Any word from Mittens about his position on certain other "people," namely banks, investment firms and oil companies, getting "free stuff" to the tune of trillions of dollars? I bet not. He's apparently saving his moral disgust for single mothers who get 200 bucks a month.

Well-said, Chris. Along the same lines, it's the height of irony and hypocrisy to laud middle-class women who "decide" to stay home to care for their children while castigating low-income women who do the same.

Ummm ... you have to apply for grants and meet poverty standards, they are grants, you don't pay them back.

Student loans can't not be wiped out by bankruptcy. And the new bankruptcy laws make it virtually impossible to claim bankruptcy in the first place.

I'm not sure beside getting grants, which means you are desperately poor, how people are circumventing the system and getting "free stuff"?

Rawmoney might want to rethink that whole "free stuff" argument as he's trying to slash & burn whatever is left of the social safety net in order to pay for Bush's tax cuts and wars that helped the Oligarchy! Or the taxpayer money that was gifted to the financial sector - talk about getting "free stuff" - Rawmoney and his cronies have been engorging on FREE STUFF and the taxpayers are picking up the tab!

The master of pander. The prostitute for the 1%ers. I wonder what stupid ploy his pimps have planned for him next. Just when we think the wingers can't stoop any lower they prove us wrong again.

Romney is right... repeal "Obamacare" .... replace it with SINGLE PAYER.

This recent poll by The Strategic Counsel surveyed both Canadians and Americans.

When it came to health care, 45 % of Americans felt Canada had a superior system, while 42 % of Americans thought the United States should stick with its own. 13% of Americans had no opinion or did not answer.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Canadians, 91 %, felt that Canada's health care system was better than that of the United States. 3% of Canadians felt the American system was better. 6% of Canadians had no opinion or did not answer.

You're brave. The phrase "single payer..." is an anathema to most... Eventually...we will have a system like most of the industrialized world. Meanwhile...keep on talking!

You have to remember, I'm Canadian, and I, and we, would never accept a stupid system such as yours, nor would 90+% of Canadians. Virtually all Canadians prefer our system to yours and ours is guaranteed up to at least 2024 (and probably much longer maybe indefinitely) exactly as it is.

I agree with John Murphy. Single Payer. And oh, how about a flat tax as well? Both are good ideas...and neither will fly, sadly.

Canada doesn't have a flat tax, nor would anyone here really consider it. Of course there are fewer tax brackets here to begin with.

The average Canadian has $20,000 in tax deductions The basic personal deduction (which everyone gets) is $11,500 for the 2012 tax year alone.

So deduct about $20,000 from your gross income to get taxable income and then:

• 15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
• 22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
• 26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
• 29% of taxable income over $132,406.

Therefore 4 tax brackets. 29% maximum. HIGH Canadian taxes ...LOL

I say No to the flat tax, dig deeper into that ideological tax plan. It would not work out. Sounds simple, but no it would be a terrible if the poor middle and rich paid the same rate.

20,000 x .15 = $3,000

200,000 x .15 = $30,000

2,000,000 x .15 = $300,000

also, it isn't free stuff, is UPS, Fedex, whatever delivery company driving on public roads is asking for free stuff? The oil companies transport their refined gasoline to market on public roads, oil over seas, which are protected by Coast Guard. They pay nominal fees.

The ACA would not be free, either. WTF is he talking bout?

They were right, he uses NAACP booing to stereotype to play to base.

WTF is he talking bout?

I think he's talking from the assumption that the wealthy have earned privileges (as they see it) such as health care by virtue of being wealthy. For anyone else to expect such things is, in the view of people like Romney, to be asking for a handout.

I think that's roughly what the worldview is.

Hey, John, thanks for the Canadian perspective. Interesting.

I read this recently,

OTTAWA — The majority of Canadians support a "mixed" model of health care that would give them the option of spending their own money for care in a private system, according to the results of a new poll.

And three-quarters of them support being able to buy private health insurance for all forms of medically necessary treatment, including cancer care and heart surgery, which they could then obtain outside of

Does this mean the Canadians see value in private healthcare providers that is not present in the public system? If allowed, would it erode the effectiveness of the public system? Interesting in perspective. Thanks.

@shooter

Don't bring up Miss Fluke until you go back and learn what she actually SAID!

For Crying out Loud!!!!!!!

Her point was that if insurance policies are covering preventative care with no co-pays, then contraceptive medication should be included.

