debates

[Nobody]

That is the fairest,but you should add a penalty for people with 24' boats that begin with the letter T.have excessive stereos and love cameras.

Oh and a double penalty for Toyota owners!

You made me belly laugh....now I can go to work with a smile.

Excessive stereo - totally nonsense. Just like a republican would say, more is better (for myself that is).
Now that I told Tim his boat is ugly, my new sinister amp is surely going to cost MORE.

[dom w. forte]

You made me belly laugh....now I can go to work with a smile.

Excessive stereo - totally nonsense. Just like a republican would say, more is better.
Now that I told Tim his boat is ugly, my new sinister amp is surely going to cost MORE.

Why is it you avoid my question?
And as far as a penalty for buying a Toyota thats penalty enough!!!!!!!!

[Nobody]

Why is it you avoid my question?
And as far as a penalty for buying a Toyota thats penalty enough!!!!!!!!

I'M THINKING...........HOLD ON TO YOUR PANTS!

[dom w. forte]

I think I see a pattern here, and I now know why ( nobody ) wont answer my question and is in favor of the health care for preexsisting condition, he has a mental condition and needs coverage.
It all adds up lets see,
1. drive foreign dont support USA.
2. over tax one groupe of americans not all.
3. let anybody into country , legally doesnt matter.
4. Force people to pay for those that dont deserve.
5. Increase the cost of energy to drive up the cost of all products to americans.
The list goes on but explains nobody, and Im sure he still wont answer my question about tax!!!!!!!!

[MoneyPity]

I of course was speaking of able bodied workers.

Robert

I assumed that but just wanted to cover the base. Your level headed and fair. For many of the folks I have met at SSA they could most definetly work within their normal occupation after minnimal physical therapy or cross training. It is just easier to play couch potatoe or in some cases double dip working for cash while they are supposedly disabled.

[Nobody]

Robert

I assumed that but just wanted to cover the base. Your level headed and fair.

What about me? Am I level headed and fair too???

[chpthril]

Ok, thats a fair statement. So it would also be fair to say, based on your statement, that Obama is ignorant, since he has spent the first 3 years of his term blaming Bush for the economy. He also spent two years on the campaign trail before being elected blaming Bush. Cant tell me im wrong and call me names, because im using your own stated logic.

On the flip side, if the President is not at fault, then who was at fault for the economy before Obama took office? Nancy and Harry????

Again, we are using your own logic, so who is to blame?

Sorry this question stumped you, Nobody But please take your time.

Because you refuse to answer my post I will assume you think my tax plan is unfair , if you do ,would you be in favor of a flat tax where every body from the poorest to the riches pays , this is the fairest?

Dom,

I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a logical answer, as they do not exist by those that live outside the city limits of realsville.

i am still wanting to know who he feels is to blame for the poor economy we have today, 3 years into Obama's first term. The amount of "stimulus" spent was equal to giving each US citizen about $27K each. Where did this money actual go? Unemployment still went up, people still lost jobs and are still loosing them today. Houses still got foreclosed on and people still lost everything. So again, where did that money, equal to about 27K p/person, really go? Rest assured, if the US Gov sent us a check for $54K, we would damn sure be stimulating the economy with it!!!! Hell, I wouldnt have cared if it was even taxed as income. Either way, it would have gone back into the economy in some way shape or form, and others would have benefited. New car, home improvements, invest a little, grow my biz, travel, go out to eat, etc.

For those really having a hard time, 27K would have bought 7.5 years of private health care (using $300 a month as a base).

Unions got it
Shovel-Ready wasnt as ready as we thought
The Obama "Green Energy Imitative" was only as green as the money that poured into the pockets of the snake oil salesman that he gave the money to. To of the projects he personally endorsed with a visit, have filed BK. Gee, didnt see that coming

Nobody,

As a business man yourself, im very surprised at your shortsightedness about the free health care. Nothing thats free is really free. its gonna cost money and the ones spending the money, the Gov, doesnt have a means of generating income. They either print it or take it in the forms of a tax or a penalty.

You list a whole lot of beneficial aspects of the health care plan, but how is it going to be paid for? Obama doesnt want to really discuss this in detail because it cant be paid for without trampling the constitutional rights of the US citizens. I can think of a whole bunch of things I could buy on my credit card that would benefit me, but I have no way of actually paying for them. I suppose I could just forcibly take it from my wealthier neighbors, right? Thats fair, dont you think?

[MoneyPity]

What about me? Am I level headed and fair too???

not really

[Nobody]

My preference to self educate about political matters comes from here:

www.opencongress.org

One of my favorites is the Student Loan Forgiveness Act. Hansen Clark (D) of Michigan is the sponsor. Based on how the R's voted the past 2 years, this bill would had been dead with the R's using their auto delete button. Now that the D's have retained their title for 2 more years, I think it will pass. We shall see?? This bill basically brings some common sense to the plate and "should" eliminate the need for personal bankruptcy. Since it has a lot to do with common sense fairness to the "people", I expect staunch opposition from the R's.

