THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Frank:
"That is true, there never has never been a decrease in health care costs. If you look at it, one of the main reasons it cost so much is because of all the precautions the doctors have to take to keep from getting sued. If the government would put a cap on the cost and also pass tort reform, you would see more get done in the way of lowering the cost. "
Our country is based on the trial by jury system. Why do conservatives (formerly called Republicans) think a jury can't be trusted when it comes to money YET a jury CAN be trusted to try a person and put him to death ?
Life and death, anything but money, is okay in a trial ?
Stupid is as stupid does...Let's put a "cap" on lifetime prison sentences because sometimes a jury gets it wrong.
No tort reform because most of the time a jury gets it right.
Now Frank, you are for capitalism as much as I am right ? And capitalism requires compitition right ? So if we have anti trust laws, why are insurance companies exempt ? In other words, if insurance companies played by the rules (anti trust laws) the costs would come down. The effect would be greater than tort reform.
Now let us consider how much the health insurance industry spends on lobbying. Perhaps if the health insurance industry spent more than 70% on actual medical care, the costs would come down.
BTW Obama has just announced that the insurance company will have to actually spend 80% to 85% of their income on actual medical care.
The following "paste" is for Frank's ongoing education:
Beginning next year, health insurers will have to follow a new set of rules that details how much money they must spend on patients' medical care, according to guidelines the Obama administration released Monday.
The rules are part of the health care reform law, which mandates that insurers spend a minimum of 85 percent of the premiums that they take in on patient care rather than administrative costs or profit (insurers who sell to small groups and individuals will have to spend a minimum of 80 percent).
Companies that spend less than that will be required to issue rebates to their customers beginning in 2012 -- the administration estimates that up to 9 million Americans could be eligible for rebates that year, worth up to $1.4 billion total.
"That is true, there never has never been a decrease in health care costs. If you look at it, one of the main reasons it cost so much is because of all the precautions the doctors have to take to keep from getting sued. If the government would put a cap on the cost and also pass tort reform, you would see more get done in the way of lowering the cost. "
Our country is based on the trial by jury system. Why do conservatives (formerly called Republicans) think a jury can't be trusted when it comes to money YET a jury CAN be trusted to try a person and put him to death ?
Life and death, anything but money, is okay in a trial ?
Stupid is as stupid does...Let's put a "cap" on lifetime prison sentences because sometimes a jury gets it wrong.
No tort reform because most of the time a jury gets it right.
Now Frank, you are for capitalism as much as I am right ? And capitalism requires compitition right ? So if we have anti trust laws, why are insurance companies exempt ? In other words, if insurance companies played by the rules (anti trust laws) the costs would come down. The effect would be greater than tort reform.
Now let us consider how much the health insurance industry spends on lobbying. Perhaps if the health insurance industry spent more than 70% on actual medical care, the costs would come down.
BTW Obama has just announced that the insurance company will have to actually spend 80% to 85% of their income on actual medical care.
The following "paste" is for Frank's ongoing education:
Beginning next year, health insurers will have to follow a new set of rules that details how much money they must spend on patients' medical care, according to guidelines the Obama administration released Monday.
The rules are part of the health care reform law, which mandates that insurers spend a minimum of 85 percent of the premiums that they take in on patient care rather than administrative costs or profit (insurers who sell to small groups and individuals will have to spend a minimum of 80 percent).
Companies that spend less than that will be required to issue rebates to their customers beginning in 2012 -- the administration estimates that up to 9 million Americans could be eligible for rebates that year, worth up to $1.4 billion total.
Frank. A judge struck down the law. It was never implimented. Now what do you say ?f.sciarrillo wrote:This is complete and utter BS. If that is the case then it is because of the bill that Arizona passed. You know that one that Obama sued over because he was going to lose the votes?Hawk wrote:Frank, why is it, that in all of your political knowlege, you never address this issue?
