What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

ObamaRama 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: ObamaRama 8

straight from my inbox....

the "scary email receipt of the day":eek: :eek:


You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .


Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.


Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".


Ready? Now pay attention...


Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.


Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.


Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.


Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.


Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.


Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.


Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.


Joe Legal may need to work overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.


Jose Illegal doesn't.


Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.


Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.


Do you get it, now?


If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens...


You are part of the problem!


Isn't it about time we insist that our government stop this stupidity and take a stand for America and Americans!
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Looks like Joe Legal needs to learn how to budget his money better. He's spending 7000+ for medical/dental insurance a year, then an extra 2400 for some undefined insurance, likely vehicle insurance, which still means close to 10,000 just for insurance, which is ****ing ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Re: ObamaRama 8

walrus said:
IF all these things are wrong why are they passing the bill?
Click to expand...


ask the conservatives and moderates, who have managed to strip most everything good from it, because they stand for principles, like fiscal conservatism, and less government involvement, and no socialism.

There are still a few good things in it, but it's a much weaker bill than it should be, and I'd rather they not pass it, and start all over and ram it straight through with the public option and the medicare opt-in, and let the conservatives filibuster it to the end of days.

But that's crazy commie socialist talk, and totally not in the spirit of bipartisanship.

And Patman, you big sissy, tell me where it's wrong, instead of just stringing together some pansy-*** ad hominum attack. Argue the facts, partisan-boy, and spare us the rhetoric.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Foxton said:
Looks like Joe Legal needs to learn how to budget his money better. He's spending 7000+ for medical/dental insurance a year, then an extra 2400 for some undefined insurance, likely vehicle insurance, which still means close to 10,000 just for insurance, which is ****ing ridiculous.
Click to expand...

i'd guess in addition to auto insurance, he always carries life for him and his wife. and renters insurance for his property in the apartment.

rounded up, of course ;)
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

rufus said:
And Patman, you big sissy, tell me where it's wrong, instead of just stringing together some pansy-*** ad hominum attack. Argue the facts, partisan-boy, and spare us the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Here's a fact: It's going to be law that you must have health insurance, but not mandatory that you have a job. Tell me how that's OK.

And on top of that, there's no provision that the number of doctors/health care providers will be increased, so how will the *supposed* 40MM+ new health care customers be treated?

See, the simple matter that has yet to be addressed is the complete lack of common sense in this bill.

And it is unconstitutional.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Patman - I don't know if Obama is the most deceitful individual but he certainly is playing in the most deceitful time. Very few want the truth, very few want to admit they, or their party, could be wrong on something or at least can't admit that if it meant losing to the other guys and risking loss of control on something they value more.

It is set up perfectly to produce a series of presidents that cannot live up to the rhetoric of the campaign. It might actually be impossible. The way to win an election is to demonize your opponent, demonize their party, demonze their facts, while simultaneously piecing together a story that isn't a lie but certainly isn't likely to happen.
Any aspect of the other side that may be accurate - spend time and money finding ways to marginalize or distract. Any part of your side that is good - take the stretch numbers or go from "likely" to "promise".

Remember, there are 3 sides to every story...anybody that believes only one side is deluding themselves...sometimes that side will be closer to the truth sometimes further...the harder people work to deny the other side, the lesser the likelihood that the 'truth' will ever see the light of day.

It's the same as two of your kids coming to tell you how the lamp got broken or two of your employees coming to tell you who screwed up the project...if you are predisposed to listen and believe only one side you're likely to be wrong 50% of the time, will hurt your credibility and essentially tell both of them that the story is what counts, not the truth - naturally the stories will become more emotional, less fact based and inevitably will go from "here is my story" to "here is why the other side is lying".

The public is like a parent being interupted, they want to hear about the lamp, but for about 30 seconds and they want to make a decision that allows them to get back to watching DTWS, Idol or whatever mindless drivel is the popular event of the season. And while the 'winning' kid will be smug and stick their tongue out at the other (your party is irrelevant) two things are inevitable, retribution and a bigger lie next time.

That is why some just chuckle at the "obviously we're right, we won the election" nonsense that we see after every contest. So many equate winning with being right that the end justifies the means and deceit is a major factor in the election.

Rinse and repeat.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Plante26 said:
Here's a fact: It's going to be law that you must have health insurance, but not mandatory that you have a job. Tell me how that's OK.

