First call to impeach Obama, depending on what he does...

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The entire concept of getting federal tax dollars = living off of them is stupid anyway. Federal tax dollars are used for highways, bridges, maintaining federal land and military bases, federal prisons, etc. How these things add up to people living off of another state is beyond me.

You forgot entitlements Chuck...Didnt you?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You forgot entitlements Chuck...Didnt you?

Since red states have less people than blue states wouldnt the amount of entitlement money of federal tax dollars as a % be higher in Blue states? Meaning that the large in size but less populated states like Utah, Nevada, Montana, etc are getting a far greater % of their federal tax dollars for non-entitlement programs? CA alone gets more entitlement money than any 10 red states combined.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Since red states have less people than blue states wouldnt the amount of entitlement money of federal tax dollars as a % be higher in Blue states? Meaning that the large in size but less populated states like Utah, Nevada, Montana, etc are getting a far greater % of their federal tax dollars for non-entitlement programs? CA alone gets more entitlement money than any 10 red states combined.

Chuck spinning! I like it.

California PAYS a lot more in taxes. The amount it receives per dollar contributed is still much lower . That was the original point that Genuine Risk made that you were disputing. You then tried to say that federal spending merely entailed roads, prisons, etc not mentioning entitlements. I am just making sure you stay accurate thats all.

A quote from the tax foundation economist:

To quote the author of our most recent dollar-for-dollar comparison, former Tax Foundation economist Curtis Dubay:

"The Tax Foundation’s annual federal tax burden and expenditure study clarifies the geographical patterns of income redistribution that federal tax and spending policies cause each year. The results of the study have been controversial for years because they show that the nation is not only redistributing income from the prosperous to the poor, but from the middle-income residents of high-cost states to the middle-income residents of low-cost states.
"Thanks to a steeply progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes, payments that are unlikely ever to be matched by federal spending directed to those states. Ironically, most of these high-paying states are the so-called [I]blue states [/i]that have generally elected politicians who support a more steeply progressive tax system even though their own constituents bear a greater share of the burden as the code gets more progressive."

A link in case you wanted to read. Good Stuff:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24471.html

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And one party is going to be blamed. So if you are a Dem or Lib remember that your happiness today may be a distant memory unless Congress hits it out of the park. And seriously when was the last time they got it right???

No, it's never gunna be a distant memory. Nothing this hard to achieve is easily forgettable. Let me remind you that Before March 23, 2010, the United States was the only industrialized country that had no universal health care system. We will have a form of universal health care by 2014. It's not extreme. You guys are extreme. If you don't think so, then show me a civilized country that doesn't have some form of national health care. I mean this is the norm.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Chuck spinning! I like it.

California PAYS a lot more in taxes. The amount it receives per dollar contributed is still much lower . That was the original point that Genuine Risk made that you were disputing. You then tried to say that federal spending merely entailed roads, prisons, etc not mentioning entitlements. I am just making sure you stay accurate thats all.

A quote from the tax foundation economist:

To quote the author of our most recent dollar-for-dollar comparison, former Tax Foundation economist Curtis Dubay:

"The Tax Foundation’s annual federal tax burden and expenditure study clarifies the geographical patterns of income redistribution that federal tax and spending policies cause each year. The results of the study have been controversial for years because they show that the nation is not only redistributing income from the prosperous to the poor, but from the middle-income residents of high-cost states to the middle-income residents of low-cost states.
"Thanks to a steeply progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes, payments that are unlikely ever to be matched by federal spending directed to those states. Ironically, most of these high-paying states are the so-called [I]blue states [/i]that have generally elected politicians who support a more steeply progressive tax system even though their own constituents bear a greater share of the burden as the code gets more progressive."

A link in case you wanted to read. Good Stuff:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24471.html

It doesnt break the tax dollars spent down therefore makes unjust claims. For example a large Western red state like Wyoming has a greater need for most of the federal tax dollars than a small eastern state like MA simply because of it size. Per capita spending is flawed because obviously the states with higher incomes and more people will pay more in but their needs because of the physical characteristics of the state are different. The entitlement money is used in a far greater manner by smaller more populpous states. A state like New mexico ranks high in per capita spending because there is a great deal of federal business going on therelike the Los Alomos lab and huge amounts of federal parkland that need to be kept up. The idea that the poor of New Mexico are somehow getting more money than they deserve is ludicrious but that is the inference being made. States like FL with a high number of retirees naturally will have a disportionate amount of SS entitlement money.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And gays who make more than $200K pay those same taxes as well, because those don't discriminate based on WHO someone is, but how much money they make...like nearly all taxes.