Hawk:
"Obama has deported more illegals in two years than Bush did in Eight years. Obama must be the conservative and Bush the liberal ? It is the people who hire the illegals that keep them coming. Now tell me why the Republicans are against punishing the people who hire (support) the illegals. Why are the Republicans against the "cards" Obama proposed to prove who is legal so that ONLY the legal aliens get hired ? "
My friend was home from Phoenix Arizona and we were hanging out last night. He was quoting me some Arizona State statistics of jobs lost in various fields from construction and other markets because of the hiring of illegal aliens.
He is so pissed off that the people doing the hiring do not get punished for doing the hiring of illegals. Why are the Republicans AGAINST stopping this practice ?
So Obama would have had nothing to do with it deporting more illegal immigrants. You should ask your friend why there was such a rage from the liberals about passing that bill? It increased the deportation, so the illegals shouldn't being stealing his job anymore. Even you were pissed at that, mostly for the same reason that Obama was - Your boy would lose votes ..
Considering that his approval is 39%, he already lost more than the votes.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1924
I have a question: Did you vote during the mid terms?
I was against the law because it allowed for racial profiling.
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Frank, explain this please .
Another "paste" in my ongoing attempt to educate Frank:
Reuters) - President Barack Obama asked Congress to approve a record $708 billion in defense spending for fiscal 2011, but vowed to continue his drive to eliminate unnecessary, wasteful weapons programs.
The budget calls for a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon's base budget to $549 billion, plus $159 billion to fund U.S. military missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Obama's spending freeze on other parts of the budget, designed to rein in the deficit, did not apply to the military.
"Even though the Department of Defense is exempt from the budget freeze, it's not exempt from budget common sense," Obama told reporters at the White House.
He said the fiscal 2011 budget proposal included cuts of "unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe," including annual spending of $2.5 billion for C-17 transport planes built by Boeing Co that has been added to the federal budget by Congress in each of the past four years.
Another "paste" in my ongoing attempt to educate Frank:
Reuters) - President Barack Obama asked Congress to approve a record $708 billion in defense spending for fiscal 2011, but vowed to continue his drive to eliminate unnecessary, wasteful weapons programs.
The budget calls for a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon's base budget to $549 billion, plus $159 billion to fund U.S. military missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Obama's spending freeze on other parts of the budget, designed to rein in the deficit, did not apply to the military.
"Even though the Department of Defense is exempt from the budget freeze, it's not exempt from budget common sense," Obama told reporters at the White House.
He said the fiscal 2011 budget proposal included cuts of "unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe," including annual spending of $2.5 billion for C-17 transport planes built by Boeing Co that has been added to the federal budget by Congress in each of the past four years.
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
If they pay less, and the spending does not decrease in an equal amount, the deficit is increased. That is how it worked for under the Bush administration. Do you get it yet ? Obama still has to deal with those cuts.f.sciarrillo wrote:Bill, did you vote this time?
You are getting that from Olbermann. There is nothing that states that to be fact. At least that I could find, and I looked. And I don't consider someone making 250,000.00 a year as wealthy- They are upper middle class.Hawk wrote:Bill, Where does it say that not lowering taxes to the wealthy will add to the deficit?
Frank, do I need my 5 year old grandson to give you a math lesson ?
Our deficit would be ONE TRILLION LESS if the cuts were never enacted.
In fact, while I looked, the only places I found that to be a statement was on partisan liberal sites.
Frank, I don't watch Olberman or any other TV politics. Now I know you repeat the lie because that is the Republican way, I get it Frank.
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Frank:
The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) says that extending tax-cuts to the top 2% will increase the deficit by over $700 billion over 10 years. That's because they make 50% of the money. Extending the cuts is like giving each millionaire a gov't check for $11000 (per million they make).
Cutting the military budget will help strengthen our defense because Osama Bin Douchebag doesn't have a standing arsenal of nukes, and Al Qaeda is still the #1 threat. Know what would help our troops' morale? Bringing them home from wars that didn't work.