Insurance companies are happy to cover preventative care for FREE because it is COST EFFECTIVE.

And her example was not use of contraceptive medication for birth control but to treat other potentially devastating conditions!!

Greed is taking over thriving companies, gutting them and laying workers off. Greed is putting money in foreign accounts instead of investing in America.

Greed is giving billion dollar agri-business and oil companies subsidies again and again.

Greed is hooray for me and to hell with you.

@doyles14

I don't consider Shooter a troll.

I don't agree with the opinions that Shooter expresses. And I often think that those opinions are based on factual errors and misconceptions.

You seem to think that anyone who posts here - that you don't agree with - is a "troll" and should be banned or ignored.

I ignore a lot of posters who spout just hateful gibberish.

I choose to try to engage in debate.

[You edited your comment while I was composing mine.]

And I totally agree with you about greed!

Shooter what color is the sky in the world you live in, really? You are entitled to your opinion....but not your own facts.

Maphi, for whatever reason, Miss Fluke still wants it free, no?

@Shooter

This statement of yours is a distortion:

Heck, half the country gets the entire Federal system for free, and even that isn't enough.

You are probably referring to the 50% (roughly) of Americans that do not pay individual income tax.

Please remember that that number is historically in the low-mid 40s.

I don't have time to look up the precise group and percentages

This number includes children too young to work, elderly people just getting by, disabled people that are unable to work, and the unemployed.

This number also includes the working poor - who we have decided don't make enough to qualify. These people still pay into Social Security and Medicare.

Everyone who buys stuff pays sales tax. Some of these people may be paying property and school taxes.

The problem is not that there are 50% that don't pay income tax (because they are free-loaders).

The problem is that there are 50% that don't pay income tax (because our economy is so bad that this number increased from the normal baseline).

I bet shooters Viagra is covered...and you know he needs it.

Shooter your better than thou attitude amazes me.I know you probably have some rag's to riche's story of how you came from the ashes of society where you had to walk 5 mile's to school uphill both way's,had to go to work at ten year's old because your family did'nt have enough money to buy food.Those stories are nice but everyone cannot be as smart as you think you are.There are poor now and there will alway's be poor people,some by choice,some by bad luck, some because of mental illness and many other reason's.Does that mean you kick them out of the way like so much road kill?I'll bet you walk by those Salvation Army donation pot's and tap the lid so people will think you put money in.You are a cold hearted A-hole and should be embarassed to call yourself an American.

Uh, how much of his money is he hiding off-shore?

It's not like he's paying his fair share.

Nope, try again.

@Shooter

If preventative medicine is covered with no co-pays by the insurance companies - so free to the policy holders - then contraceptives should be included.

The insurance companies - looking at the relative costs - would much rather provide birth control for FREE - than pay for the cost of a pregnancy.

It is actually not FREE - because it is only FREE to the policy holders that have already PAID for the insurance.

Troll or no, I think it's important to all of us to understand what the rebuttal is. Because we'll all run into our own Shooter242s at work, at family gatherings, at church, in lots of places.

Most goods and services are best provided through a regulated free market - basically, a free market within certain boundary conditions - the employer has to pay a minimum wage, the product can't contain loads of carcinogens, etc.

But some goods and services make no sense for the private market to provide. Only a government can build a network of highways, for instance, because only a government has the power of eminent domain to acquire the rights-of-way. And sure, once the rights-of-way are acquired, it's been well demonstrated that 'free' roads promote a great deal more economic activity than toll roads; they wind up paying for themselves by making us a richer country.

But the interstate highways we drive on are 'free stuff' in exactly the same way free contraceptives are, or student loans that are more inexpensive because they're backed by a Federal guarantee, or near-universal health insurance that meets Federal requirements.

If the insurance companies are required to provide free contraceptives to women, there will be a small upfront cost for them, but the insurance companies themselves will recoup most if not all of that cost by paying for less prenatal care and fewer hospital stays to give birth.

And we'll come out way ahead as a society when women who might have a tough time affording contraceptives can get them without paying, and as a result don't have to deal with the much greater expense of having children they can't afford to properly take care of - and having to miss work to bear the children and take care of them while they're young. And those children don't grow up to be a burden on society in their turn.

We all come out ahead when college is made more affordable for more young people who are ready for college: we become a more educated, more productive society, employers get a more talented workforce ('free stuff' for them!), and we all become richer, not just the students who get the degrees.

