I sure hope every Medicare beneficiary in America hears about this. Their kids might be interested too.

"In April, 137 Republicans voted in support of a GOP alternative budget. It didn't generate a lot of attention, but the plan, drafted by the House Budget Committee's Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called for 'replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans.'

Democrats Take Aim At GOP Flip Flops On Medicare

Democrats should sieze this issue and beat Republicans senseless with it.

Beck is a moron.

Beck is a moron.

Yes, but there are others that are more stupid. I saw a "Beck 2012" bumper sticker yesterday.

Yav

I think it would be wise to get far away from that driver as quickly as possible.

After pulling up alongside to see what driver looked like of course. Call it morbid curiosity.

After pulling up alongside to see what driver looked like of course. Call it morbid curiosity.

No, I wouldn't do that. I already had one lunatic pass me on the SIDEWALK, yell at me, give me the finger, cut me off because I have a "Hope" bumper sticker on my truck. I had no idea what was going on. Then I got the "Fuck you, fuck Obama" message loud and clear.

He had tea-party bumper stickers on his truck. I'm sure he'll be adding a "Beck 2012" one, soon.

Some people identify with Beck for the reason they identified with Bush II: the idea that the world would be a better place if they didn't have to control their emotions and could beat the hell out of about three-dozen persons they know. They keep lists.

Who is more stupid, a shill or his dupes?

The stupid person or those who follow the stupid person?

That would be smart, actually. But since we have 30 years of Baby Boomers who've been looking forward to sucking the rest of America dry until they keel over dead, it's not going to happen.

"But since we have 30 years of Baby Boomers who've been looking forward to sucking the rest of America dry until they keel over dead, it's not going to happen."

I actually have to agree with you there, the same generation who wanted tax cuts during war time (our parents would be ashamed of us) now want Medicare to be paid for by the working poor while those same folks have to pay for profit insurance companies for their own health care insurance....not because it makes any sense economically....but because it satisfies their ideological view point which is basicly....greed is good.

Medicare for all is better for the elderly, its better for those still working, its better for the American economy.
Who isn't it good for??? Insurance companies who own Congress.

"Who is more stupid, a shill or his dupes?"

The shill is not necessarily stupid, he may just be evil.

Medicare for all is better for the elderly, its better for those still working,

I'll meet you half way on that and agree that Medicare is better for the elderly.

The rest of working Americans??? you really mean to say could be better or you hope it's better for all Americans.

you really don't know and neither do I.

"The rest of working Americans??? you really mean to say could be better or you hope it's better for all Americans."

That is a pretty weak argument against Medicare Part E. It's like you are somehow hoping that basic logic will be wrong.

I saw a "Beck 2012" bumper sticker yesterday.

*shudder*

Perhaps Geithner could just apply that "leftover" tarp money that doesn't exist, along with what's been paid back and is owed to the deficit and use that to pay off 1% of Medicare's existing unfunded liabilities before we throw 30 million more on the program?

If we go to Part E (please give T. Hartmann credit where its due), are they going to adjust the Medicare allowable rates to market values (+20%) in order to ensure the current levels of service availability?

"Who is more stupid, a shill or his dupes?"

His dupes. Definitely.

In this case he knows exactly what he is doing and how to make money off them in the process.

oh please........

and I thought most of you here who have already posted on this thread were supposed to be so fuckin smart.......

listen to the whole thing again......I have heard him say shit like this before and if you think he is serious idea rather than throwing it out there as something he would go out and campaign for.... that then you arent the people I thought you were....at least sometimes anyway.....
its a part of the debate over what the dems are wanting to do..

oh well......read the posts after it on that site and you will see
birds of your feather and all that...

preposperous

"please give T. Hartmann credit where its due"

Absolutely, my bad.

AFKABL2 tries to defend his idol but unfortunately AFKABL2 will be of Medicare age soon so it does present a dilemna....I'm sure Beck and his asskissingsychophants will try to play it off as a joke....but he didn't say it as a joke.

im not defending anyone...its just that beck and orielly and hannity are targets of left wing lies and distortions all the time and thats always the first thing I think of..

and if dems have their way ..IM ALREADY ELIGIBLE which is just stupid..

CUT half a trillion and ADD millions who are 55-65

only democrats come up with that kind of math

That is a pretty weak argument against Medicare Part E. It's like you are somehow hoping that basic logic will be wrong.

It isn't an argument against it. We just have no way to know how it would work to expand medicare to a completely different pool of insureds than what that pool has in it already. You are focused 100% on the "insurance profit" thing which is what you call "logic".

It is just more complicated than that.

"CUT half a trillion and ADD millions who are 55-65"

They would be paying premiums which would help make Medicare more solvent. We should let all young people do the same thing, it would be cheaper for them and it would make Medicare solvent for the elderly.

If we go to Part E (please give T. Hartmann credit where its due), are they going to adjust the Medicare allowable rates to market values (+20%) in order to ensure the current levels of service availability?

great question.

They would be paying premiums which would help make Medicare more solvent.

So by your logic, any insurance company that simply sells and collects more premium is just automatically more solvent as a result?

are you serious?