Re: The president's paycheck and travel expenses... minimal. The prez makes $400,000 per year (less than one percent of Rush's yearly income of $52 million) and the recent trip costed less than $10 million per day, not the laughable $200 million per day the wingnut media was lying about.
Re: Healthcare (again)... nobody has been forced into a govt healthcare plan. Mine is exactly the same (well, it's more expensive now, because there was no control placed on how much insurance co's could bilk you for). We could always elect to keep our current coverage, the ins-co's still make lots and lots of money. Still a very highly paid profession, health-insurance executive is.
Re: 20% of welfare recipients use drugs... 20% of everybody uses drugs. Even high-paid execs who sit on the boards of many companies (each a part-time job that requires almost no work). Even people who sit on their asses wagering other people's money for their own profit. Even people whose rich daddy gave them jobs doing nothing. ESPECIALLY those folks use drugs.
Also, welfare is not the reason illegal immigration is high. It's high because US companies hire illegals. If they didn't, illegal immigration would consist of a few young dudes muling weed, and unwed mothers looking for a handout. We have lots of those folks born here, too.
Re: Fair Tax... it'll never work. The rich will still find loopholes the rest of us can't afford. They'll simply have the things they buy for personal use factored into their income, which will be untaxable. Give the CEO a company Benz, a company yacht, a company villa in the Riviera, have him pay a dollar a year on a company mansion in West Palm Beach. There's no such thing as a fair tax, like there's no such thing as a free market.
The problem with conservatism in 2010 is that, as the rightwing media ratchets up the rhetoric, it's already been so whacked-out for so long that people are starting to recognize how it works. Divide with hyperbole and misinformation, deepen that division with nonstop opinion-based 24-hour talk, play upon nationalism and self-righteous class-warfare, then watch as the fringe seethes and bubbles. Really, while the GOP became nope-fiends over the last 2 years, what did THEY ACCOMPLISH? Take your eyes off Big Bad O for a second, and ask yourself what successful ideas have been implemented by the Right? What could 40% of Americans do in 2 years, and what has 40% of Congress done? They could have done a lot, but instead, they joined hands and said, "No." How has it helped?--->JMS
The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) says that extending tax-cuts to the top 2% will increase the deficit by over $700 billion over 10 years. That's because they make 50% of the money. Extending the cuts is like giving each millionaire a gov't check for $11000 (per million they make).
Cutting the military budget will help strengthen our defense because Osama Bin Douchebag doesn't have a standing arsenal of nukes, and Al Qaeda is still the #1 threat. Know what would help our troops' morale? Bringing them home from wars that didn't work.
Re: The president's paycheck and travel expenses... minimal. The prez makes $400,000 per year (less than one percent of Rush's yearly income of $52 million) and the recent trip costed less than $10 million per day, not the laughable $200 million per day the wingnut media was lying about.
Re: Healthcare (again)... nobody has been forced into a govt healthcare plan. Mine is exactly the same (well, it's more expensive now, because there was no control placed on how much insurance co's could bilk you for). We could always elect to keep our current coverage, the ins-co's still make lots and lots of money. Still a very highly paid profession, health-insurance executive is.
Re: 20% of welfare recipients use drugs... 20% of everybody uses drugs. Even high-paid execs who sit on the boards of many companies (each a part-time job that requires almost no work). Even people who sit on their asses wagering other people's money for their own profit. Even people whose rich daddy gave them jobs doing nothing. ESPECIALLY those folks use drugs.
Also, welfare is not the reason illegal immigration is high. It's high because US companies hire illegals. If they didn't, illegal immigration would consist of a few young dudes muling weed, and unwed mothers looking for a handout. We have lots of those folks born here, too.
Re: Fair Tax... it'll never work. The rich will still find loopholes the rest of us can't afford. They'll simply have the things they buy for personal use factored into their income, which will be untaxable. Give the CEO a company Benz, a company yacht, a company villa in the Riviera, have him pay a dollar a year on a company mansion in West Palm Beach. There's no such thing as a fair tax, like there's no such thing as a free market.