And the same with ObamaCare: it will keep people healthier all along. When they start getting sick, they can see a doctor, rather than having to wait until an illness graduates to being a genuine emergency before they can get emergency room care. They'll stay healthier, they'll be more productive, their job and career choices won't be fenced in by the availability of insurance so they'll be able to gravitate to the opportunities for them to be most productive in their work, and we'll all be richer as a result.

Not to mention, a nontrivial number of people will have their illnesses diagnosed early enough to be cured, who would have otherwise died. Just from a moral point of view, this is a Good Thing.

Finally, as Matt Yglesias (if I recall correctly) pointed out, there are plenty of ways in our society that people are rewarded for making good choices and penalized for making bad ones. If you do well, you can have more and better stuff, you can vacation in exotic places, and so forth. If you're poor, you'll be lucky to be able to afford a vacation on your front step. The moral question for our society is, should being deprived of access to decent medical care be one of the ways in which our society punishes its losers?

We seem to have come to a point where the GOP thinks it should be so, and the Dems believe it shouldn't be that way. And I'd add that this is a way of punishing losers that makes it much harder, and as a result much more unlikely, that the losers will be able to turn their lives around over time and eventually become winners. And as someone who has personal familiarity with redemption, I find that an even deeper immorality.

maphi, Shooter might not be a troll, but he's shown over time that he's pretty immune to reason and facts--typical in internet discussions of course. I don't think ignoring is out of line.

@low-tech cyclist

YES!!

Thank you!!!

your so off base with your comments do you really think everybody wants free stuff how much have you used the system and how much did Mitt use it yes he did to get to where he is at .The rich only got that way off the backs off the poor and working people

maphi, sometimes I wonder about you. Having an open mind is one thing, but is not the same as sawing a circle around you head so you brain can fall out. Certain cases are clear cut, and there is no reason to go on entertaining any other possible explanations. In other words, take your own side in a fight. Because they sure are.

In little Walter Mitty's own words, he is a troll:

- http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/comment-page-1/#comment-191137

"I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate...."

shooter is a troll. He wants other libertarian wingnuts to be trolls.

Take your own side...

I personally would prefer to have my tax money pay for preventive care, which is MUCH cheaper than catastrophic coverage for health complications. The problem is, doctors and ERs are required to take care of those patients who come in with really urgent health situations-- so how do they get the money? When I first arrived to my current location (a small city), the hospital needed a million dollars in order to stay open. They attributed their financial gap to care mostly to emergency care of patients who were unable to pay such large bills. It makes me wonder whether it would have been more helpful to see some cheaper preventive programs beforehand, rather than hitting taxpayers with the inevitable massive bill later.

You can't have it both ways. As long as doctors are required through the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics to care for those who need assistance, then there will be a financial burden to tend to. I'd rather invest less up front rather than paying the proverbial piper only after letting things proceed to their logical and devastating end that we see so often in hospitals. Considering as well that the number one reason for foreclosure in recent years has been medically related (people stop paying mortgages because of large financial obligations for health care), this has much more far-reaching consequences than only being about "free stuff"-- it has a visible economic result that continues to press on the community as a whole.

What Miss Fluke wants is for her health insurance to pay for treatment that will help treat ovarian cysts, even if such treatment has an alternative use as a contraceptive. That isn't "free stuff," but rather not excluding treatments from coverage that is being paid for because some religious zealots don't think it should be covered. The affordable care act is about the exact opposite of what Romney is talking about. It forces everybody to pay for health insurance because at some point in their lives they are going to need medical treatment rather than freeloading until they need treatment and then going to an emergency room to have their treatment paid for by everybody else. It isn't about "getting free stuff," but about taking personal responsibility in paying for healthcare.

DisgustedWithItAlll: nice. Guys like Shooter think they're winning when they're getting their clock cleaned. So much for rational debate. It is important to know what the rebuttal is, as Low Tech says, but there's less than zero point getting all worked up by right wing ideology posing as "debate." Just win in the voting booth.

I'm sorry, when I "PAY" for my insurance I do want certain things covered. That is what Ms. Fluke was arguing. Those students she talked about PAY for their insurance coverage.

I'm sick and tired of all this "Free Stuff" talk BS. Can I just remind you that WE ARE STILL PAYING FOR THE INSURANCE whether it is through the company we work for (part of your benefits) or through your own pocket. Until universal healthcare with single payer system is in place, NOTHING IS FREE.