90,000 drs have now said otherwise and thats more than are in ama according to a guest on the cavuto show......

and IM not defending him on anything except to the extent that I actually LISTEN to him and not to the people in the staterun media who are out to destroy him.......and this just doesnt come up to the level that you and your radical breathen here THINK you have come up with......
it was part of the debate they were having and I have heard him go off like that on any number of issues but then I LISTEN TO him so I have much more to go on that someone who just mimicks bullshit from nbc or msnbc.........

so try again later......

lets say you are right danni and DONT forget about all of the young punks who think they dont need health care insurance

NOW they will be forced to pay and if they dont.
they could, in the end, be thrown in jail...

maybe they can STILL get the daily show on the prison tv to shape thier next vote....

oh yeah

it was all from CSPAN LAST NIGht....from the senate floor

and there is also the matter brought up by several senators in the senate last night

RURAL hospitals and drs will be FORCED out of medicare because of cuts and less funding which is already so low that thousands of people have trouble finding a dr..
and I know that many of you here dont give a fuck about anyone in rural america but they matter too.

"NOW they will be forced to pay and if they dont.
they could, in the end, be thrown in jail..."

If they don't pay their taxes now they could end up in jail. No difference. They should be forced to buy insurance anyway, we who are insured and we who are taxpayers are stuck with the bill for ER care which the uninsured end up with when they need it....they have to buy car insurance....they should have to carry health insurance also.... but we should make it as inexpensive as possible.

and I know that many of you here dont give a fuck about anyone in rural america but they matter too.

#27 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-12-11 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Most liberals here don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves - they speak a good game, but libs always do. If the opposite were true, why would blacks still feel like victims? Why would the US still have the poor? Social entitlement programs are designed to keep people down and dependant on the nanny state. And also to keep the dem voter base up. Go ahead DANNI - tell me its the repubs that don't give a shit. Right.

It almost always boils down to:
Hand out or
Hand up.

Republicans and people that really care about helping others believe in the first.

Liberals and people that really care about using other peoples money to keep Americans down for generations believe in the latter.

Disagree? Well, please show how giving hand outs since the begining of the country's history has eliminated the poor, uninsured, drop out rates, out of wedlock birthrates.....etc.

The nanny state - liberals working hard to keep you dependant on someone else.

"They would be paying premiums which would help make Medicare more solvent." - Danni

LOL, hardly, it would make it more insolvent. In 2002, it only collected $26Billion in premiums, and spent $256Billion. Adding more people, paying less than it costs will make it more insolvent.

I understand the idea of extending Medicare, and like it from the bureaucracy side. Practically speaking it hardly deals initial reason to "overhaul" healthcare by lowering healthcare costs.

We will be paying more for healthcare as a percentage of GDP in the future and the quality of our care will drop dramatically.

"Well, please show how giving hand outs since the begining of the country's history has eliminated the poor, uninsured, drop out rates, out of wedlock birthrates.....etc."

"We will be paying more for healthcare as a percentage of GDP in the future and the quality of our care will drop dramatically."

I don't think so, I think if health care inflation continues to rise it will destroy the economy and most Americans will be priced out of health insurance which will in turn force the health care industry to reduce their costs. Unfortunately though by the time that happens the economy will be irrevocably destroyed.

"Obviously premium levels would have to be set to make the program solvent."

In the last decade, worker's health costs have risen 4X the inflation rate, while the Medicare rate has increased...zero.

Not exactly rocket science.

actually it is called "actuarial science".

In the last decade, worker's health costs have risen 4X the inflation rate, while the Medicare rate has increased...zero.

so while the costs have been controlled (huge applause for that) they still can't figure out a way to keep it solvent.

I like the business model of medicare but I think it should remain for seniors.

If I were a senior I would be staunchly against extending medicare to working Americans.

"We will be paying more for healthcare as a percentage of GDP in the future and the quality of our care will drop dramatically."

Cluephone: we're going from 6 payers-per-user to less than 3 payers-per-user. Your scenario is tame.

"so while the costs have been controlled "

4X the inflation rate isn't controlled. It's a disaster waiting to happen. Another decade of that will doom us.

"If I were a senior I would be staunchly against extending medicare to working Americans."

OK, so you would want workers to pay Medicare taxes AND health insurance premiums for their own health care. You accept that those premiums going to private health insurers will go to advertising, executive compensation, profits for share holders and that those companies have an interest in denying the claims of policy holders or just refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Therefore, you favor spending more money than it would cost to insure everyone through Medicare which could guarantee no denials of claims nor allow pre-existing conditions to prevent anyone from getting coverage.
Basically you would sacrifice practicality for ideology and unfortunately we just can't afford to ooperate health care to honor any ideology.
We need to make the most pragmatic choices or else our economy will not be able to compete with other nations who do.

The nanny state - liberals working hard to keep you dependant on someone else.

#29 | POSTED BY ELCIDCE90 AT 2009-12-11 12:25 PM

Same old, same old BS from the right. I guess they forgot that the DINO Clinton and the contract ON American congress reformed welfare and bankruptcy for POOR AMERICANS, but not for CORPORATIONS.....

And, I wonder why these repugs did NOTHING about corporate welfare and bankruptcy for corporations while they held all three branches of our govt for 6 years??

Funny how their dupes continue to spew their BS on the msm and blogs, as if repugs actually give a shit about working Americans, poor Americans.....yet continue to FUND corporations with OUR tax money since many, many corps pay little or NO TAX.

GOP=bankruptcy for individuals=BAD..but for corporations=GOOD
welfare for individuals=BAD..but for corporations=GOOD
national debt created by helping poor working folks=BAD
debt created by giving windfall tax breaks to corps=GOOD

and on it goes....

AND they claim to be fiscally conservative,

but reagan/bush41 QUADTRUPLED the national debt in 12 years

and lilaWol DOUBLED it from 5 to 10 TRILLION in 8 years while giving tax breaks to the richest 1%=141,000 people who average $7.4 million a year.....

