House nears vote on health care

Judged:

1

1

1

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>You are admitting the Democrats don't have the balls to stand up and be counted.

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>Raising taxes on everyone is a problem. A progressive tax will never 'tax people to death'. Even with a 91% top marginal tax rate through the entire 50's. Our nation still had it's greatest 10 years of economic growth as a percentage. Why? Because during that time the top 20% only earned 4 times more than the bottom 20%. Even during the 90's the top 20% only earned 7 times more than the bottom 20%. In 2006, the last year the IRS has records for, the top 20% made 11 times more than the bottom 20%. Meaning, wealth was too concentrated at the top, thus leaving less for everyone else to spend. It created great debt and a crash that we saw last year.

Judged:

1

1

1

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>You would not know economics if a dollar bill hit you in the face.
The biggest problem today is the export of jobs to overseas labor markets.

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text>
Torchwood, you are extremely uninformed. That's not being hateful, it's being factual. Some facts for you....Bush gave away a surplus that was garnered by the Clinton regime to the top few % of the wealthy. Bush started the Iraq fiasco but never budgeted for the cost of his war. He funded the war with supplimentals and told the Dems that if they didn't vote for the supplimentals, they were unpatriotic and against the troops. Obama inherited the cost of the Bush war along with the Wall Street debacle and the housing nose dive.
Chenney met with energy co. ceo's just before gas went to $4.00/gal. He refuses to even divulge who he met with. He met secretly with the health insurance ceo's that he also refuses to divulge. That's just before it became illegal to by prescription drugs from Canada, health bills were passed, a donut hole was put in place that was a windfall for the insurance co.'s and bankrupted many families.
To blame Obama for the state the country's in shows just how uninformed you are.

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text>
Torchy.....Would you define this as a hateful post??? I don't think it's from a Dem.

Judged:

1

1

1

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>You would not know economics if a dollar bill hit you in the face.
The biggest problem today is the export of jobs to overseas labor markets.

Judged:

1

1

1

Torchwood wrote:

<quoted text>
How about the Clinton administration forcing the banks to give the loans to people that could not handle them? How about some real greedy bast*rds that perfectly legit programs and basically committed loan fraud like the loans to illegal aliens? You know programs for the self employed like stated income loans (basically gone now). The Wall street brokers that decided to make a new fiance product based on insuring of the loans and bundling them to sell them for bigger profits, also were to blame for this debacle! We could see this coming down the pike and Bush's laissez faire (Yes, Bush) attitude did not help at all!

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>And what bill was that?
Clinton NEVER forced banks to grant loans to people that could not afford them. There was a bill that forced banks to take race out of the equation. If a white man with a 680 credit score and $60,000 gets a $190,000 loan, then so must a black man with equal credit. See, at one time, minorities needed much higher credit scores and income to qualify for a loan that a white man with lower scores would qualify for. Women were also considered higher risk, thus needing higher scores. But there was never a bill that forced banks to grant loans to people that could not afford them. That's just plain BS.
Now Clinton can be blamed for signing that Republican P.O.S. Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act that did away with most of our better restraints on investing.

Judged:

1

1

1

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing like a few facts to quiet the uninformed.

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing like a few facts to quiet the uninformed.

Torchwood wrote:

<quoted text>So you are telling us that you and your buddies will stop posting all your uninformed post? OK.

Torchwood wrote:

<quoted text>So you are telling us that you and your buddies will stop posting all your uninformed post? OK.

Torchwood wrote:

<quoted text>So you are telling us that you and your buddies will stop posting all your uninformed post? OK.

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>I see you still don't have a decent rebuttal to any of the historical facts though.

Olderndirt wrote:

<quoted text>
Anyone who thinks Obama's health bill has a clause that fines anyone who doesn't buy insurance $250,000 and sends them to jail for 5 years is too gullible for words.

PinkyandtheBrain wrote:

This is good. We are going to charge poor people $250K for not having insurance. I thought the reason that we wanted to get healthcre reform was to help those who can't. So, this is a nice and easy way to put 20M uninsured in prison? This will in turn raise taxes as more prisons will have to be built to house these criminals for 5 yrs. The cost is not too much. It's only something along the lines of $40,000 per year per criminal.

Torchwood wrote:

<quoted text>
So you are telling us that you and your buddies will stop posting all your uninformed post? OK.

PinkyandtheBrain wrote:

This is good. We are going to charge poor people $250K for not having insurance. I thought the reason that we wanted to get healthcre reform was to help those who can't. So, this is a nice and easy way to put 20M uninsured in prison? This will in turn raise taxes as more prisons will have to be built to house these criminals for 5 yrs. The cost is not too much. It's only something along the lines of $40,000 per year per criminal.