And why is it that when the rich like Romney "take advantage" of the tax system and benefit by hiding his money offshore they are called "just playing by the rules of the game", but when the poor "take advantage" of the tax system and benefit they are called "free loader" who just wants free stuff?

maphi:

@doyles14

I don't consider Shooter a troll.

I don't agree with the opinions that Shooter expresses. And I often think that those opinions are based on factual errors and misconceptions.

You seem to think that anyone who posts here - that you don't agree with - is a "troll" and should be banned or ignored.

You may want to rethink that. Shooter has laid out his/her intentions for all to see.

shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am

I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.

For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.

Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.

http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/

"It's a reasonable thing to say." No, it isn't, Shooter. You seem irritated that there are charitable people who provide food for those too poor to feed their families. Most of that food is donated, and the food pantries that distribute it are staffed by volunteers: it costs you nothing. Does it bother you that there are people who follow Christ's teachings and care about the poor and sick? "Now Miss Fluke wants free birth control, and students want free tuition." You clearly know nothing at all about Sandra Fluke. She never said that SHE wanted "free birth control." She testified to a congressional committee about how the cost of contraception for her fellow students represented a not insubstantial burden on their finances, and how one of her friends had nearly died because the contraceptive drug her doctor had prescribed for polycystic ovarian syndrome was suddenly no longer available through her student health plan at an affordable price. And students do not want FREE tuition. They just didn't want the interest rates on student loans to double. "It's never enough though and I expect the call for more free stuff we haven't even thought of yet. Even corporations get free stuff." You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about "free stuff."

"Meanwhile it's people like Romney that pay for all this free stuff, yet you're dinging him for not paying enough to cover even more free stuff." What an extraordinary statement! Romney doesn't even pay his taxes. He socks his earnings away in secret bank accounts in other countries. Very little of his wealth is spent in the US, so you can't be suggesting that he is contributing to the US economy.

If "no free stuff" is your reasoning, then no more free money to Big Oil. If GE uses the power grid (and they not only use it, they sell products that use it), then they have to pay something in taxes, not zero.

And here is my favorite, Wall Street then should shut up about getting free money through QE3. Start actually investing the 2 trillion dollars they have sitting in their banks. You know, the whole theory behind "trickle-down economics"?

"It is important to know what the rebuttal is, as Low Tech says, but there's less than zero point getting all worked up by right wing ideology posing as "debate." Just win in the voting booth."

Oh sure, rebut a troll. And then rub it in, and don't be nice about it. After a certain time, you understand what someone is about. When one guy gets his face rubbed in it time after time and then keeps coming back with the same lame crap, you know what game he's playing. At that point, continuing to give him respect as you would someone who is genuinely interested in learning by engaging in a good faith discussion is just an exercise in futility and showing civility just to show civility. There comes a time when someone like shooter is no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. He passed that a long time ago.

So rebut him. And disrespect him, too. Be as uncivil as you like because he deserves only ridicule and humiliation at this point.

You guys seemed to have infiltrated his 'Troll Training Camp'. Bravo!!

And I decided long ago that people who tell out right lies , even after being corrected , are not being CIVIL

Shooter

It's a reasonable thing to say. People already get free food, free medical, free cell phones, transportation subsidies, shelter subsidies, and best of all free money...

This is a supposed polite way of lying about me , and anyone who does not agree with shooters gops philosophy , I feel hurling insults back is very much in line , I make my point 1st tho . But as DISGUSTEDWITHITALL points out , after you do that 20 times , giving shooter the big finger is all that is required

Is there some reason you're defending the obviously indefensible? Meanwhile it's people like Romney that pay for all this free stuff,

You know, wanting to keep more of what one earns isn't greedy. Greed is coveting other people's earnings for yourself.

How is that NOT an insult? Then the gop mantra that america and americans , their own nation and fellow citizens are some how stealing from them , commiting crimes against them , it is plain and simple hate filled and anti american , if I said the same thing while we were invading iraq , shooter and the gop leadership would have called me a traitor , yet they can say it at a presidential campaign rally , give me a break , dems need to show MORE BACKBONE , not less , show the DC dems how it is done

If erecticle disfuntion medication can be covered...why not the pills that prevent the results of the ED meds? Seriously, it's much cheaper to prevent a conception than to pay for a birth, if you want to get into dollars and cents. And it's not free - we (businesses, employees, self-employed, unemployed - can you say COBRA) pay for it under our insurance.