It would humorous to see how many DUPES still swallow the repug BS, had it not affected EVERY American, eh?

The privatization of medicare and the VA have been disasters for those who need the help AND for the tax payers.....but that seems to be the neocon/repug agenda.....RUIN good govt programs by privatizing them, underfunding them or mismanaging them, then stand back and talk about how govt doesn't work.

"Great job there, brownie...."

eh?

Therefore, you favor spending more money than it would cost to insure everyone through Medicare which could guarantee no denials of claims nor allow pre-existing conditions to prevent anyone from getting coverage.

if I were a senior or more importantly, getting ready to be a senior, yes.

the rest of your rant....all supposition. you are actually suggesting that we increase the exposure (pay for everyting and accept everyone) and somehow, that will lower the total costs.

We have had this debate many times, we end up in the same place. I understand your point with the ideology and theory of applying medicare to everyone.

We need to make the most pragmatic choices or else our economy will not be able to compete with other nations who do.

other nations don't insure the fattest and unhealthiest humans on the planet. This is a factor always ignored when comparing this country to the rest of the world.

and the biggest group (baby boomers) in our history are approaching medicare. they will leave the workforce and bring their obese and sick asses to medicare.

and you think I should swim in that pool and expect it to cost me less?

Well, please show how giving hand outs since the begining of the country's history has eliminated the poor, uninsured, drop out rates, out of wedlock birthrates.....etc.

the goal of these programs is not to eliminate the poor, uninsured, drop out rates out of wedlock births etc, but to allow those people a capacity to live. Poverty etal are part of the human condition. Liberals recognize this and want to help. Conservatives think ignoring it will make the problem go away. Conservative policies favoring the rich create more poor people.

"and you think I should swim in that pool and expect it to cost me less?"

We're all going to be stuck with the cost of Medicare for boomers. Seems to me that we NEED to find the most painless way to do it and I think that would be to put younger healthier people who pay in premiums into Medicare to offset the higher costs of the boomers. I have never read one single argument that convinced me that private health insurance is the most efficient way to go but I have read many arguments that have convinced me the exact opposite.
Seems to me that the whole health care debate is ridiculous when you consider Dennis Kucinish tried and failed to get the CBO to analyse the cost of Medicare Part E (copyright T. Hartmann). It seems to me that it is foolish to go forward without that information.

"The cronyization of medicare and the VA have been disasters for those who need the help AND for the tax payers....."

Medicare to offset the higher costs of the boomers. I have never read one single argument that convinced me that private health insurance is the most efficient way to go but I have read many arguments that have convinced me the exact opposite.

I'm not trying to convince you that the status quo is the most effecient way of anything.

But the fact that you haven't been convinced is not exactly earth shattering news.

It seems to me that it is foolish to go forward without that information.

"foolish"? you are all for it without that information.

now it is "foolish"?

have you seen Danni anywhere? She must have stepped out for a while.....

I have to step out now.....be back in an hour.

"and the biggest group (baby boomers) in our history are approaching medicare. they will leave the workforce and bring their obese and sick asses to medicare."

How about if we tie rates to BMI?

""foolish"? you are all for it without that information."

Only because the information isn't presently available due to the fear by many in Congress that the figures would show how much we could actually save by going to Medicare for all. Their insurance company lobbyist owners don't want that info to be put out for us commoners to see.

Liberals: "We care what Glenn Beck says."

"Liberals: "We care what Glenn Beck says."

Not this liberal, however, I do care that Medicare recipients and their kin know what he says when he says we should abolish Medicare. I think they need to know when a popular commentator says something like that. But hey, that's just me.

#42 | Posted by truthhurts
the goal of these programs is not to eliminate the poor, uninsured, drop out rates out of wedlock births etc, but to allow those people a capacity to live. Poverty etal are part of the human condition. Liberals recognize this and want to help. Conservatives think ignoring it will make the problem go away. Conservative policies favoring the rich create more poor people.
------------------
Your so funny you should go on Saturday Night Live.

Government bureaucracy adds to the cost of living making it harder for the poor to get ahead, not the other way around. Is the cost of living cheaper in California or New York? No

The Non-Defense side of the Federal Government along with the people who get a check from them is a big Democratic voting machine.

That is what Liberals care about.

How about if we tie rates to BMI?

oh, you mean we should underwrite applicants like private insurance companies? what's next, age, gender, medications currently taking, overall health?

don't go sounding like a heartless conservative.

Well technically I'm insured by Medicare because I can't refuse it. It would be awfully foolish to depend on it and SS, because it's only a matter of time before the the federal government defaults. So what's the point of arguing. It's going to abolish itself. But as I've long noted on this site, that message is not sinking in. But it will eventually.

Only because the information isn't presently available due to the fear by many in Congress that the figures would show how much we could actually save by going to Medicare for all.

again, I think it is more complicated than that.

"Well technically I'm insured by Medicare because I can't refuse it."

Baloney. Just go to the doctor and pay the bill yourself. No government agents will come to your house and force you to accept reimbursement.

"again, I think it is more complicated than that."

Quite honestly I don't think it is more complicated than that, I think it is exactly that.

52

Right, Medicare and Social Security have been so insolvent that the repugs have RAIDED the fund repeatedly for the last 30 years to pay for their preferred items=MILITARY EXPENDITURES.