Here's a link to the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h4170/show

Open to intelligent comments and opinions without name calling if possible (moneypity)

[Nobody]

Oooh! Here's a touchy topic. Mary-ya-wanna.

Amends the Controlled Substance Act and loosens the Fed's grip so the States can have more control (meaning the people) over the legality of dope.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2306/show

I voted YES, but here again the R's will strike it down because sponsor ship is all D's.

[Nobody]

Ok Mr. Dom, I finally have an answer to your question/concern about fair taxation.

Yes, flat tax is the only way to go IMO.

With that said, H.R. 25 currently on the house floor, better known as the Fair Tax Act does what you want/ask. Here we have a piece of legislation that is unanimously supported by the R's and a few D's. Rob Woodall (R) from GA has presented this bill to congress and I must give my token appreciation for his contribution.

The jest is basically eliminating the IRS and initiates a 23% flat federal tax. Yes, we will still have other taxes including state sales tax and property tax, so don't get all excited and pee ur pants yet. This bill is about fairness. You can expect a $0 tax below poverty level which the D's will insist.

For all of you who hold hard and true to self centered government ideology, the general consensus is that this bill would strengthen the plutocracy.....which better for the have's (you).

Here's the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h25/show

Lets follow this bill and see what happens, shall we?

[Nobody]

Added theme song to H.R.2306

[chpthril]

I wish there was some way I could get you to see past your small mindedness.

The Affordable Health Care Act has to be the GREATEST single piece of legislation since the Public Official Accountability Act.

1/3 of this nation was getting raped by medical insurance in some fashion.

Starting in 2014.......

Deadbeats that should have coverage will now either buy it or pay a tax, and this is for EVERYONE as a society.
Wow, so people that cant afford health care are deadbeats? You sound like a republican

40 million people with pre-existing conditions will now have coverage.
They will be rated based on those pre-existing conditions. This may leave many still needing the free health care as they will not be able to afford the rated premium.

3 million people under the age of 26 will now have insurance.
No, not exactly. Just because you are under the age of 26, doesnt mean you get free health care. Those under 26, still living at home and are students, MAY stay on their parents policy IF the parents have a family insurance policy AND can afford to keep the adult child on

30 million uninsured will now be able to get insurance.
Any one, except the terminally ill, can purchase health insurance if they choose.

20 million will now get insurance through with their place of employment.
Yeah, right. See below

My god! The list goes on and on and on and on.

Hedgemoney monopolies just got the boot in the "you know where", and it's about time.

Or perhaps its best to just close our eyes and pretend like we don't notice our neighbor across the street?

Iv added some thoughts above.

Heres the deal. Figures indicate that it will cost an employer $1.75 per hour worked p/employee to be in compliance with the upcoming regulations. Or pay the penalty, which equals $.93 per hour per employ. Any way you slice it, this is going to add to the cost of doing business. When this happens, companies WILL pass this cost on to the consumer, us! This makes the cost of living to go up. So whether you are on free health care or Gov forced company provided, its going to cost ALL OF US more to live.

Well, here's what going to happen: Companies will go one of a few routes.
1) They may not add any new employees, thus leaving many that are out out of work today, with out jobs in the future. Unemployment will not go down, but could go up.
2) They may cut hours, thus reducing full time employees to part time. This reduces the bring-home pay. With a crappy economy, cost of living going up and unemployment possibly going up, they are still without company provided health care.
3) They may lay off employees, thus increasing unemployment.
4) Employers may pass on the costs by increasing the employee's contribution. This again will reduce bring-home pay
5) Employers may reduce current pay to offset the increases employee costs. This will effect either current employees and or new hires. This will hurt all as the cost of living goes up.

I do not see a large increase in employer-provided health care numbers. And I certainly do not see enough to offset the negative side effects noted above. What I do see happening, is more and more people getting on the free bandwagon, with less and less tax paying producing people to pay for it. I feel the "free" heath care is going to be beyond poor and lacking. Do not what you call a person that got a D in med school?.......Dr! Who do you think is going to be working the Obama-Care clinics?

If you think that Obama Care is going to actually reduce health care costs, improve available health care, actually cover those that currently do not have private health care, you are mistaken. Go look at some of the other counties that have gone down this route.

I know how Obama care is going to get funded, but I would love to here you explain how its going to get paid for and try to justify it. We do need health care reform, but the current Obama care is not about reform, its about having more liberal voters dependent on the gov.

[Timmy!]

OR they might give their employees 5% pay raises:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/12/news...ses/index.html

[chpthril]

OR they might give their employees 5% pay raises:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/12/news...ses/index.html

What is Anti-Obama, a spray to wards off libs What does Anti-Obama trade under on the NASDAQ?

Seriously, that holds about as much water with me, as a company claiming to close the doors simply because Oblame'me was reelected. We are going to see more an more of those stories, rather then the storied about whats really going to happen.

A quote from the story. As it states, there still may be layoffs. So whats a 5% raise on no pay check?

The CEO said he believes his employees will need higher wages to deal with increased costs he expects everyone will face under Obama. And he's not backing off his prediction that developments like Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulations will hurt the economy in the years ahead -- and could lead him to make staff cuts eventually.