Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It would help if you answered the question. What sources do you want me to post that you would accept since actual data from the Treasury doesn't seem to fit the bill?
It seems like you are only going to believe the sources you want to believe and ignore anything that contradicts your point of view. In addition logic and common sense apparently have no place in the liberal mind. Continuing to reward bad behavior is what you and others always support. It makes no sense with a 17 trillion dollar debt to add more to it by creating another entitlement program that simply gives the govt. more money to waste.
I don't have a list. But surely when you use something inaccurate, you can't expect people to accept it. And when you misread what numbers mean, you can't expect not to be called on it.
No, I accept accurate information. I give you accurate information.
Pennies on the dollar.
How would you know if it is inaccurate as you refuse to even research anything that goes against what you believe. Still waiting for the sources that you would believe? Do you believe the Treasury Dept data? How about CBO numbers? Have you bothered to see what the CBO is now scoring Obamacare? Any idea where the doctors are going to come from to service Obamacare? Why are doctors dropping out of Medicare? Why is it you believe the rosy picture painted by liberals regarding a single payer system? Can you not see this is nothing more than a funding program for other liberal programs? 17 trillion in debt, trillions in unfunded liabilities and that isn't enough for you?
You give me partisan opinion pieces and pass them off as fact. Please tell me how you expect the govt. that has run up a 17 trillion dollar debt, never implemented any social program at the projected costs is going to administer efficiently a program for 312 million Americans?
Libertarian. Never heard of a social contract?
Of course. We have no such contract in the US which contains the idea of govt existing to take peoples money to invest for them. Now if you would like to offer me one, then bring up an amendment.
Of course. We have no such contract in the US which contains the idea of govt existing to take peoples money to invest for them. Now if you would like to offer me one, then bring up an amendment.
Wo says I don't research? I've given you many links over the years, each more accurate than you give and with them being properly interpreted.
No, I haven't. If and when I use an opinion piece, I note it as opinion. But even within the opinion, any facts used have to be accurate before I'll use the opinion.
Federal taxation is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. People just "accept" taxation and judges just keep enforcing taxation because it's how they put food on the table..
Of course states have taxation legislated into their constitutions.. Apparently our federal government believes they're too "fresh" to legislate tax laws into our constitution...
The problem is the taxpayers don't pay debt service on your links, they do on the Treasury data, something you don't understand. What do you think the taxpayers will pay in debt service on a single payer system debt? Think the money for that system grows on trees?
The problem is the taxpayers don't pay debt service on your links, they do on the Treasury data, something you don't understand. What do you think the taxpayers will pay in debt service on a single payer system debt? Think the money for that system grows on trees?
What makes you think this? I can find anything but nutter groups saying this. I mean, Alex Jones?
I have done that for you and others already. You would get back you premiums, not taken out of your check, as well as your employers, in return for a 6% tax increase. For most that would mean more money in their pockets. Employers could even afford to pay more, compete better globally, and over all, we'd have better access. And if you choose to buy more, nothing will stop you.
No one thinks money grows on trees. Y should investigate more.
Really? then prove it...
Show me anywhere in our constitution where taxes are even mentioned.
Why you think our government sold war bonds for? or bonds in general?
I didn't know that it was nutty to be educated.
Really? And you believe that? Premiums have gone up, not down and nothing the govt. has ever done has come in on budget and been efficient. How you can believe your premiums will go down and you get more in your pay check is beyond comprehension based upon history. Where are you going to get the doctors to service all these new people? Why are doctors dropping out of Medicare? Hospitals not accepting Medicare? Higher taxes? Great, more money for the govt. to spend, a true liberal dream. I cannot believe how naive and gullible you are.
Government doesn't set the premiums you're paying. So, they have little to do with what I said.
But yes, if you get a net profit, paying less in one place, you have not been harmed. It's math. If you being home $1000 month . You no longer have to pay your $200 premium. You get say 160 of that on your take home pay. Your boos no longer has to pay the other $400 dollars of it. So he can give another $100 a month (if he wants). You could have an additional 260 in take home pay. Your taxes increase by 6%. I'll say that's $120. You still make more than $140 more than you were making.
Yep, that's bad. :coffeepap
Spending on infrastructure creates jobs; spending on education leads to more people who can then compete in the ever changing world. Both help build a sound nation.
Last I looked, we were in desperate need of an upgraded electrical grid and highways system, high speed trains which compare to those in Asia and Europe, and many more people educated in math and science. You don't think it behooves us as a nation to invest in those things and encourage more kids to learn math and science?
The word can in my quote should read can't, and I don't no how to prove I can't. That's why I asked you where you came to this from. But as the courts have ruled concerning taxes, your question doesn't really answer my question (and I asked first), what leads you to the forth amendment?
Boo, sorry but you are absolutely hopeless, all theory and nothing factual. NO Govt program has ever cost what it was supposed to cost, EVER. Here is a program that hasn't even been implemented yet and already is projected to cost trillions and yet you think it is a good deal? You are a liberal bureaucrats dream
The simple fact you can't prove the government can is telling - because the federal government is not only stealing from people but violating the Fourth Amendment.
Judges are tyrannical - they get paid via taxes - they wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for taxes, just like the alleged "climate change" quacks wouldn't have a job if not for the myth "of global warming."
We call this job security...
Putting food on the table trumps truth any day... There are few people in this world that would choose truth over money...
What is a lawyer without a job? a man/woman living in their parents basement that doesn't even know how to mow a lawn.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?