The problem with conservatism in 2010 is that, as the rightwing media ratchets up the rhetoric, it's already been so whacked-out for so long that people are starting to recognize how it works. Divide with hyperbole and misinformation, deepen that division with nonstop opinion-based 24-hour talk, play upon nationalism and self-righteous class-warfare, then watch as the fringe seethes and bubbles. Really, while the GOP became nope-fiends over the last 2 years, what did THEY ACCOMPLISH? Take your eyes off Big Bad O for a second, and ask yourself what successful ideas have been implemented by the Right? What could 40% of Americans do in 2 years, and what has 40% of Congress done? They could have done a lot, but instead, they joined hands and said, "No." How has it helped?--->JMS
They have been paying less Frank. That's why they're called tax "cuts" . Bush created them. Bush set them up so they would go back to where they were.f.sciarrillo wrote:They won't be paying less. They will pay what they are now, it just won't increase. Do you get that yet? I already said that I agree with a max of 40% for anyone making 1 million or more a year. Anyone below that shouldn't get any increase at all all.Hawk wrote:If they pay less, and the spending does not decrease in an equal amount, the deficit is increased. That is how it worked for under the Bush administration. Do you get it yet ? Obama still has to deal with those cuts.f.sciarrillo wrote:Bill, did you vote this time?
You are getting that from Olbermann. There is nothing that states that to be fact. At least that I could find, and I looked. And I don't consider someone making 250,000.00 a year as wealthy- They are upper middle class.
In fact, while I looked, the only places I found that to be a statement was on partisan liberal sites.
Frank, I don't watch Olberman or any other TV politics. Now I know you repeat the lie because that is the Republican way, I get it Frank.
Frank: :Obama wants to cut military spending." Yet when confronted with the truth he makes an attempt to deny it. Then makes an attempt to blow it off.f.sciarrillo wrote:You know, you fit the libral perfectly. Continuing to say that you are educating me. You liberals all think that you know everything. You only know what that others tell you.
Good play there - You are following the playbook perfectly
And just because Obama requested it doesn't mean it will pass.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11 ... ther-then/
I know a lot of people in the military who aren't getting their annual raise because of the cuts !
If they want to cut things, it should be the Pres Pay, The Pres Travel expenses, congressional pay, senate pay, and also the government should stop funding public entities that can be private, like NPR for example.
They should also Cut welfare, and government entities that can be privatized. In fact when a company has to start saving they lay off. I think the government should have a lay off. One of the biggest in history. You will see things come together then ..
You just can't deal with facts. You always fail to discuss the truth when confronted with it. You prefer to be comforted by the right wing lies. I pray to God (literally) that people like you will actually deal with facts instead of propaganda. And you are stupid Frank. You choose propaganda over truth every time. Go ahead Frank, call me a liberal because I deal in truth and facts. Tell me how you win. Dear God, please lift the wool from over their eyes.
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
This link does NOT back up your statement. Nor does it have anythiong to do with Obama.f.sciarrillo wrote:http://www.military.com/news/article/pr ... tories.RSSHawk wrote:Frank:
I know a lot of people in the military who aren't getting their annual raise because of the cuts !
Please back up your statement or I will call you on another lie. As I understand it the pay increases were frozen...at 2+%!
Did you read your own link ? God, please wake up Frank. Your link says a panel recommended a freeze next year. That's it ?
So again. back up your statement ! Or did you lie again ?
Frank:
"They see it and they state it, the left wing then has to tuck and run because they know they are full of shit. "
You just described exactly what you do everytime I present you with the truth. You run and hide behind some lie, or parrot some right wing rhetoric. You even make up the damned lies yourself.
"They see it and they state it, the left wing then has to tuck and run because they know they are full of shit. "
You just described exactly what you do everytime I present you with the truth. You run and hide behind some lie, or parrot some right wing rhetoric. You even make up the damned lies yourself.
