A great big Kerry lie

[imported_tss4]

Are you as picky about Bush's wording when he gives speaches. We all know that Bush and the Republican party NEVER imbelish the truth at all.

And as for your suggestion that 43 million americans don't have health INSURANCE because they're young and don't want it, you clearly live in a nice cushy suburb somewhere where people aren't scraping by. Go to the projects and tell them they don't have health insurance because they don't want it and see how many people punch you in the face.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Fingolfin269

My wife's employer (a small advertising office) recently did some inquirys about offering health insurancs. The first company they thought they had it worked out with passed out medical questionares. The company backed out of the deal to provide insurance because I had had a heart attack a few years ago. Company they finally found to insure them wants my wife to pay about 2 weeks net salary per month on top of the company premium for the first year (about half of that the second) because of same if she signs up for coverage. I also know of many people who have changed jobs and no longer have coverage for long term or recurring illnesses in family members because it is deemed a "prior, existing condition" by the insurer. And people who are stuck in lousy, dead-end jobs because that's where they happened to be working when a family member developed a such a condition (and don't think employers don't know the leverage they have either).There is also a large number of people in the service industry that do not have insurance offered, or it is so expensive compared to their meager salaries, that it is unattainable. There are people who can't afford to retire (homes and cars paid for) when they want to because insurance costs would drain their savings. There may be a whole world out there that you are unaware of.

I think my point was missed. I understand that there is a % of people who are without health insurance are without coverage through no fault of their own. However, how do we go about determining who is without insurance through their own fault and who is without health insurance simply because they can't get it or can't afford it?

 

[gordy]

Health insurance premiums for an individual are very expensive. Myself and my two daughters was going to cost me $400/mo. in the 2nd year I had my own insurance (when I was self-employed). Had I still been married (my ex is still of child-bearing years), I'd have been looking at another $250-300/mo. in premiums. That's $650-700/mo. or $7800-8400/yr. That's a lot of money!

nor the taxes to pay for healthcare for everyone

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: gordy

Health insurance premiums for an individual are very expensive. Myself and my two daughters was going to cost me $400/mo. in the 2nd year I had my own insurance (when I was self-employed). Had I still been married (my ex is still of child-bearing years), I'd have been looking at another $250-300/mo. in premiums. That's $650-700/mo. or $7800-8400/yr. That's a lot of money!

nor the taxes to pay for healthcare for everyone

What about the taxes?

How about forming a complete sentence?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: gordy

Health insurance premiums for an individual are very expensive. Myself and my two daughters was going to cost me $400/mo. in the 2nd year I had my own insurance (when I was self-employed). Had I still been married (my ex is still of child-bearing years), I'd have been looking at another $250-300/mo. in premiums. That's $650-700/mo. or $7800-8400/yr. That's a lot of money!

nor the taxes to pay for healthcare for everyone

head exploded just!

 

[imported_tss4]

Don't start talking about the taxes being too expensive. Its about priorities. I'd rather my taxes go towards bettering otehr peoples lives as opposed to spending a million dollars a pop to blow up some mud hut in the desert with a cruise missle because we think they're *might* be a bad man in there.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: gordy

Health insurance premiums for an individual are very expensive. Myself and my two daughters was going to cost me $400/mo. in the 2nd year I had my own insurance (when I was self-employed). Had I still been married (my ex is still of child-bearing years), I'd have been looking at another $250-300/mo. in premiums. That's $650-700/mo. or $7800-8400/yr. That's a lot of money!

nor the taxes to pay for healthcare for everyone

What about the taxes?

How about forming a complete sentence?

Oh god! Think of the taxes!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: tss4
Don't start talking about the taxes being too expensive. Its about priorities. I'd rather my taxes go towards bettering otehr peoples lives as opposed to spending a million dollars a pop to blow up some mud hut in the desert with a cruise missle because we think they're *might* be a bad man in there.

Not me. I'd rather not be taxed at all and choose where I want those dollars to go as opposed to letting someone else decide who needs my money more.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: gordy

Health insurance premiums for an individual are very expensive. Myself and my two daughters was going to cost me $400/mo. in the 2nd year I had my own insurance (when I was self-employed). Had I still been married (my ex is still of child-bearing years), I'd have been looking at another $250-300/mo. in premiums. That's $650-700/mo. or $7800-8400/yr. That's a lot of money!

nor the taxes to pay for healthcare for everyone

head exploded just!

:laugh:

That cracked me up!

