Obamacare

[snupy]

I didn't know Stalin was black.

None have implied all Marxists, communists or socialists were black.

Yeah there are nuts in the "right" side, but you see nuts on the left too.

Like PETA, or the nutcases who put the spikes into trees.

I don't condone making protesting references against Obama to allude, or overtly make any racial reference.

Yet, that's exactly what Tancredo's references to literacy tests were about. Such tests WERE used in our past to deny the constitutional right to vote to black people.

But I also don't believe any protest against his policies equal racism, which is what many in the left and left controlled media allude.

They fool themselves to their own detriment if they believe the protests could ONLY be due to racism. If one believes that, then it is VERY easy to dismiss the concerns of those who protest without racist pretention. That's as foolish as claiming all Democrats are socialists. The end result in both cases is to dismiss the viewpoints of those with whom you don't agree.

[Bigblue1]

They fool themselves to their own detriment if they believe the protests could ONLY be due to racism. If one believes that, then it is VERY easy to dismiss the concerns of those who protest without racist pretention. That's as foolish as claiming all Democrats are socialists. The end result in both cases is to dismiss the viewpoints of those with whom you don't agree.

Don't be so HARD on Yourself, You mean well and all.

[snupy]

I call bullshit. not to you sgreger1, the wall street journal and verizon.

You know, it's so very strange for the Wall Street Journal to publish an OPINION piece, and the AUTHOR of the OPINION piece appears no where in the article. I rather enjoy running authors name through Wikipedia to make any biases they may have a bit more clear, but I can't do that if the author isn't listed.

I was able to track down several sources for the cliamed Caterphillar $100 million tax charge, but wouldn't this end up as a tax deduction?

[snupy]

Don't be so HARD on Yourself, You mean well and all.

Bzzt wrong! I have already mentioned I supported Bush in the early years. There are many Republican ideas I also support. I just don't believe one set of rules should be applied in any and every circumstance. I am not sure the rest of the voters do either. I do wonder if part of the reason the voters booted the Republicans out in the last election, is because they didn't want the government to abandon government spending in the midst of economic turmoil. (Not that Republicans support fiscal conservatism in anything but lip service only. Bush certainly wasn't a fiscal conservative.)

I don't support free market econimics in the situations of policeman, fireman or libraries. Could you imagine if you were charged what it actually cost when you called the cops? Many would be not be able to call them due to lack of money, which would mean they wouldn't call, leaving either numerous cases of vigilante justice or thugs over running the population.

Free market ideas are not the best solution in every situation. No one wants truly free market health care. That would mean if you didn't have the money, you would simply die. It sounds nice in theory, but the realities of it show a truth our society would never accept.

[sgreger1]

I fully support this in many instances. Take Moody's rating $hit mortgage bonds as AAA, instead of as $hit. There ought to be a law. I'll take my capitalism regulated, thank you.

Was just pointing out that there WOULD in fact be a benefit of electing a socialist or communist if you were a corporation with enough $$

Once corporations became 'persons' they end up with the rights of 'persons.'

Yes the whole thing is stupid.

Did we have national leaders discussing the need for literacy tests in that situation? Why discuss it now, given the history of what these tests imply? What do you think people mean when they say Obama is about expanding welfare or wealth redistribution? You think people discussing that are afraid Obama will 'redistribute wealth' to old white men?

You are obviousely trying to make the statement that if we had basic literacy tests that black people would be too dumb to pass them. Might want to re-think your argument here. Either way I maintain that literacy tests violate the constitution.

just because people oppose the current president (who happens to be black), I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that protesting must = racism.

*sigh* Provide a direct quote and post number where I have claimed "protesting must = racism" and I will be more than happy to address it.

Your last like 5 posts have alluded to the fact that the big opposition to Obama is his race. I don't think I need to point that out to you. I said a small segment is racist but for the most part it is his policies that are drawing heat, but you continue to make the assumption that because the tea parties are protesting him it must all be about race.