Yay, great that you're upset about taxes....but it doesn't address the meat of what I was saying, though I'm not even sure if you think it does...

Let's just tax blacks at 5% higher than everyone else while we're at it and just pretend it's a matter of "oh tough luck, those are taxes...sucks to get taxed with no benefit, right?"

my idea lately has been that if gays are not allowed to receive they same tax breaks as the rest of america are... than gay people should not have to pay taxes.

I think that is quite fair.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It doesnt break the tax dollars spent down therefore makes unjust claims. For example a large Western red state like Wyoming has a greater need for most of the federal tax dollars than a small eastern state like MA simply because of it size. Per capita spending is flawed because obviously the states with higher incomes and more people will pay more in but their needs because of the physical characteristics of the state are different. The entitlement money is used in a far greater manner by smaller more populpous states. A state like New mexico ranks high in per capita spending because there is a great deal of federal business going on therelike the Los Alomos lab and huge amounts of federal parkland that need to be kept up. The idea that the poor of New Mexico are somehow getting more money than they deserve is ludicrious but that is the inference being made. States like FL with a high number of retirees naturally will have a disportionate amount of SS entitlement money.

Regardless of what the money is being spent on, the facts are the facts. Lets break it down into a neighborhood HOA. Family A lives in a smaller house and has 8 kids. Family B lives in a bigger house with 2 acres and has 2 kids. HOA dues are determined by income. Family A parents make a lot more money than Family B parents and thus are contributing much more to the HOA. The bill for the internet, cable, sidewalk service, trash pick up, ETC that Family B enjoys is being picked up in a larger portion by Family A regardless of the fact that the kids of family A have more time at the playground paid by HOA funds.

I do agree with you about states like New Mexico, Virginia, Maryland, ETC that are naturally going to have more federal spending simply because of the concentration of federal government in those states.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

my idea lately has been that if gays are not allowed to receive they same tax breaks as the rest of america are... than gay people should not have to pay taxes.

I think that is quite fair.

I like that idea!

I am now officially gay then! LOL

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Off to Vegas..Scud free zone for 48-72..Meet me in Excalibur Sportsbook ( have no clue why we're staying there..probably because you can eat like a pig all day for $25.)

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Chuck spinning!

All the Conservatives are pretty overcooked right now..

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by philcski

I like that idea!

I am now officially gay then! LOL

just remember you cant be gay AND married!! at least not where you live!

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They had to bribe, arm twist, make backroom deals, pressure, beg, etc to get this bill passed by 5 votes. That is seemingly forgotten during the victory celebration. There are enough homophobic constitutes that this wouldnt have passed with that language in it. You are right, it is wrong but lets face it, gays are voting Dem no matter what they do and Obama/Pelosi werent going to risk not passing this thing because of them. I will bet you this though, they will try to change it.

Pretty sad all the deals that O'Dumbass had to make to get this bill to only pass by five votes. Im sure the Democrats are celebrating a victory comes November im hoping there will be hell to be paid to these worthless Democrats. Im going to laugh when O'Dumbass renigs on his deal with Stupak about the abortion clause. Correct me if im wrong federal money isnt to be used for abortion, only for emergency purposes. If this is the case someone help me out here why was this clause put in the bill? Thanks for your help.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Pretty sad all the deals that O'Dumbass had to make to get this bill to only pass by five votes. Im sure the Democrats are celebrating a victory comes November im hoping there will be hell to be paid to these worthless Democrats. Im going to laugh when O'Dumbass renigs on his deal with Stupak about the abortion clause. Correct me if im wrong federal money isnt to be used for abortion, only for emergency purposes. If this is the case someone help me out here why was this clause put in the bill? Thanks for your help.

