12 08:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Then why is the Right blaming Obama for the current recession?

Because he's not a Republican.

At 11/7/12 03:23 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 11/7/12 03:21 PM, jimbobmuffincake wrote: Camarohusky:

How would you know that considering Obama isn't nearly into his next four years yet? Don't assume

Yes Jimbob, assuming is bad.

He's not assuming, he's telling the truth.