>>>The first major confrontation over Social Security occurred in the early 1980s during the Reagan presidency. Reagan had promised to balance the federal budget. But the budget that he sent to Congress in 1981, because of the heavy expenditure on the military, would have led to record deficits, despite deep cuts in social expenditures. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, decided that the only possibility of avoiding these huge deficits would be to raid Social Security. Rather than state this openly in the budget, however, he included forty billion dollars in "future savings to be identified." As Stockman later admitted, this was nothing but a euphemism for budgetary reductions to be won by "storming the twin citadels of Social Security and Medicare" (Stockman, The Triumph of Politics, p. 124-125). The Reagan administration's frontal assault on Social Security began on May 12, 1981. It included substantial reductions in benefits for those seeking early retirement at age sixty-two, plus cuts in basic benefi ts--altogether forty-five billion dollars in "savings."

Baloney. Just go to the doctor and pay the bill yourself. No government agents will come to your house and force you to accept reimbursement.
#54 | Posted by danni

What? And refuse what was stolen from me? No point in turning down SS for the same reason. By the time you get to the age when you'll really need insurance, it won't be there. Ain't that a shame.

Woke,

do you agree with Danni in that if the CBO were allowed to analyze the impact of offering medicare to all americans that it would reveal that it would be so much better that congress would lose a huge lobby? which is why they are unwilling to do it?

Why would you ever be addressing me Eberly? So you could continue your obvious HATE, eh?

you are a liar who hides under the bed like the crying bitch you are._#102 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 03:26 PM
retard. #97 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 02:44 PM |
you dolt._lying and spineless moron._#83 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:54 PM
spineless bitch you are._#79 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:50 PM
"spinelesswoke"_#77 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:43 PM
more spinelessness from "spinelesswoke"_#76 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:43 PM
spineless woke_#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:41 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
Yeah, but you are a blind, sick, old man. _#66 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:54 AM
spineless twerp _spineless twerp. _STFU._#59 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:11 AM |
cry like a bitch _#47 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 10:26 AM
sheep like Woke
idiots like him
#162 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 05:10 PM
dimwit like Woke.
#81 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:16 AM
poor Woke
simple....stupid.
that is woke.
#170 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-01 10:35 AM

are targets of left wing lies and distortions all the time

Right Wing Victimhood.

Glenn Beck is absolutely insane, certifed. How would all these older people get healthcare for the price they are paying. Our older people are on fixed incomes. Maybe you don't need to worry as you have all the money you will ever need but America, the one you talk out of one side of your mouth need Medicare. People like Beck who talk out of both sides of there mouth need to be silenced. Any ideas you hate mongers?

but tax money to insure working Americans can afford healthcare=BAD.

#56 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-11 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag

Health care is a priveledge.

Otherwise they would have to sit in the office next to a "poor" person.

Can't have that now.

Glenn Beck is absolutely insane

Maybe.

But he is an entertainer more than anything else. Whatever he can say to earn him some $$$$$ he will.

#59

nevermind cockbreath.

Otherwise they would have to sit in the office next to a "poor" person.

Can't have that now.

regardless of what we get, there will still be a market of MDs for folks like me to not have to sit beside folks like you in waiting rooms.

just kidding....

notice the consistency in those posts Woke.

who can argue with the accuracy?

Don't worry about "Beck 2012." Sarah! will never let it happen. herm

Abolishing asinines like Glenn Beck to remote islands would be far more productive than the slime that oozes from his festering gob.

Beck 2012

By 2010, his broadcasts will have reached Nibiru. Their invasion force should be here by 2012.

22 | Posted by eberly at 2009-12-11 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Worried about her Commission Check

Go get a real job, Scarlet.

Democrats should sieze this issue and beat Republicans senseless with it.

#4 | Posted by danni

There's only one thing wrong with your post, Danni-they'd have to HAVE sense before they could be beaten "senseless".....

Good point Frank.

"Right, Medicare and Social Security have been so insolvent that the repugs have RAIDED the fund repeatedly for the last 30 years to pay for their preferred items=MILITARY EXPENDITURES.
"

ok Woke, Who was in charge of Congress during the Reagan years? It is Congress who writes the laws and spends the money. The president gets to make speaches and try to influence Congess but he only gets to either sign a bill into law or veto it. That is it. The Dems were in charge then but you Libshits selectively accept any accountability for anything. Maybe you should go take a spring break trip to DC with your 8th graders class to learn a civics lesson.

That being said Bush and the Republicans are responsible for all the deficit spending and rapid growth of government from 2001-2006. From 2007-2008 Bush and the Dems running Congress can share it. Now it is Obama and his own Dems who are totally responsible for everything.

Don't try to keep sayng shit like Obama inherited it, or Obama is having to spend like this to clean up Bush's mess.

Go get a real job, Scarlet.

thanks for the career advice retard.

I don't worry about the commissions as I don't sell health insurance. Haven't for a few years. even when I did, it only represented 20% of my income and it was a huge pain in the ass.

keep in mind that I have forgotten more about it than you will ever know.

"The president gets to make speaches and try to influence Congess but he only gets to either sign a bill into law or veto it."

Well...except for proposing the budget!

73

Try reading the article I posted at #56, which you are referencing.

Reagan CLAIMED he was going to use those raided funds to BALANCE THE BUDGET. How did that work out? (QUADTRUPLED the national debt)

He LIED, eh?

It's a repug/neocon thing.....

Reaganites love to brag that Reagan built up the military to bring down the USSR (which is a joke) but then don't want him to also take responsibility for the deficits he ran. Can't have it both ways.
BTW...does that star wars thing work yet???
How many billions did that cost before it did????
Which do you think cost the USSR more...our star wars or their war in Afghanistan???