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: tss4
Don't start talking about the taxes being too expensive. Its about priorities. I'd rather my taxes go towards bettering otehr peoples lives as opposed to spending a million dollars a pop to blow up some mud hut in the desert with a cruise missle because we think they're *might* be a bad man in there.

Not me. I'd rather not be taxed at all and choose where I want those dollars to go as opposed to letting someone else decide who needs my money more.

No society can work that way. You want roads, you pay taxes. You want to not get invaded by Canada, you pay taxes. You will always be letting someone decide how to spend your money. That's the way it is. Even the most basic things you take for granted are provided to you by your taxes. I merely made the point that those taxes I do pay would be better spent taking care of those that have had some tough breaks than on blowing people up in a country that wants us out and never liked us to begin with.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: tss4
Don't start talking about the taxes being too expensive. Its about priorities. I'd rather my taxes go towards bettering otehr peoples lives as opposed to spending a million dollars a pop to blow up some mud hut in the desert with a cruise missle because we think they're *might* be a bad man in there.

Not me. I'd rather not be taxed at all and choose where I want those dollars to go as opposed to letting someone else decide who needs my money more.

No society can work that way. You want roads, you pay taxes. You want to not get invaded by Canada, you pay taxes. You will always be letting someone decide how to spend your money. That's the way it is. Even the most basic things you take for granted are provided to you by your taxes. I merely made the point that those taxes I do pay would be better spent taking care of those that have had some tough breaks than on blowing people up in a country that wants us out and never liked us to begin with.

Yup, I agree with you on spending my tax money on public services such as roads. I have no problem with my money being spent to preserve parks or to fund our military. I do have a problem with my money funding social services that can easily be exploited by those are haven't actually fallen on hard times and who are just trying to take advantage of the system.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Not me. I'd rather not be taxed at all and choose where I want those dollars to go as opposed to letting someone else decide who needs my money more.

Ah yes, the the anarchy alternative to taxes. No salaries for: fire, police, courts, FDA, FCC, OSHA, military, etc.. Would you expect the Army to hold bake sales?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Rip -

Your village misses you.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

Not me. I'd rather not be taxed at all and choose where I want those dollars to go as opposed to letting someone else decide who needs my money more.

Ah yes, the the anarchy alternative to taxes. No salaries for: fire, police, courts, FDA, FCC, OSHA, military, etc.. Would you expect the Army to hold bake sales?

We were obviously talking about social services in this thread.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Fingolfin269

Sorry, I must have misinturpreted your meaning of "no taxes at all". (Your post at 1:19 with caveats was posted while I was writing mine - posted at 1:20)

Yup, I agree with you on spending my tax money on public services such as roads. I have no problem with my money being spent to preserve parks or to fund our military. I do have a problem with my money funding social services that can easily be exploited by those are haven't actually fallen on hard times and who are just trying to take advantage of the system.

So, what would be an acceptable ratio of people in real need vs the cheaters for you to aprove? Could you look a little kid who needs physical theraphy (and can't afford it) in the eye and say "No, you can't have any of my tax dollars because of that guy over there who is lazy and that he might try to get some too."?

And yes, there have been a number of welfare cheats at any given time. But IMHO it is not that they are smart enough to do it, it's the ignorant screeners (often warm bodies hired to meet unmentioned quotas) that let them slip through. Let's reform the screening system too. Let's increase the penalties for supplying false information for qualifacation. So, would a package deal with these improvements work for you?

 

[Baltazar325]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Fingolfin269

Sorry, I must have misinturpreted your meaning of "no taxes at all". (Your post at 1:19 with caveats was posted while I was writing mine - posted at 1:20)

Yup, I agree with you on spending my tax money on public services such as roads. I have no problem with my money being spent to preserve parks or to fund our military. I do have a problem with my money funding social services that can easily be exploited by those are haven't actually fallen on hard times and who are just trying to take advantage of the system.

So, what would be an acceptable ratio of people in real need vs the cheaters for you to aprove? Could you look a little kid who needs physical theraphy (and can't afford it) in the eye and say "No, you can't have any of my tax dollars because of that guy over there who is lazy and that he might try to get some too."?

And yes, there have been a number of welfare cheats at any given time. But IMHO it is not that they are smart enough to do it, it's the ignorant screeners (often warm bodies hired to meet unmentioned quotas) that let them slip through. Let's reform the screening system too. Let's increase the penalties for supplying false information for qualifacation. So, would a package deal with these improvements work for you?