Ok. We have people calling Obama either communist, Marxist or socialist, which he clearly is not, which means those are code words for something else. We know in this country, particularly during the civil rights era, black people were also labelled communists, Marxists or socialists. We have leaders addressing the Tea Party convention discussing the need for literacy tests, which are well represented in the racial history of our past. The Tea Party protestors are overwhelmingly white, carrying signs like the following:

No it doesn't mean it's something else. It means they are misinformed, that is all. No conspiracy here. Obviousely the racists amongst the tea party don't have any problem with being openly racist in their signs, so why would you claim that they would need to use code words? The racists make themselves known, but for the most part the tea parties are protesting big government. I have been to a couple myself and even spoke at one and thre was nothing racist about anything I saw there. Mainly just middle class people who are pissed that the gov is spending so much and growing the fed gov to even higher levels than the last guy did.

And you, sgreger1, claim this couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism.

Do you also not see racism in the following photo sgreger1?

What about this one, sgreger1. Is this not racist too?

Yes and I said, there are racists. They have no problem holding racist signs. So to say that they are using codewords like socialist to mean racism doens't hold up sinec they obviousely have no problem being upfront and saying what they mean. No need for code words.

Of course not. It could not possibly be racist to illustrate a Harvard educated lawyer as a monkey eating a banana.

They did the same thing to Bush and none of you complained then. At the end of the day, I am not the one who attended a racist church for 20 years, your boy was. If there is anyone who is obviousely racist, it would have to be Obama. You lump the tea party thing into racism because there are racists there, so I can do the same. Obama went to an outspoken racist anti-american church for 20 years and said nothing about it. Then when questioned about it during the campaign, Obama blatantly lied and said he didn't recall hearing any of those racist comments while he was there.

To play the race card in defence of a person who went to a racist radical anti-white church for 20 years is a big giant FAIL.

[WickedKitchen]

Well, I certainly wish this thing would be reversed. I'd go so far as saying it's anti-American to some degree. Maybe anti-American is a little too far, but the long-term unintended consequences seem to be terrible.

To me, what made America so great is people like my grandfather who came here with little more than the clothes on his back. We've all heard the stories and many of us come from similar roots. Why did they come here? They came here to earn themselves a better life. Throughout the generations people have changed that answer to something like...they came here so they would be guaranteed a better life for themselves and their families. This simply is not the case.

There is a guarantee in America. It's the guarantee of potential. The guarantee that you will be allowed to compete. The guarantee that you will be treated (as far as laws go) the same as the next guy. There was times in this country were everyone wasn't treated equally but race and gender have nothing to do with this. Never was it advertised that there is a guarantee of success, only the guarantee to be able to achieve it. I remember my dziadziu (Polish for grandfather) telling me at a young age that "Nobody will take care of you you're whole life so you had better figure it out." This stuck with me and I think I'm a better person for it.

If you do figure out how to "make it" then good for you. You should be able to reap everything you sew. If you don't figure it out then yes, you must be coddled and taken care of so that you don't bring down the rest of us. My problem is we're making it too easy to be taken care of. There will always be a percentage of the population that will truly need help, but it's not in our best interest to increase that percentage and the system to take care of this issue is in place. It's wicked inefficient but it's there...and I fear that this new legislation will be a bigger cluster-F.

We're taking away the risk. There is something to be said about fear here. If there's no consequences for failing (job, marriage, health, etc.) then there will be a diminished drive for success en mass. Ill health and death are pretty friggin' scary for me so they are major motivators for me to continue to succeed.

As it is we don't manufacture enough stuff anymore. Why? It's cheaper to do it else ware in most cases. This should not be the case. Our secondary education process is a huge problem here. There's simply too much of it. I remember a lesson from a HS civics teacher. The thing I remember most about his class was he would read everyone's test scores publicly in class. As students we hated it but he had the best grades of any other teacher in the school. He would often say to someone who got a low grade or even failed a test "It's Ok that you got a D...If everyone got an A then there would be nobody to sweep the streets." How true is this? Now so many people feel they're "above" this type of work. WTF is that? It's so bad that we're effectively importing people to do this type of stuff.

I'm not really upset about the dollars anymore. I pay through the nose for healthcare and taxes in general but the money has to come from somewhere. I have different views about where the money should come from but that's not what gets my dander up about this Obamacare malarky.

Now that the insurance companies must accept pre-existing conditions how many people do you think will wait until there's a problem before they get insurance? The fines had better go up to the thousands of dollars to prevent this. I fear this to be a problem nationally. I do support this side of the issue however. If I left my job and had to change insurance then what happens? At least now that stress is gone (not that I have major problems now but I will eventually). Could you imagine the look you'd get at a car insurance place if you asked them to fix your car after you pay your first month's premium.

We're creating a haven for unproductivity. Productivity is not well rewarded in this country anymore. People are to quick to ca vetch about the guy/company who makes X millions of dollars. If the profits of those companies were expressed in percentages (many multi billion dollar companies make 2-5% profit.) I think things would be different. There's more to it than the total at the bottom of the P&L.

Sorry for the rant...I've got plenty more but I just scrolled up and realized that it's getting too long.

[sgreger1]

I call bullshit. not to you sgreger1, the wall street journal and verizon.

You know, it's so very strange for the Wall Street Journal to publish an OPINION piece, and the AUTHOR of the OPINION piece appears no where in the article. I rather enjoy running authors name through Wikipedia to make any biases they may have a bit more clear, but I can't do that if the author isn't listed.

I was able to track down several sources for the cliamed Caterphillar $100 million tax charge, but wouldn't this end up as a tax deduction?

The writer doesn't matter and is obviousely biased towards republicans. But the facts don't change that this will affect people's health insurance at work. The thing doens't kick in for years but the taxes do, and many employees want to know how it will affect them which is why the employers are issuing statements.

Don't take beef with the writen of an opinion piece, look at the facts it presents. Are you saying they lied about these companies doing this?

Realize that many companies will protest this HC reform by doing things to hurt employees. It's not right but it will happen so they can make their pointand make it look worse than it really is. But at the end fo the day, that doesn't matter, having insurance does. So check with your HR.

[wadetheblade]

Im not touching this one anymore, because the more I read into it, the less of it I understood. I did read that these companies are given money to pay for retirees, (because it was cheaper than medicare), which in the past was untaxed. They will now pay taxes on this money.

[wadetheblade]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

[wadetheblade]

I think i would rather argue with sage and chad on wether or not bergamot sucks at this point.

[sgreger1]

Caterpillar said taxes and “new-coverage mandates” would raise its health-care costs by 20 percent, or more than $100 million in the first year.

“This tax increase could not have come at a worse time,” Dugan said. “In 2009, we faced what was the worst economic condition since the Great Depression. We are just now seeing some signs of recovery and pockets of increased demand. We are now faced with this additional cost, which by the way is not likely to have the same impact on many of our global competitors, who have a far greater percentage of operations outside the U.S.”

[snupy]

You are obviousely trying to make the statement that if we had basic literacy tests that black people would be too dumb to pass them.

Provide a direct quote and post number where I have ever claimed such or I will consider the above claim retracted due to falsehood.

Your last like 5 posts have alluded to the fact that the big opposition to Obama is his race.

I have indeed both suggested and implied there is a racial component to these protests. That neither suggests nor implies the motivations of ALL who protest are racism. Why would I suggest something I KNOW I can not prove, because I freely admit I have no way to measure the motivations of ALL who protest?

Obviousely the racists amongst the tea party don't have any problem with being openly racist in their signs, so why would you claim that they would need to use code words?

The 'n' word, which the use of IS blatant racism, is not politically correct. Black people have been called communists, Marxists and socialists as far back as the civil rights era. We see the same today once a black man ran for the office of president.

The racists make themselves known, but for the most part the tea parties are protesting big government.

I agree, but I refuse to deny the racial component which IS a part of these protests. The party has leaned to the far right, you know, which has ALWAYS been the home of 'white power' and those who believe in and support white supremacy.

Yes and I said, there are racists. They have no problem holding racist signs.

The majority of those signs are not BLATANTLY racist. They are quoting phrases that black people said on television shows, as if that has anything AT ALL to do with a Harvard educated lawyer. The pictures of monkeys or African witch doctors serve the purpose to downplay his education, and make him appear as either an animal or an uneducated and superstitious African.

So to say that they are using codewords like socialist to mean racism

"But if you were to ask most who grow apoplectic at the mere mention of the word "socialism" for the first synonym that came to their mind, redistribution is likely the one they would choose. Surely it would be among their top two or three.

Now, given the almost instinctual connection made between socialism and redistribution, imagine what many white folks would naturally assume when told that this man, this black man, this black man with an African daddy, was a socialist. Even if those using the term didn't intend it to push racial buttons (and that is a decidedly large "if"), the fact remains that for many, it would almost certainly prompt any number of racial fears and insecurities: as in, the black guy is going to take from those who work and give to those who don't. And naturally, we all know (or at least our ill-informed prejudices tell us) who's in the first group and who's in the second one. Thus, the joke making the rounds on the internet, and likely in your workplace, about Obama planning on taxing aspirin "because it's white and it works." Or the guy with the sign at the April teabagger rally, which read, Obama's Plan: White Slavery. Or others who have carried overtly racist signs to frame their message: signs suggesting that Obama hopes to provide care for all brown-skinned illegal immigrants, while simultaneously murdering the white elderly, or that cast the President in decidely simian imagery, and refer to him, crudely but clearly as a monkey. Or Glenn Beck's paranoid screed from late July, which sought to link health care reform, and virtually every single piece of Obama's political agenda to some kind of backdoor reparations scheme. This, coupled with Beck's even more unhinged claim to have discovered a communist/black nationalist conspiracy in the administration's Green Jobs Initiative.

At the end of the day, I am not the one who attended a racist church for 20 years, your boy was.

Oh yeah. It's certainly not easy to understand why a black man in America would EASILY say 'goddamn America,' given the racial history of this country. That's not racist, so much as it reflects the frustrations of living in a society that doesn't view you as equal to others, simply due to the color of your skin. Check the incarceration rates of black men as compared to white men if you doubt there is reason for these frustrations to still exist. And if that doesn't convince you, go back and review the photos posted in this thread and try to imagine how you would feel if were you a black man and a black Harvard educated lawyer running for president was depicted in that manner. It gives the message that even though you might be a Harvard educated lawyer, not all in this society will view you as legitimate as a white Harvard educated lawyer. Goddamn America indeed. No matter how far you go and no matter how much education you have, in the end, some in our society will still view you as an African witch doctor or a monkey eating a banana. I totally understand what that black preacher was saying and why he said what he said, even though I am white.

To play the race card in defence of a person who went to a racist radical anti-white church for 20 years is a big giant FAIL.

Was McCain pictured as a monkey? Was Sarah Palin depicted as an African Witch Doctor? I wonder why they weren't?

[Bigblue1]

Im not touching this one anymore, because the more I read into it, the less of it I understood. I did read that these companies are given money to pay for retirees, (because it was cheaper than medicare), which in the past was untaxed. They will now pay taxes on this money.

This is the thing. People against this are being portrayed as villainous. When most of us believe that people should get healthcare at fair rates. Which truthfully no-one does atm. But their are programs already in Place like all kids, medicare, and medicaid. Nobody is refused treatment in an Emergency room.
But this legislation CANNOT increase care and cost less. Impossible. So just watch where the money comes from. You will see people lose jobs or salary before the corporations or the Insurance Providers who wrote the bill and are owned by the banks ever give up a dime........
Even the most bleeding heart liberal is going to be appalled by this when all is said and done. Assuming they are working Americans as well.

[snupy]

People against this are being portrayed as villainous.

I hope you do not see me as doing that. I DON'T believe those against this for purely political reasons are villainous. I can't take those who are against this for racist reasons seriously.

When most of us believe that people should get healthcare at fair rates. Which truthfully no-one does atm.

Agreed.

But their are programs already in Place like all kids, medicare, and medicaid. Nobody is refused treatment in an Emergency room.

Yet with all of that, 60% of the cases in bankruptcy court are medical bankruptcies. Guess who's paying the bills for running the bankruptcy courts? Not to mention, how can the Americans in bankruptcy court pursue life, liberty and happiness, when one illness destroys your credit for the next ten years? And some of those in medical bankruptcy had their policies rescinded. They had insurance, but the insurance companies didn't care to pay pu when they needed it most.

But this legislation CANNOT increase care and cost less.

So we adjust it or amend it down the road. Our law is not the ten commandments, ground in stone, never to be changed again.

[Roo]

Whew, for about 20 minutes there I was worried you guys had decided to get back to work. Keep it up, this thread is all that is standing between me and absolute boredom! 2 more hours please... thanks