GOP=American working people's tax money used for the richest 1%'s tax breaks, giant global corps paying zero taxes and the pentagon war expenditures=GOOD, but tax money to insure working Americans can afford healthcare=BAD.

#56 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-11 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Forgets almost 40% of American workers pay no income tax

"...almost 40% of American workers pay no income tax..."

I never want to encourage The Friend Of The Fetus, lest he compare me to Mengele or Goebbels, but this one needs explanation. NO income tax but earning? Are they in jail? Or Republican bank tycoons? Link please. herm

"because it's so wildly corrupt and out of control."

- B. Hussein Obama
.

NO income tax but earning?

Their effective tax rate is zero due to current guidelines.......
.

"...almost 40% of American workers pay no income tax..."

What do you expect to happen when wages are stagnant for thirty years???
Bring in some more illegal workers and outsource some more jobs and we can make it 50% How many of those though do you think would prefer to work for a fair wage and pay a fair amount of tax???
The richest 5% has increased their percentage of the wealth and of the income so it only follows that they would also get to pay a higher percentage of the tax.

No income tax -

After standard and "above the line" deductions, their adjusted gross income does not break the "pay the man" level. In other words, these are people working for what they can get instead of parasites simply living off the rest of us.

#56 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-11 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Forgets almost 40% of American workers pay no income tax
#78 | POSTED BY ELCIDCE90 AT 2009-12-11 03:25 PM

Well, we know that the top 1% don't, eh?

BUSH: Because there's two big issues. One is, who's going to keep your taxes low? Most Americans feel overtaxed and I promise you the Democrat [sic] party is going to field a candidate who says I'm going to raise your tax.

If they're going to say, oh, we're only going to tax the rich people, but most people in America understand that the rich people hire good accountants and figure out how not to necessarily pay all the taxes and the middle class gets stuck.

We've had -- we've been through this drill before. We're only going to tax the rich and all you have to do is look at the history of that kind of language and see who gets stuck with the bill.

Does this make any sense at all? Wealthy people hire accountants, so the government should leave their tax rates alone?

As Isaac Chotiner put it, "The Democrats want to raise rates on the wealthiest Americans, but Bush is saying that in fact this will screw the middle class because the rich have ways to avoid paying taxes.

The obvious question is, then, why has Bush spent so much time giving tax cuts to the rich?!?!"

I know something has been trickling down but I'm quite sure it isn't money. It seems to be a yellow colored fluid that smells bad.

A pre emptive strike on the next piece of bullshit with or without a link from the rwrs who love to regurgitate the one liner, bumpersticker mentality rw talking points....

Fact checking the "40% of Americans pay no taxes" bullshit

November 7, 2008
Q:
Do 40 percent of Americans pay no taxes?
A:
About 38 percent of households have zero or negative income tax liability, but they pay other federal taxes.
Towards the end of the campaign, John McCain and prominent conservatives like Lou Dobbs claimed that Barack Obama's proposed tax plan would amount to welfare because it offered a tax credit to the 40 percent of Americans who pay no taxes. We've already looked into the claims that Obama's tax plan is a welfare handout (in short, it's primarily a matter of how you define "welfare," but Obama's plan doesn't look any more like welfare than McCain's). But what about that 40 percent with no tax liability? Can it really be true that more than a third of the country pays no taxes at all?

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, it is true that 38 percent of "tax units" -- which can be singles, couples, or families -- are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. About 60 percent of these households make $20,000 per year or less.

However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you're exempt from federal taxes.

Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck.

There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline.

The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes.

Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes.

-Jess Henig
Sources
Congressional Budget Office. "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2005." Dec. 2007.

Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "Distribution of Tax Units With Zero or Negative Income Tax Liability by Cash Income Level, 2009." 15 Aug. 2008.

So, that leaves 60% of American WORKERS paying the taxes, eh?

Say good-bye to the middle class.

Does anyone actually read all the crap WOKE posts, or does everyone just skip down to the next post?

#86 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-11 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't understand what
'Federal Income Taxes' are
.

"...almost 40% of American workers pay no income tax..." - TheOriginalQuote

"Fact checking the "40% of Americans pay no taxes" bullshit" - TheWokeQuote

"About 38 percent of households have zero or negative income tax liability"

As your link states, the ToOriginalQuote is true..

Woke must have graduated from the University of East Anglia

Does anyone actually read all the crap WOKE posts, or does everyone just skip down to the next post?

I read through his logical and rational posts.....Oh Wait....

Never mind....
.

88
Chooses to just take glen or glenda's word for everything, rather than bothering to do any research to see how he's being duped....

89

Doesn't understand what PAYROLL TAXES are, cannot read the FACT CHECK posted and thinks people making $20K or less a year should shoulder his and other elitist rich folk's tax burden.

Thinks legacies who INHERIT money shouldn't have to pay INCOME taxes on that money though it is new income to them.....

Still thinks giving windfall tax breaks to the rich and giant corps will automatically create jobs.

And thinks that has been money trickling down on him since reagan/bush41/
contractONAmerica/bush43 have been running our economy off a cliff.

And oh, yes,..... will join in on the "attack the messenger" rather than deal with the FACTS presented....cause that is what he does best....

Ooops, too late...already done....

Did anyone hear anything....

90

Didn't bother to read beyond one line.....just another rwr with a short attn span that cannot think beyond one liner bumpersticker rw talking points....

too bad

Note also how NONE of the rw shills bother to react to 66% of US corporations paying no income taxes......but have a problem with those making $20k or less a year getting a tax break.....