I could easily do that. But then again I have no heart.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Fingolfin269

Sorry, I must have misinturpreted your meaning of "no taxes at all". (Your post at 1:19 with caveats was posted while I was writing mine - posted at 1:20)

Yup, I agree with you on spending my tax money on public services such as roads. I have no problem with my money being spent to preserve parks or to fund our military. I do have a problem with my money funding social services that can easily be exploited by those are haven't actually fallen on hard times and who are just trying to take advantage of the system.

So, what would be an acceptable ratio of people in real need vs the cheaters for you to aprove? Could you look a little kid who needs physical theraphy (and can't afford it) in the eye and say "No, you can't have any of my tax dollars because of that guy over there who is lazy and that he might try to get some too."?

And yes, there have been a number of welfare cheats at any given time. But IMHO it is not that they are smart enough to do it, it's the ignorant screeners (often warm bodies hired to meet unmentioned quotas) that let them slip through. Let's reform the screening system too. Let's increase the penalties for supplying false information for qualifacation. So, would a package deal with these improvements work for you?

Yup, I have no problem supporting the kid from A Christmas Carol if he needs my tax dollars to make do. I have a problem supporting people who could probably make their own way if they weren't so content to live on the welfare check and food stamps our tax dollars provide for them. Now, if the government decided to take more of my tax dollars and use them in order to create a system that greatly reduced the % of abuses then I would definately be all for more money flow to free social services.

Until that time I would rather have those dollars in my own pocket.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Fingolfin269

Sorry, I must have misinturpreted your meaning of "no taxes at all". (Your post at 1:19 with caveats was posted while I was writing mine - posted at 1:20)

Yup, I agree with you on spending my tax money on public services such as roads. I have no problem with my money being spent to preserve parks or to fund our military. I do have a problem with my money funding social services that can easily be exploited by those are haven't actually fallen on hard times and who are just trying to take advantage of the system.

So, what would be an acceptable ratio of people in real need vs the cheaters for you to aprove? Could you look a little kid who needs physical theraphy (and can't afford it) in the eye and say "No, you can't have any of my tax dollars because of that guy over there who is lazy and that he might try to get some too."?

And yes, there have been a number of welfare cheats at any given time. But IMHO it is not that they are smart enough to do it, it's the ignorant screeners (often warm bodies hired to meet unmentioned quotas) that let them slip through. Let's reform the screening system too. Let's increase the penalties for supplying false information for qualifacation. So, would a package deal with these improvements work for you?

Yup, I have no problem supporting the kid from A Christmas Carol if he needs my tax dollars to make do. I have a problem supporting people who could probably make their own way if they weren't so content to live on the welfare check and food stamps our tax dollars provide for them. Now, if the government decided to take more of my tax dollars and use them in order to create a system that greatly reduced the % of abuses then I would definately be all for more money flow to free social services.

Until that time I would rather have those dollars in my own pocket.

There will always be waist. Even in road construction which you approve of, there are wasted roads built purely for pork barrel poltics, but you still want roads. You haven't answered the question, how much does waste and abuse have to be minimized for you to be willing to give money to Tiny Tim?

I don't want my money abused either, but if you use abuse as your escuse to starve kids then we'll never ever be able to have any government expenditures.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Fingolfin269

Sorry, I must have misinturpreted your meaning of "no taxes at all". (Your post at 1:19 with caveats was posted while I was writing mine - posted at 1:20)

Yup, I agree with you on spending my tax money on public services such as roads. I have no problem with my money being spent to preserve parks or to fund our military. I do have a problem with my money funding social services that can easily be exploited by those are haven't actually fallen on hard times and who are just trying to take advantage of the system.

So, what would be an acceptable ratio of people in real need vs the cheaters for you to aprove? Could you look a little kid who needs physical theraphy (and can't afford it) in the eye and say "No, you can't have any of my tax dollars because of that guy over there who is lazy and that he might try to get some too."?

And yes, there have been a number of welfare cheats at any given time. But IMHO it is not that they are smart enough to do it, it's the ignorant screeners (often warm bodies hired to meet unmentioned quotas) that let them slip through. Let's reform the screening system too. Let's increase the penalties for supplying false information for qualifacation. So, would a package deal with these improvements work for you?

Yup, I have no problem supporting the kid from A Christmas Carol if he needs my tax dollars to make do. I have a problem supporting people who could probably make their own way if they weren't so content to live on the welfare check and food stamps our tax dollars provide for them. Now, if the government decided to take more of my tax dollars and use them in order to create a system that greatly reduced the % of abuses then I would definately be all for more money flow to free social services.

Until that time I would rather have those dollars in my own pocket.