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Frank, you are a fucking liar. You cannot back up your lie about pay raises. As long as you make shit up, you are no better than that which you make up. So as usual, you make a feeble attempt at calling my facts "spin" ?f.sciarrillo wrote:Once again you take something and completely spin it around. And call it a lie because you can't see past obama's ass shine - Good showHawk wrote:This link does NOT back up your statement. Nor does it have anything to do with Obama.f.sciarrillo wrote: http://www.military.com/news/article/pr ... tories.RSS
Did you read your own link ? God, please wake up Frank. Your link says a panel recommended a freeze next year. That's it ?
So again. back up your statement ! Or did you lie again ?
Just admit it Bill, you agree with everything that barry says and anything you see or hear will be a mute point because he is the light that shows your way.
Let me ask this for the third time: Did you vote for the mid terms?
Where is the spin Frank ? You lied and I called you on it and you call it a "spin" ? Typical right wing crap.
What gets me is you are not embarrassed by it. And remember, this is not the first time I caught you in a lie. As long as you spew crap, I will be here to debunk your crap.
Last edited by Hawk on Sunday Nov 28, 2010, edited 1 time in total.
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Of course I voted.f.sciarrillo wrote:Actually, I find it funny because you are trying to make your spin seem true and I'm not falling for it. For now on when you get a statement, i want links to said statement , as I know a lot of what you are getting is from left wing pundit shit sites.Hawk wrote:Frank, you are a fucking liar. You cannot back up your lie about pay raises. As long as you make shit up, you are no better than that which you make up. So as usual, you make a feeble attempt at calling my facts "spin" ?f.sciarrillo wrote: Once again you take something and completely spin it around. And call it a lie because you can't see past obama's ass shine - Good show
Just admit it Bill, you agree with everything that barry says and anything you see or hear will be a mute point because he is the light that shows your way.
Let me ask this for the third time: Did you vote for the mid terms?
Where is the spin Frank ? You lied and I called you on it and you call it a "spin" ? Typical right wing crap.
What gets me is you are not embarrassed by it.
Now for a fourth time - Did you vote during the mid terms ..
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
How many links do you want ?f.sciarrillo wrote:
Actually, I find it funny because you are trying to make your spin seem true and I'm not falling for it. For now on when you get a statement, i want links to said statement , as I know a lot of what you are getting is from left wing pundit shit sites.
Now for a fourth time - Did you vote during the mid terms ..
http://www.militaryhub.com/article.cfm?id=254
On September 14, 2010, the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee approved $680.9 billion in a defense spending bill that only allowed for a 1.4% pay raise for fiscal year 2011. It is not a surprise the senate maintains the President's initial proposal because previously, Senator Webb (D-VA), made his opinion known that the raise for 2011 should remain at President Obama's proposal of 1.4%, and that any additional compensation for service members should come via special pays and, if needed, more recruiting incentives. Members of the House remain committed to the 1.9%, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) stated on June 8th that he was "interested in what the Senate has in store."
It was on February 1, 2010, that President Obama proposed a 1.4% increase for 2011 - based on the ECI number.
http://www.stripes.com/news/1-9-percent ... 1-1.102011
In 2010 it was at 3+%
http://www.navycs.com/2010-military-pay-chart.html
I can find many more if you like. I find these links credible.
Now I challenge you to apologize for making up lies.
Last edited by Hawk on Sunday Nov 28, 2010, edited 1 time in total.
Another lie ? I don't remember saying I wouldn't vote.f.sciarrillo wrote:O.k. You were saying that you weren't going to ..Hawk wrote:Of course I voted.f.sciarrillo wrote:
Now for a fourth time - Did you vote during the mid terms ..
What pisses me off is the supreme court ruling relative to corporate spending on campaigns for politicians. That's why I stopped watching TV politics.
We now have a cooperate sponsored government. It sucks, but it won't stop me from voting.
I get most of my information from Rush Limbaugh.