It changed nothing. Stupak's amendment was trying to further reign in abortions by making it so that any exchanges that were even remotely touched by federal money couldn't provide abortion for their insured, which would've gone far beyond current law and would've hindered women's ability to get an abortion even further.

So really, Stupak was grandstanding for absolutely nothing in the end, because even if Obama signs an order...it won't change anything.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It changed nothing. Stupak's amendment was trying to further reign in abortions by making it so that any exchanges that were even remotely touched by federal money couldn't provide abortion for their insured, which would've gone far beyond current law and would've hindered women's ability to get an abortion even further.

So really, Stupak was grandstanding for absolutely nothing in the end, because even if Obama signs an order...it won't change anything.

Thank you for further clarifying this for me.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It changed nothing. Stupak's amendment was trying to further reign in abortions by making it so that any exchanges that were even remotely touched by federal money couldn't provide abortion for their insured, which would've gone far beyond current law and would've hindered women's ability to get an abortion even further.

So really, Stupak was grandstanding for absolutely nothing in the end, because even if Obama signs an order...it won't change anything.

Obama today signed the order that simply reconfirms that the Hyde Amendment is the law of the land. Whoopie. A one-pen deal

What Brian said, above - Stupak was trying, via his amendment, to get more restrictions on abortion than exist today. He failed. Thank goodness.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Pretty sad all the deals that O'Dumbass had to make to get this bill to only pass by five votes. Im sure the Democrats are celebrating a victory comes November im hoping there will be hell to be paid to these worthless Democrats. Im going to laugh when O'Dumbass renigs on his deal with Stupak about the abortion clause. Correct me if im wrong federal money isnt to be used for abortion, only for emergency purposes. If this is the case someone help me out here why was this clause put in the bill? Thanks for your help.

they had more if they needed them. what's shocking is that it passed by as many as 5 votes when all they needed was 1.

there's a freshman democrat from a red district in colorado (can't remember her name right now) who voted against the bill in december but for it on sunday. that's a seat they probably lose because of her vote. i think practically speaking the party's better off taking a 3 vote win and having her at least competitive in november.

the real margin would have been in the teens if they needed that many.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

they had more if they needed them. what's shocking is that it passed by as many as 5 votes when all they needed was 1.

there's a freshman democrat from a red district in colorado (can't remember her name right now) who voted against the bill in december but for it on sunday. that's a seat they probably lose because of her vote. i think practically speaking the party's better off taking a 3 vote win and having her at least competitive in november.

the real margin would have been in the teens if they needed that many.

Im pretty sure the Democrats are going to take a big hit in November. Thats what they get for going against the will of the American public. I have no pity towards any Democrat that loses in November. Maybe O'Dumbass will give them a job cleaining Air Force One.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

http://www.redstate.com/martin_a_kni...on-and-a-liar/

48 seconds of no racial epitaphs. no gay slurs either.

that absolutely proves they never happened.

i apologize for ever doubting.

i'm pretty sure i didn't see anyone evolve in that 48 seconds either. which makes me wonder how i allowed darwin to mislead me all these years.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Im pretty sure the Democrats are going to take a big hit in November. Thats what they get for going against the will of the American public. I have no pity towards any Democrat that loses in November. Maybe O'Dumbass will give them a job cleaining Air Force One.

i think it will depend on the perception of the economy. it won't matter all that much how the economy's doing in any real sense. but if you see job growth in the fall, it's bad news for your side. in a relative sense.

republican's should make gains in november. that's what happens in off year elections to the party out of power.

and votes on this bill will cost freshman dems in red districts.

but the idea that this bill is going to be cause some tidal wave of voter revolt doesn't exist outside tea party meetings and republican masturbation fantasies.

i'm sure it's nice to think about. but in the end you just wind up like one of those folks at pace advantage that spend the last week of october 2008 insisting everything was an msm distortion.

eventually you need to come out of the cave and deal with reality. or not.

you can always read timm's links.

[Riot]

The GOP just blew it in the Senate this morning. In their zeal to add amendments to the health reform bill, they added two small technicalities that WILL send the bill back to the House for another vote.

Only problem is: now the Senate can add the Public option, has enough votes to pass it, and the House has already passed a Public option bill.

The leadership is scrambling right now, in both parties.

This is getting interesting!