Kim Jong Il Dies

But then you replace that anger we all have towards banks with the fat cats running the HMOs.  Sure, I could pay higher taxes and insure people in poverty, but then Woody Harrelson will tell you we could accomplish the same by legalizing pot. 

What about regulating the cost of procedures?  Obamacare does nothing to address, for example, the price of open heart surgery.  The surgeon still makes $25k a month, but my paycheck becomes smaller... and I may never need open heart surgery!!!  I don't see that as a logical solution.

[QUOTE]inu-liger wrote: And Microwave, BushJr. CERTAINLY had a role in the housing market collapse that helped cause the worldwide recession. He had EIGHT years in office wherein he could have kept a close eye and regulate the banks that were responsible for being greedy giving out mortgages to people they KNEW couldn't afford them in the first place, but Bush did FUCK all with keeping the banks on a leash [/QUOTE]

Whoa, slow down there partner!!

I was closing sub-prime, no income mortgage loans back in 1995, about 6 years before Bush took office.  We were giving money away in the 90s!!!!   Alan Greenspan was in charge of the fed at the time....  so I guess you could blame Clinton and Reagan if you want to point a finger?  Maybe? 

I don't think there's really one person toblame, just as I don't think there's one person to praise.

Micrówave wrote: >>Sure, I could pay higher taxes and insure people in poverty, but then Woody Harrelson will tell you we could accomplish the same by legalizing pot.<< Who says your taxes will go up? And Woody's right, by the way.  But that will never happen, because politicians and police need to appear to be tough on crime, and the politicians are bought and paid for by corporations that benefit greatly from pot being illegal, like big pharma and alcohol companies. Here's the solution - reduce defense spending and raise the corporate tax rate.  More money in your pocket, and everyone is healthier. And for good measure, jail the bankers like they did in Iceland.  We didn't hear about that one, did we?  Can't imagine why... >>Obamacare<< The term "Obamacare" in itself is a pejorative term.  It aims to vilify him for trying to implement something that is used in every other developed country.  Only in the USA does such childish bully terminology actually have some kind of weight.. >> does nothing to address, for example, the price of open heart surgery.  The surgeon still makes $25k a month, but my paycheck becomes smaller<< How?  You don't pay for the surgery, and you don't pay for health insurance.  You really need to stop watching Fox news and read up on the way health care works in every other civilized country in this world.

Micrówave wrote:

>>I was closing sub-prime, no income mortgage loans back in 1995, about 6 years before Bush took office<<

Of course, nobody's saying it didn't exist before 2000.  It just became commonplace under Bush.

Actually, yes, our taxes will go up... and our payroll taxes will also go up.   SOMEBODY has to pay for healthcare, it sure isn't going to be Uncle Sam.

Remember, we've already increased our tax rate to pay for the $700 Billion TARP package.  Now this... if it passes.  (But it won't)

>>Actually, yes, our taxes will go up... and our payroll taxes will also go up.   SOMEBODY has to pay for healthcare, it sure isn't going to be Uncle Sam<<

Show me the data, or the bill from congress.  Where does it categorically state that taxes on income under $100,000 will go up to pay for health care?

[QUOTE]Of course, nobody's saying it didn't exist before 2000.  It just became commonplace under Bush.[/QUOTE]

No, it was commonplace under CLINTON.  I was there doing it.  Now's where I get to say YOU need to stop reading the news about Sub Prime mortgages.  I was there doing it.  In 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.  More of those years were under Clinton's regime.  And before you try, the number of mortgages did not increase tenfold after Bush was elected.  It was Clinton who allowed the No-income verification loans.  THAT was the problem.  Banks stopped loaning money, Contractors and builders cannot get funding for new construction homes, existing values plummetted... hence the crash.

It had little to do with "Bush Jr." as one put it.

[QUOTE]Show me the data, or the bill from congress.  Where does it categorically state that taxes on income under $100,000 will go up to pay for health care?  [/QUOTE]

You show me the data that says taxes on income under $100,000 will not be affected to pay for health care.

In fact, show me the bill.  It keeps changing, so I want to make sure I've got the right one.

Very interesting.  Do you have any documentation with numbers to back that up?

Micrówave wrote:

>>You show me the data that says taxes on income under $100,000 will not be affected to pay for health care.<<

You can't ask ask someone to provide proof that something does not exist.  That is a fallacy of logic, and obviously impossible.

If you are making an assertion, then you need to back it up with evidence.  A refutation due to lack of evidence supporting the initial claim does not require any proof.  That's like religious people asking atheists and agnostics to prove there isn't a higher being, and since they can't, therefore their invisible man in the sky exists.

Indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax beginning in July in one of the changes Americans will see as a result of the U.S. health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Are you saying that only people who make $100,000 a year or more go to tanning salons?

If not, then the tanning salon is passing the 10% directly to the customer.  Loopholes, Wizard, you gotta read the loopholes.

That's the best you can do?  No wonder the world laughs at the American right.

It's your choice to go to a tanning salon.  Nobody's got a gun to your head.

[QUOTE]The Real Wizard wrote: Very interesting.  Do you have any documentation with numbers to back that up? [/QUOTE]

What kind of documentation would that be?  The number of mortgages granted in America each year?

Plus that number can be very skewed.

For example, interest rates are at an all time low for 30 year fixed, yet the number of loan applications taken is down.  Go figure.

[QUOTE]The Real Wizard wrote: That's the best youcan do?  No wonder the world laughs at the American right.

It's your choice to go to a tanning salon.  Nobody's got a gun to your head. [/QUOTE]

You asked me for an example.  I gave you one that clearly backs up my argument and you reply with American insults?  I guess you were expecting me to provide a complete outline of the bill?  Really?

I'm waiting for you to disprove the tanning salon figure.  If you cannot, then you were wrong and I gave you proof... no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

The world laughs at America?  Until they need something... then we're the first they ask.

That's why we're called the "leader of the free world".  No, I did not coin the phrase.

But back to topic....   they're not gonna put any verbiage in there where it directly says Taxes Will Go Up.  If they did, the bill would never make it to the floor for a vote.  This is called American Politics.  If this bill were as perfect as you believe it to be, then all these states that are challenging the constitutionality of the bill would not have a problem.