That is pathetic, eh?

"Note also how NONE of the rw shills bother to react to 66% of US corporations paying no income taxes......"

They will object to that as sonn as Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity tell them to.
I won't hold my breath.

"Note also how NONE of the rw shills bother to react to 66% of US corporations paying no income taxes......"

I have nothing to do with the right wing, but I can offer some insights.

1. Voters elect the best politicians money can buy.
2. Losses are tax deductible.

But then again, do corporations really pay taxes? Or do they pass them on to their customers? I think the latter. The corporate tax is a hidden sales tax.

But then again, do corporations really pay taxes? Or do they pass them on to their customers? I think the latter. The corporate tax is a hidden sales tax.

#97 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2009-12-11 04:33 PM |

Pass them on to customers....you mean the taxes they DON'T PAY?

Of course the rwrs also seem to forget that working Americans, unlike giant corporations, are HUMAN BEINGS with mouths to feed, healthcare to provide, etc......

And they also seem to forget that our government is supposed to be OF, BY and FOR THE PEOPLE, not the corporations.....

Review this senario:

GM (and other American automakers) decided they didn't like paying union wages and benefits so they began moving their factories to third world countries where they could pay cents on the dollar, not have to worry about environmental or worker protections, etc.....DURING TIMES OF RECORD PROFITS.....

(and they love to bash Michael Moore, who made his bones asking questions about these practices)

My question is this: WHO the fk did they think were going to buy their product? Those third world laborers? The Japanese?

And now, WHO is bailing these giant corps and banks out after nearly 4 decades of neocon repug rule?

Yeah, keep bashing the American working people repugs.....

We will be paying more for healthcare as a percentage of GDP in the future and the quality of our care will drop dramatically."

America's per person medical costs are higher than any country with national health care and the medical outcomes the same. So basically you pay more to ensure HMO's profit margins. baby jesus would approve.

Note also how NONE of the rw shills bother to react to 66% of US corporations paying no income taxes...

Most US corporations are very small, family owned and will never pay any income tax....rather they will just pay themsleves all of it out and pay it personally.

It's not like there all this income out there not being taxed.

It just gets taxed personally rather than through the corporation.

notice when woke shows up the thread gets derailed into a tax code thread.

back on topic...........

per person medical costs are higher than any country with national health care

for profit health care is a significant factor but this factor is HUGE. (no pun intended)

"Most US corporations are very small, family owned and will never pay any income tax....rather they will just pay themsleves all of it out and pay it personally."

But there are also monster corporations that skirt the system. For example, for the five year period between 1996-2000, Enron received a net tax rebate of $381,000,000.00.

Pass them on to customers....you mean the taxes they DON'T PAY?

Woke - You ignored reasons one and two in my post.

Ultimately, people pay ALL taxes.

I'm all for curbing that abuse Danforth.

Raising and lowering rates won't solve that problem. We need criminalize that behavior and enforce it.

easier said than done........

Woke - You ignored reasons one and two in my post.

Ray, we all have our debates...many of which get pretty heated. But at least most of us on both sides have the courtesy to address all points being debated.

Woke has neither the ability nor the integrity to do that.

Most US corporations are very small, family owned and will never pay any income tax....rather they will just pay themsleves all of it out and pay it personally.
It's not like there all this income out there not being taxed.
It just gets taxed personally rather than through the corporation.

#100 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-11 05:07 PM |

Care to see a list of all the US corps who pay no tax sir?

Ah, thanks Danforth!

September 22, 2004

U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes Still Get Tax Breaks

Sept. 22Nearly one-third of the nation's largest and most profitable corporations paid no federal income tax between 2001 and 2003yet still received billions of dollars in tax rebates, according to a new study.

Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years, released Sept. 22 by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, finds 82 of 275 companies CTJ examined enjoyed at least one year in 20012003 in which they paid no federal income taxes yet received billions of dollars in outright tax rebates. In 2003 alone, 46 of the companies paid no federal income taxes and in some cases, received tax rebates.

The companies, all on the Fortune 500 list, were profitable in each of the three years analyzed.

General Electric Co., which lobbies extensively for tax breaks, topped the list of corporate tax-break recipients, receiving nearly $10 billion in tax subsidies over the three-year period, according to the report.

Yeah, all those Fortune 500 companies, like GE, are just little mom and pop corporation who barely break even, eh?

Nothing to see here, move along folks.....says the rw shills....

103

First of all, I wasn't picking on your post or attempting to debunk it at all....I was adding on to it.....but feel free to join those who choose to misinform or attack the messenger instead of the message....doesn't bother me a bit.....

notice when woke shows up the thread gets derailed into a tax code thread.
#101 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-11 05:12 PM

you are a liar who hides under the bed like the crying bitch you are
#102 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 03:26 PM
retard.
#97 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 02:44 PM |
you dolt.
lying and spineless moron.
#83 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:54 PM
spineless bitch you are.
#79 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:50 PM
"spinelesswoke"
#77 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:43 PM
more spinelessness from "spinelesswoke"_#76 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:43 PM
spineless woke
#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:41 PM
Yeah, but you are a blind, sick, old man. _#66 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:54 AM
spineless twerp _spineless twerp. STFU.
#59 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:11 AM |
cry like a bitch
#47 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 10:26 AM
sheep like Woke
idiots like him
#162 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 05:10 PM
dimwit like Woke.
#81 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:16 AM
poor Woke
simple....stupid.
that is woke.
#170 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-01 10:35 AM
nevermind cockbreath.
#64 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-11 02:42 PM

notice when Eberly shows up the thread gets derailed into ad hominem attacking the messenger

General Electric Co., which lobbies extensively for tax breaks, topped the list of corporate tax-break recipients, receiving nearly $10 billion in tax subsidies over the three-year period, according to the report.