Sorry for the delay folks, my Thursday golf game waits for no man. I'll respond to as many as possible.

Maphi, thanks for the defense. It's much appreciated.

Maphi, the 50% number, or 40's if you prefer don't include children, it's that number of tax returns. Here we go....

In 2010, 45 percent of households paid no federal income tax, according to the Tax Policy Center. In 2009, it was about 47 percent. In 2008, 49 percent were exempt from federal income tax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html

As I said to Grumpy, certainly 10% can't afford taxes, maybe 20% even, but claiming 45% can't afford even a penny to contribute... that's just wrong.

As for local taxes, they aren't part of the discussion. that's a local issue and not my problem.

joca41 - you're saying that all that free stuff poor people get, the safety net, the entire Federal Govt. apparatus, it all still isn't enough? And not even a thank you for the people that provide all these lovely things? "Ungrateful" is the most charitable word I can think of to describe that attitude.

maphi, re: Miss Fluke ... I recall now that this was a freedom of religion argument. If insurance comapnies want to provide birth control free, I'm all for it. Forcing Catholics to provide it is a problem.

rollo - Thank you again. Have you volunteered to publicize the pie fallacy problem? Excellent.

vlamb - see my reply to maphi. As for Romney, he paid some $3 million in income taxes for 2010. Can I assume you didn't contribute as much as he did? Perhaps you should reconsider your derision toward him. After all, economically speaking he is a much more valuable citizen than you are.

pantango - what exactly in those quotes is incorrect?
All the free stuff is the safety net. It exists. Almost half the country pays no income tax. Romney pays income tax, ergo people like Romney pay for it. And lastly calling people that covet other people's money with the fervor I see here, "greedy", is being kind.

shooter, you said earlier it was about the free stuff, Be honest, please.

Miss Fluke still wants it free, no?

Of course it's about the free stuff. The only argument is about who pays for it.

Why did you say local taxes are not part of the discussion? Are you saying you are debate moderator? But yes, you are involved in your locale.

And you said:

re: Miss Fluke ... I recall now that this was a freedom of religion argument. If insurance comapnies want to provide birth control free, I'm all for it. Forcing Catholics to provide it is a problem.

But Religious schools got a waiver, didn't they? The Insurance company must pay for the contraception, not the religious school.

http://blog.lawinfo.com/2012/02/22/aca-religious-exemption-applies-to-religious-schools/

Are federal programs paid for with local taxes? No, they are paid for with national taxes. Should we ever discuss local issues, I'm sure taxes will be included.

As for Miss Fluke, I remember that she wanted contraception and she wanted it to be free. Is that not the case? If she got it, has she thanked anyone for it?

We should be thankful for availability of contraception, since unwanted children may be abused, taken from parent, then ward of the State.

I never said that local taxes pay for federal programs, but if federal programs are cut, that logically leaves local holding the bag.

You were trying to moderate a debate here. Why? Your entitlement is showing.

My entitlement? I don't recall demanding any free stuff.

Please allow me to be four times as nice in saying, your entitlement to moderate the debate is showing.

As for local taxes, they aren't part of the discussion. that's a local issue and not my problem.

I hope you have a marvelously satisfying day Shooter.

Moderate the debate? You're much too generous. I'm just trying to hold up my end of the log while you and the crew take your best shots.

I hope you have a marvelously satisfying day as well.

Local taxes are going to go up as federal money goes away, you forgot about the topic of discussion?

Have I taken any "shots"? No, that's in your mind. I pointed out you seem to think you have control over the debate. You are seen encouraging trolling and "how to".

I don't find it satisfying to talk with you, because you slip, slide and dodge and deflect, try to lay out what is OK to say and what is not. Not so much on substance. We just totally disagree on just about everything, not what I'd call taking a shot.

Rmoney said free stuff, you seem to be one of the folks he was trying to appeal to, those that say free stuff and think of some ideological stereotype. As long as it's not a face like your family, they do not matter.

Is that what you want? To be a hero, holding up the log and fighting the other Americans. I feel sorry for you if you think I took a shot and you are a victim. Tough to be you. Done.

@shooter

Sorry - I have been at work so I could not join in the conversation.

I enjoy golf but work gets in the way.

Yes - you were correct - it is households not individuals as I stated.

Here is a link:

The 50% Of Americans Who Don't Pay Income Tax Will NEVER Be A Good Revenue Source

This is from Business Insider. "Welcome! Business Insider is a fast-growing business site with deep financial, media, tech, and other industry verticals."

Nearly half of American households won’t pay any federal income tax this year. That doesn’t mean there’s a big pot of revenue waiting to be tapped.

Decades of tax policy decisions have created a complicated system that vulnerable populations have grown to depend upon. The lowest-earning Americans have been taken off income tax rolls completely, and the tax bills of low-income workers, the elderly, and families raising children have been reduced through a series of tax credits, deductions and exclusions that have crept into the code and grown more generous with time. Only a small portion of the non-taxpayers are in the upper income brackets with lots of tax breaks.

...

The Tax Policy Center’s estimate means that some 76 million households won’t pay federal income tax in 2011. But they still owe other taxes. About two-thirds pay payroll taxes, and most pay state and local income and sales taxes as well as excise taxes on gas, tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol. Of the one third who don’t pay payroll taxes, more than half are elderly who no longer work, and just under half are families with incomes under $20,000. Only about 1 percent of the population pays neither income nor payroll taxes and earns more than $20,000 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center.

• For 50 percent of those that don’t pay federal income taxes, standard deductions and personal exemptions are enough to counteract their taxable earnings. A couple with two children earning less than $26,400, for example, will pay no federal income tax in 2011 because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 cuts their taxable income to nil.
• 22 percent are senior citizens who get a more generous standard deduction, can exclude some or all of their Social Security income and may have tax-exempt interest from mutual funds and municipal bonds. For those who itemize, charitable contributions and medical expense deductions also subtract from their tax liability.
• 15 percent are working families, many of them low-income, who qualify for one or all of the Earned Income tax credit, the Child tax credit, the Child and Dependent Care tax credit. The earned-income credit is fully refundable, and the Child credit is partially refundable this year, meaning some households may get refunds from the government even if they owe no income taxes.
• The remaining 13 percent are a mix of mostly higher-income individuals with enough itemized deductions for items like mortgage interest, health payments, or charitable contributions, education tax credits, or tax exempt interest to zero out their income taxes.

“It’s wrong to rail on the 46 percent of people who don't pay income tax,” said Paul Caron, a tax professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. “A fairer analysis takes into account all taxes paid—and by this measure, everyone has tax skin in the game,” he said

Thanks for the link maphi. I always try to use agreeable sources.

Sandy, let me try it this way and see if it's to your satisfaction.

Local taxes are going to go up as federal money goes away, you forgot about the topic of discussion?

That's a very broad generalization. North Dakota just had a referendum to cut local taxes. Meanwhile, I can't do anything about state and local taxes. If the locals have a problem, it's up to them to vote out the miscreants.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/13/pf/north-dakota-property-tax/index.htm

I don't find it satisfying to talk with you, because you slip, slide and dodge and deflect, try to lay out what is OK to say and what is not.

You've just defined debate. Maphi and I seem to have a pretty good, straight forward, cordial and informative relationship. I hope you and I can do the same.

As long as it's not a face like your family, they do not matter.

That's actually pretty offensive. You have no idea who I am. That said, everything in life is a matter of balance. I'm glad we have a safety net, but I'm not keen to enlarge it, or wantonly throw money at it. At some point someone has to say no.

Is that what you want? To be a hero, holding up the log and fighting the other Americans. I feel sorry for you if you think I took a shot and you are a victim. Tough to be you.

Actually it's very good to me. As for you guys, I'm just hoping to get you all through Econ 101.

me: I don't find it satisfying to talk with you, because you slip, slide and dodge and deflect, try to lay out what is OK to say and what is not.

you: You've just defined debate

OK

Sorry to offend. I apologize, but you said "not my problem", so I took it to mean you are not concerned with OPP. Your local taxes would go up to pay for federal cuts. So it would be your problem, wherever you are.

I do not think that was a "shot", but I think this is:

I'm just hoping to get you all through Econ 101.

Now, I think we're done.

Agreed. This man is so lacking in common sense and social skills that it's a wonder he ever held a management position. Also, he is extremely dishonest.

You don't need either common sense or social skills when daddy gave you the money to buy your own company.

Agreed!

Anyone get the feeling that Republican belligerency is intentional and part of their nefarious game plan?

Inherited wealth creates the illusion of competence.

Oh, he wasn't talking about the mandate that time. He was talking about Medicaid expansion. White conservatives, whether rich or poor, believe with all their hearts that Medicaid is just a great big Democrat vote-buying graft machine swindle, a theft of money from the pockets of hard working white people and into the pockets of T-Bone steak eating strapping young bucks and Cadillac driving welfare queens. In their minds, the expansion of Medicaid won't benefit anyone except more lazy shiftless others and will be paid for by taxes levied on and paid exclusively by whites.

This is how they've been framing the issue, with dogwhistles and codewords and all too often with overt assertions, for four decades now. It's so deeply embedded in their psyches and so central to their political dogma, that pointing out that it's at variance with the actual demographic distribution of current Medicaid recipients and wildly at variance with what will happen when the expansion is implemented, is useless. Indeed, it's almost like they think expanding Medicaid will somehow cause there to magically be more black and Hispanic people than there were before.

Say the word "Medicaid" to any conservative, and they will instantly associate it with, depending on region, the very ugliest stereotype of blacks or Hispanics buried in the darkest part of their minds. And, indeed, one of the things that most terrifies our Galtian supermen overlords is the fear that the expansion of Medicaid will dilute the usefulness of what has heretofore been a powerful propaganda tool for whipping up vote-inducing racial anxiety and animosity among working and middle class whites.

There is zero chance that all of this didn't play directly into Team Mitt's calculations when this speech was being written.

@ Steve,

Well said- you just summed up the answer to the exact question I've been trying to place my finger on for a looong time. Why are otherwise reasonable people so vehemently hardcore conservative, both politically and socially? Its repeatedly made obvious as a flawed scam of a viewpoint when exposed to the light. Other readers: Copy / paste the above into your logic when dealing with your own "Shooter-type".

Class welfare indeed...

Steve that sure was racist of you to promote stereotypes, prejudice, and bigotry. Tsk.

If you're Poor, then the government provides your health care for "free".

And all black people are "poor" and pay no taxes (or else they'd be Republican's, like Herman Cain), ergo, they get "free" stuff.

You should know this by now. /snark

The greater your assets in this country the greater the value of your "free stuff"- look at the tax return of most any 1%er

Mittster got to hide his money overseas with the gnomes of Zurich, thus avoiding paying his fair share of being an American. Rather than elect him to any office I'd like to see him arrested, tried and jailed.

His little "game" back in prep school of "playing barber" demonstreates exactly what kind of slimeball he was and is.

There's no "probability" involved. All the southernist Confederate wingnut media yesterday were congratulating him for giving his "best speech ever" when he went and "stuck it" to the NAACP.

It won't be "free", there will be payback expected and demanded.

... not to mention a bad case of dirty nose and knees ;-)

It's just standard-issue Mormon white supremacy.

@RobDon

How about the Democratic Party supports equal rights including equal voting rights, while the Republican Party, especially now, is determined to take them away.

Has there been a study? I don't know, but it just looks like common sense to me.

Or maybe they just want that "Free Stuff" like liberty and justice for all!

because most of the poorer class vote using their head not their butt , they are the only ones that know how to live within their budget Republicans only care about themselves and love blaming the poor for getting free stuff while at thhe same time they use it more then the poor do

Ah, what do you know, today we discover that "RobDon" is a synonym for ILLITERATE.

maphi, of course the free stuff remark is just stupid. There's no other demographic group (age, gender, race) determined at birth that votes so overwhelmingly one party. While I understand the appeal of Democrat traditional political platform position, there are others who legitimately think and vote different.

I think I'm correct in saying the Hispanic vote is on average about 66/33 but the black vote is 80/20 on a good day (for Republicans).

Just curious.

Keith, of course everyone has had time to read it, including the Supreme Court. The no one has time to read it was referring to prior to the vote. Even Democrats admitted they didn't read it before voting on it. Republican or Democrat, I don't want anyone voting on something they haven't read. But, maybe that just me.

Mitt hasn't got the guts to tell the truth on anything if he cant win the election legal he is going to buy it like Bush did and we all know what that got us and by the way what about AIG didn't they get free stuff in the form of a republican bailout and not paid one dime back like the auto industry did that has paid it back hum free stuff

He might not have the guts to tell the truth, but he does have the "guts" to exploit people that he thinks do NOT matter if it'll impress and please the people he thinks DO matter.