And on top of that, there's no provision that the number of doctors/health care providers will be increased, so how will the *supposed* 40MM+ new health care customers be treated?

See, the simple matter that has yet to be addressed is the complete lack of common sense in this bill.

And it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

One: How is it unconstitutional?

Two: As you would have noticed if you had read and comprehended what I wrote, I don't like the mandates, unless there's some kind of public option to go along with them to keep costs down.

Three: Last I knew, there was no shortage of people going into medical school to become doctors. Bernie Sanders of Vermont just introduced a measure to increase funding for community health centers and increase the numbers of health care professionals to take care of these patients.
http://sanders.senate.gov/legislation/issue/?id=a5823331-b1c8-46a1-864f-a5986cf82a9b

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=30B2A415-4ADE-4367-AF7D-4C3306E31B58

State and local level, you should be a big fan of that. But, Sanders is a communist, and this is just another step in government takeover of the healthcare system, so we can't have this, can we?
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Saw this on the news, Health insurance company stocks have never been higher in value than they were on Friday.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

30 million new customers will do that for you. Your free market at work.

But we can't have a public option, oh no. That would be socialism.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

rufus said:
30 million new customers will do that for you. Your free market at work.

But we can't have a public option, oh no. That would be socialism.
Click to expand...

Aren't the 30 million new customers a result of the bill? not sure how thats free market
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Here's what I find interesting. Can any righty name me any GOP sponsored bill that was enacted into law that actually cut the deficit? Because the two meant to do so, this health care bill (1.4T over the next 20 years) and the Clinton deficit reduction bill in 1993, both passed only with Dem votes. And much like the '93 effort, the same knuckledraggers were out saying "it'll never work".

Seems if you want the debt reduced, there's only one thing to do. Vote Democratic.

:D

Reminder - I don't want a listing of Ron Paul proposals that went nowhere. I want a list of GOP sponsored bills enacted into law that reducted the deficit.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Rover said:
Here's what I find interesting. Can any righty name me any GOP sponsored bill that was enacted into law that actually cut the deficit? Because the two meant to do so, this health care bill (1.4T over the next 20 years) and ....
Click to expand...

WAIT A MINUTE?!?!!?

i thought this was a bill to get universal health coverage??

now you are telling me that this is a bill meant to cut the deficit?!?!? (with a little health care tossed in??:p ;) ) :confused: :confused:



:D
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Rover said:
Here's what I find interesting. Can any righty name me any GOP sponsored bill that was enacted into law that actually cut the deficit? Because the two meant to do so, this health care bill (1.4T over the next 20 years) and the Clinton deficit reduction bill in 1993, both passed only with Dem votes. And much like the '93 effort, the same knuckledraggers were out saying "it'll never work".

Seems if you want the debt reduced, there's only one thing to do. Vote Democratic.

:D

Reminder - I don't want a listing of Ron Paul proposals that went nowhere. I want a list of GOP sponsored bills enacted into law that reducted the deficit.
Click to expand...

Since you enjoy bashing posters on this board who disagree with you (heh, insert stalinist statist joke here:))

a. remember the balanced budget amendment that liberals shot down?

b. the healthcare bill is almost $1trillion and you know they always underestimate this because it's impossible to predict how much $ this will cost because they always look at papers and not practice

c. since you're on board with socialist health care, and let's not say socialist in this sense is meant to degrade your point, it is what it is, public option = collectivist/socialist form of gov't......fine, you have your way, I'll have mine, but what government entities performance has led you to believe that in any fashion this will work? the post office? been to the DMV lately? imagine all the new healthcare workers paid by government...imagine their......in incentives....if we feel like sheep or #'s now, just wait.

d. I've brought this up previously but for the sake of this argument I'll mention again. 1/2 my family is Cuban, mom escaped in 1965. if the aim of liberals is to get what they have in Cuba, you can take it. Try it out. see why over 1/10 of that country lives here now.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

rufus said:
One: How is it unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Instead of trying to prove a negative, (since any power not explicitly stated in the constitution belongs to the states) here's a better idea. How about you show us all where in the constitution this bill is allowed.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Ummm, Congress passes laws? Jesus.

Show me where the FAA is allowed in the Constitution.

And how is it trying to prove a negative that it's unconstitutional? If it's as blatantly unconstitutional as Plante says, it should be easy to demonstrate how.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top