Yeah, all those Fortune 500 companies, like GE, are just little mom and pop corporation who barely break even, eh?

I was referring to the actual family owned corporations and they do represent most US corporations. My point is 100% accurate. And as I pointed out, I am for curbing the abuse of offshoring income.

But what GE does is completely legal and your precious dems are free to change it any time they damn well feel like it.

Woke, you can't debate with integrity which is why I post those comments. nobody has a problem with my opinion of you. those posts are accurate and deserved.

now feel free to cry like a bitch some more.

notice when Eberly shows up the thread gets derailed into ad hominem attacking the messenger

only 1

off the Christmas Party.....have a good evening all.

even you woke.

I must be in the Christmas Spirit!!

#56 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-11 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Forgets almost 40% of American workers pay no income tax
#78 | POSTED BY ELCIDCE90 AT 2009-12-11 03:25 PM | Flag: Forgets that a huge percentage of american workers are on Minimum wage

I'd run away too if all I could do was make ad hominem attacks on the messenger.....

Plenty of LARGE corporations making billions also pay no taxes, for instance, in 2005, 28% of LARGE corporations, nearly 1000 corps paid no taxes.

But the repugs have a problem because individuals, (you know PEOPLE-the ones our govt is supposed to be of, by and for) who make less than 20k a year pay few income taxes.....

Uh, must be more money being lost from those working poor than those large corps, eh?

Right, we believe you.....run along now and sip your hot Xmas toddy so your conscience never intrudes......

you are a liar who hides under the bed like the crying bitch you are
#102 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 03:26 PM
retard.
#97 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 02:44 PM |
you dolt.
lying and spineless moron.
#83 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:54 PM
spineless bitch you are.
#79 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:50 PM
"spinelesswoke"
#77 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:43 PM
more spinelessness from "spinelesswoke"_#76 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:43 PM
spineless woke
#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 12:41 PM
Yeah, but you are a blind, sick, old man. _#66 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:54 AM
spineless twerp _spineless twerp. STFU.
#59 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:11 AM |
cry like a bitch
#47 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 10:26 AM
sheep like Woke
idiots like him
#162 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 05:10 PM
dimwit like Woke.
#81 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-11-30 11:16 AM
poor Woke
simple....stupid.
that is woke.
#170 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-01 10:35 AM
nevermind cockbreath.
#64 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-11 02:42 PM have a good evening all.
even you woke.

I must be in the Christmas Spirit!!

#110 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-11 05:48 PM

Sure, enjoy your CHRISTmas party.....I'm sure there are a lot of CHRISTians just like YOU there, eh?

he forgot social security too.

A new report from government economic analysts at the Health and Human Services Department found that the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health care tab won't shrink under the Democratic blueprint that senators are debating. Instead, it would grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing.

More troubling was the report's assessment that the Democrats' plan to squeeze Medicare for $493 billion over 10 years in savings relies on specific policy changes that "may be unrealistic" and could lead to cuts in services. The Medicare savings are expected to cover about half the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year cost of expanding coverage to the uninsured.

And let's not forget that "10-year cost" actually only covers about 7 years of actual medical care. What happens when there's 10 years of medical care that has to be paid for? The Dems are treating their health care supporters like a bunch of rubes, and they're sucking it up, hook, line, and sinker. Blind nitwits.

Glen Beck was caught using vick's vaporub to create tears for his "crying" segment and he still has fans. Unbelievable! How ignorant they must be.

do you agree with Danni in that if the CBO were allowed to analyze the impact of offering medicare to all americans that it would reveal that it would be so much better that congress would lose a huge lobby? which is why they are unwilling to do it?

Almost certainly yes, Eberly. Without a doubt, the lobby would prefer that question never be asked.

So much of the money spent is not spent delivering care. It's spent hiring a HR department at Widgets-R-Us to negotiate the "best" plans for their employees. Hiring lawyers to decide who gets to pay the bills after an accident. Unnecessarily repeated tests because our piecemeal system cannot find a financial instrument with which to fund a Medical Home, or even exchange records between providers.

As an "insider" you must see this, first-hand.

We have great care and a shitty delivery system. We don't actually have system. We have several thousand, yet millions don't receive needed care. The duplication of work is staggering. Price transparency is non-existent. The market does not function.

But it puts millions out of a job if we go to single payer. Even an Internet super-genius like me doesn't know how to fix that. But I suspect the answer is a "strong" public option which eventually diminishes the private insurers to their optional-but-better class of coverage seen in Germany.

Who is more stupid, a shill or his dupes?

The stupid person or those who follow the stupid person?

#10 | Posted by woke

Good questions!

Han Solo: Damn fool, I knew you were going to say that.

Obi-Wan: Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him? ...

The force is strong in Woke's post there!

So little Beckie Blowhard wants to abolish Medicare now?

*facepalm*

On the plus side he's gotta be running outta stupid, illogical, rtarded stuff to say soon cos he's pretty much run the gamut by now.

Spud's an optimist.

Be Well.

"But it puts millions out of a job if we go to single payer."

