Cast your vote FOR/AGAINST the HC bill

And ACORN was helping people get into homes.

Cheating's cheating, Richard. But it qualifies as "chutzpah" when they try to propagandize losing a redundant gov't subsidy that we're all paying for.

Even if you don't object, I do.

stockingfull wrote: But it qualifies as "chutzpah" when they try to propagandize losing a redundant gov't subsidy that we're all paying for.

Even if you don't object, I do.

So your argument is you'd rather see the taxpayer pay more and the retirees see less benefits if they drop the coverage. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Where is the benefit to the company even with the subsidy and tax break? Answer: There is none, it's costing them money. The only thing that will save them money with or without the incentives is dropping the coverage. Has the lightbulb lit up yet?

Richard, let me be as clear about this as I can.

Two tax breaks for one corporate expense is cheating. I'm against subsidizing corporate retirees -- or anybody -- by giving a double handout to a big corporation.

Got it now?

If losing a double tax break is going to make corporations threaten to kill benefits, it'll just accelerate the process of taking those benefits -- and the leverage they create -- away from the corporations. The next step will be to give access -- and the funds for it -- directly to individuals.

The Republicans overplayed their hand the last two months. If the corporations do the same, we'll be on our way to gov't-backed benefits much, much faster.

Stockingfull, you seem to be a few years ahead of me as far as a time line, and I like that. I need some reading material, any suggestions? No this is not a cheap shot, I'm asking for input.

stockingfull wrote:Richard, let me be as clear about this as I can.

That's Obama's line... second time. LOL

Two tax breaks for one corporate expense is cheating. I'm against subsidizing corporate retirees -- or anybody -- by giving a double handout to a big corporation.

Got it now?

I already got it a long time ago, you'd bite off your nose to spite your face. So in conclusion you support removing a tax break that doesn't benefit the corporation but instead benefits the US taxpayer and the retiree.

stockingfull wrote:it'll just accelerate the process of taking those benefits -- and the leverage they create -- away from the corporations.

It's all about control, is that it?

stockingfull wrote:he next step will be to give access -- and the funds for it -- directly to individuals.

You're missing the entire point, I'll go over it again as this doesn't seem to be seeking in. For arguments sake and to keep it simple I'll use nice round numbers so it's easy to understand. The coverage AT&T is providing cost $2K and so does the equivalent Medicare D. The subsidy covers let's say $500 so the corporation is now paying $1500, the tax break takes what amounts to another $500.

Total cost to AT&T is $1K, the total cost to the government is $1K instead of paying the $2K for medicare. This is the key as the US taxpayer is netting $1K in savings.

By removing the tax break the incentive for the corporation to continue coverage is much smaller, the US taxpayer will now pick up the entire $2K tab for those that drop the coverage.

Here's simple question, what benefit does AT&T derive from keeping these people covered with or without the tax break?

The benefit to ATT was that the ATT retiree got the better benefits (as promised by ATT) and the continuing tax deduction. The net effect to the government was null. They paid a subsidy but it was offset by not paying the Medicare D benefit.

Now that they won't have the subsidy or the continuing tax deduction, it costs ATT more to operate hence the expense charge.

jeromemsn wrote:Stockingfull, you seem to be a few years ahead of me as far as a time line, and I like that. I need some reading material, any suggestions? No this is not a cheap shot, I'm asking for input.

This should get you up to speed

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

There was another President that some also said was a Communist sympathizer, know who it was?


Check this link and read
Dates back to November 22 1963


http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/pro ... naway.html


There is no Communist state that wants to conquer us or for that matter anyone that I can tell wants us alive, they know already what some here have already figured out, we are a bunch of F###-##s that nobody cares what happens to as long as we buy there *censored*, and buy we do. you keep talking about our President and our system of government, but if you did that in a Communist country, well you wouldn't be talking. Nice to be American and free isn't it.

Ironic that Kennedy was killed by a lunatic commie.

Rest assured that though no communist nation wants to take us over, there are plenty of socialists right here who do. Obama is one of them.

In that article you cite, the good professor seems to have quite a bias against the right-wingers in his paper, for an academic that is. He also seems not to recognize that the seething anger over civil rights came mostly from southerners, most of whom were democrats.

From Wikipedia, "Civil Rights Act of 1964"

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Despite fallacious arguments to the contrary concerning Dixiecrats and the like, Republicans and other "right-wingers" today are not the seething, hateful fools demonstrated in the politics of the South in 1964.

Evidence to this is expressed in the simple fact that Martin Luther King was a Republican because at the heart of Republicanism is liberty, independence, traditional values, and opportunity for all.

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com ... Republican

Here ya go, Mikey, wingnut utopia for you (and you don't even have to leave the country):

http://www.alternet.org/story/146208/welcome_to_glenn_beck%27s_world%3A_what_if_the_tea_partiers_ruled_the_country

BTW, why are you recycling the old Dixiecrat crap we debated months ago? Of course, the Dixiecrats were segregationists; from the Civil War until LBJ, Lincoln's party didn't exist in the South. Dixiecrats were DINO's all along; the Civil Rights laws just gave them permission to leave the party and return to their philosophical roots in the GOP.

In fact, with the exceptions of Lincoln himself and TR (who, BTW, was the first Prez to advocate national healthcare), name a single Republican President who was a social progressive. (Funny, ain't it, that those two (social progressives) are generally regarded as the greatest Presidents the GOP has produced.)

stockingfull wrote:Here ya go, Mikey, wingnut utopia for you (and you don't even have to leave the country):

http://www.alternet.org/story/146208/welcome_to_glenn_beck%27s_world%3A_what_if_the_tea_partiers_ruled_the_country

Oh gosh, Jon. You are wrong again. What a surprise!

I don't want anyone to rule this country. I want the rule of law as our founders knew it.

(See my edit, Mike.)

Then you agree that today's "Tea Partiers" are full of crap?

The article was about November 22 1963, 1964 wasn't available yet. It was about the assassination of a President. President John F Kennedy

stockingfull wrote:
BTW, why are you recycling the old Dixiecrat crap we debated months ago? Of course, the Dixiecrats were segregationists; from the Civil War until LBJ, Lincoln's party didn't exist in the South. Dixiecrats were DINO's all along; the Civil Rights laws just gave them permission to leave the party and return to their philosophical roots in the GOP.

In fact, with the exceptions of Lincoln himself and TR (who, BTW, was the first Prez to advocate national healthcare), name a single Republican President who was a social progressive. (Funny, ain't it, that those two (social progressives) are generally regarded as the greatest Presidents the GOP has produced.)

I was simply anticipating your ridiculous attempt to refute.

Here ya go, Jonny

Read all about it....the truth that is....if you dare...

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com ... _Democrats