There will always be waist. Even in road construction which you approve of, there are wasted roads built purely for pork barrel poltics, but you still want roads. You haven't answered the question, how much does waste and abuse have to be minimized for you to be willing to give money to Tiny Tim?

I don't want my money abused either, but if you use abuse as your escuse to starve kids then we'll never ever be able to have any government expenditures.

And yes, apparently, I can't spell the word "waist"

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Fingolfin269

Sorry, I must have misinturpreted your meaning of "no taxes at all". (Your post at 1:19 with caveats was posted while I was writing mine - posted at 1:20)

Yup, I agree with you on spending my tax money on public services such as roads. I have no problem with my money being spent to preserve parks or to fund our military. I do have a problem with my money funding social services that can easily be exploited by those are haven't actually fallen on hard times and who are just trying to take advantage of the system.

So, what would be an acceptable ratio of people in real need vs the cheaters for you to aprove? Could you look a little kid who needs physical theraphy (and can't afford it) in the eye and say "No, you can't have any of my tax dollars because of that guy over there who is lazy and that he might try to get some too."?

And yes, there have been a number of welfare cheats at any given time. But IMHO it is not that they are smart enough to do it, it's the ignorant screeners (often warm bodies hired to meet unmentioned quotas) that let them slip through. Let's reform the screening system too. Let's increase the penalties for supplying false information for qualifacation. So, would a package deal with these improvements work for you?

Yup, I have no problem supporting the kid from A Christmas Carol if he needs my tax dollars to make do. I have a problem supporting people who could probably make their own way if they weren't so content to live on the welfare check and food stamps our tax dollars provide for them. Now, if the government decided to take more of my tax dollars and use them in order to create a system that greatly reduced the % of abuses then I would definately be all for more money flow to free social services.

Until that time I would rather have those dollars in my own pocket.

There will always be waist. Even in road construction which you approve of, there are wasted roads built purely for pork barrel poltics, but you still want roads. You haven't answered the question, how much does waste and abuse have to be minimized for you to be willing to give money to Tiny Tim?

I don't want my money abused either, but if you use abuse as your escuse to starve kids then we'll never ever be able to have any government expenditures.

And yes, apparently, I can't spell the word "waist"

Oh, give me a break. Stop acting as if what I'm saying is that I want to starve freaking kids. This is why I can't argue with a majority of you because you pull out some random way out in left field statement that has no bearing on anything we're really talking about. Both you and I know that I was not referring to anything of the sort.

 

[imported_tss4]

Fine, that's not what you meant. But, I still you're not addressing the fact there will always be corruption. At what point do you think its worth it?

 

[Baltazar325]

I say let them eat cake!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: tss4
Fine, that's not what you meant. But, I still you're not addressing the fact there will always be corruption. At what point do you think its worth it?

I have no idea how to even answer what you're asking. Are you wanting me to tell you something along the lines of 'If the current corruption is reduced by 85% then I'll be happy!'? I honestly have no idea what to tell you. But, that's the beauty of a republic. I vote for the people who I think are more likely to vote for legislation that most closely fits my ideals of what social programs should be.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: tss4
Fine, that's not what you meant. But, I still you're not addressing the fact there will always be corruption. At what point do you think its worth it?

I have no idea how to even answer what you're asking. Are you wanting me to tell you something along the lines of 'If the current corruption is reduced by 85% then I'll be happy!'? I honestly have no idea what to tell you. But, that's the beauty of a republic. I vote for the people who I think are more likely to vote for legislation that most closely fits my ideals of what social programs should be.

You're right, I wasn't being clear and was rambling too much. My point was simply that... don't use the fact that there are leaches on the welfare system to shut it down. Some people still really need that system. Instead, use those leaches as reason to hold our representatives accountable to the fact the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"A week or so ago, Kerry was braying along before some crowd of enthusiastic Democrats, and told them in appropriately shocked tones that "43 million Americans have no health care." (I happened to hear him on the radio.) He let that awful statistic sink in, then added in righteous wrath that "health care" ought to be the "right" of "every American." The crowd roared its agreement."

I like the way you Libs turn a blind eye to Kerry's lies and deceptions.

43 million Americans lack "Health Insurance". There's a big difference.

43 million Americans lack health care, dimwit, because they can not afford health insurance (or in the case of a small percentage of those 43 million, choose not to spend their money on insurance (gambling)). Lacking health care = lacking health insurance ... it doesn't take a great deal of spin to figure that out. If you can find a flat out lie from Mr Kerry, I'd be happy to examine it, but this is no lie whatsoever, and his cheering democratic hoards know this, even if you are too much of a moron to grasp reality.