That is like Eisenhower saying he didn't want to win the war because it would lead to high unemployment in Germany. I don't give a fuck if every last employee of the insurance leeches becomes unemployed, you can't be a part of an evil enterprise without sharing the blame for the evil.
Actually, if Medicare for all were passed you would see an entrepreneurial era of gargantual proportions, millions of Americans remain employees only because of health care benefits, they would much prefer to be self-employed. It would also allow many people who have savings to just retire thereby opening up jobs.
We need real health care reform, single payer, Medicare Part E and our economy is going to struggle until we finally face facts and pass it. It won't be long before no one will listen to the liars on the right because the reality will be hitting us all right in the face.

The corporate tax is a hidden sales tax.

#97 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2009-12-11 04:33 PM |

Or more precisely.... the corporate tax is hidden in the Sale.....

My unemployment contributions have gone up AGAIN this year(just notified by the state).....

Again I'll have to pass them on to the consumer.

The more socialists/communists think they're helping the little guy the worse it gets for him.

#98 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-11 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag: One dumb mf.

You think mom and pop don't have to pass along the cost of doing business to the consumer?

Trust me (I've been a small business since 1998) and the cost of government regulation is by far the largest costs passed on to the consumer.

The corporate tax is a hidden sales tax.

#97 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2009-12-11 04:33 PM |

Or more precisely.... the corporate tax is hidden in the Sale.....

My unemployment contributions have gone up AGAIN this year(just notified by the state).....

Again I'll have to pass them on to the consumer.

Then why not just turn the whole thing around? Eliminate personal income tax, let the government get all that revenue from corporate tax?

It's a zero-sum game, right? You just pass the cost along, but your consumer has more money now so s/he can afford it. What am I missing?

Perhaps a 50/50 split would be more equitable? What do you think the split is now?

"The more socialists/communists think they're helping the little guy the worse it gets for him."

Yeah, unemployed people would be so much better off with no income what so ever. Incidentally, most economists agree, European nations are recovering faster from the recession because of, not inspite of, their social safety net. It seems consumers can't consume without any income, who knew?

Isn't this about the time that some Nut-Sack Republican Tea-bagging Christian Self-retorting Retorter should stand up and scream "Keep Government Hands off my Medicare!!!!!"

Just askin' z'all!

How about we just BAN Glenn Beck?

How about we just BAN Glenn Beck?

I ban him from my life. I'm sure you can do the same.

Beck is rich. He doesn't want to support a program he has no use for. Just a greedy aristocrat. Luckily most people who have money realize 90% of the people do need ss.

Beck's critics are making him very rich. Good job guys.

#21 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-12-11 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Republicans, anytime you guys start to talk about money it's worthless. Your teh biggest partry of excess and worthless spending. It's because republican's have created 90% of our national debt! Hard to argue who created the hole, at least dems have made payments to reduce it, no repubs have!

LM

"Isn't this about the time that some Nut-Sack Republican Tea-bagging Christian Self-retorting Retorter should stand up and scream "Keep Government Hands off my Medicare!!!!!"

Gee, Dump...It hasdn't been the "Republican Tea-bagging Christians" who have done the screaming for so long. For decades the democrats screamed, "If you vote for republicans, they'll take away your Medicare!" Consequently , the elderly always voted heavily democrat. You seem to want to alienate them further...GOOD, I love it!

"But the Democratic Party as a whole cannot afford to ignore a massive defection in the ranks of the elderly, one of its key building blocks. Ever since the New Deal coalition was cobbled together by FDR, the elderly have been a major component. Worried about Republican designs on their Social Security, they vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
But the Obama proposals, which many see correctly as a major cut in Medicare, might be seminal in driving them en masse away from the Democrats.
The Democratic Party is built on six pillars -- blacks, Latinos, single women, young people, union members, and the elderly. If legislation threatens one of those pillars, it threatens the stability of the entire partisan structure. And Obama's health care reform seems to do just that."

Ray I don't listen to him or watch him. I listened to him a few times before he made it really big and didn't care for him. When I heard he was a mormon I knew he was wacky.

122

I can tell your fancy I can tell your plain
You give something up for ev'rything you gain
Since ev'ry pleasure's got an edge of pain
Pay for your ticket and don't complain.

Bob Dylan from Silvio

The Democratic Party is built on six pillars -- blacks, Latinos, single women, young people, union members, and the elderly.

#131 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG AT 2009-12-13 10:02 AM

I don 't see too many majorities for repugs in this voter demographic, do you?

There is no way to roll back this giant too big to fail program--ever.

But it is corrupt and broken and will be broke in 5 years.

It should be seriously tweaked.

"How about we just BAN Glenn Beck?" - MON

Do you want the government to ban him?

Do you want the government to ban him?

Oddly enough, some people who dislike him are so stupid, that is what it will take. I never cease to be amazed at the folks who almost daily say, "Did you hear what Rush said today? Did you hear what Glenn Beck said today? Those guys really suck!" I'm not fond of either one (especially Rush) so I utilize the tuner on my radio. I wonder why other people who dislike certain radio personalities have such a difficult thing doing the same? Has the world dumbed down that much?

Agreed, GOAT.

It sets a very dangerous precedent when government bans a broadcaster.

Who is calling for banning him? He is the equivalent of fred phelps on air, a worthless windbag pos, but one who gets to speak his mind. If there are enough people to merit a tv show then so be it, the rest of you can use a simple tool called the remote, or if you don't have one get off your ars and change the channel.

LM

Eventually Fox will just abolish glenn beck once pretty much everyone realizes what fuckjob he is

"Who is calling for banning him?" - LM (#139)

It was in response to MON's post #126...
How about we just BAN Glenn Beck?
#126 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-12-13 08:24 AM | Reply | Flag: