It's upper middle class in many areas, but it's comparable to many private employers.

I fall more with Greg on this, their incomes are not necessarily out of alignment, it's really that they have a pension at all. That isn't something you can just turn off overnight but you do something like the automakers did, say from this point forward everyone gets a 401k or similar with some matching, and the other people we just deal with the fact they will get a pension.

I also laugh at the idea that private industry is somehow more efficient than government. Every place I've ever worked, large and small has had tons of waste and inefficiencies. The larger they are, the worse it seems to be but even 10 man companies aren't necessarily paragons of efficiency.

Yes Greg, you're out of touch!!! LoL!!:faint:

At least in the Midwest, I'd say average "household" is well under $100K

Only one difference with private industry. They go bankrupt and cease doing business due to a word called consiquences. They also don't have the option of just borrowing more.

True, I have seen some pretty pathetic waste in the private sector. However as Americans we have the right to not invest in companies like this and still live in America.
With the government we are forced to invest in the government, and the only way to get out of it is move to another country.

This sounds a little like the Hitler / Volkswagen story.

I know, I know, if ya don't like it, move to another country.

Spending on homes, furniture, appliances, cars, groceries, dental braces, etc. is what creates jobs. Only a fool believes that supply creates demand. Demand is what makes the economy go, not supply - and demand is created by the 47%, not the 1%. The wealthy have prospered during this downturn, yet I don't see the economy recovering; perhaps that's because the top 1% or top 30% really aren't the economy. As difficult as it may be for a Fox News adherent to believe, it may be that everyone needs to do well for all of us to do well. More higher incomes for all will do a lot to increase tax revenues - but that would mean senior corporate executives being paid what they produce - like their employees - rather than what they can convince their cronies on the board compensation committees (with the implicit "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" agreement) they're worth.

If increased access to health care doesn't reduce costs, then I don't understand anything about the healthcare system. In California - as in the rest of the country - the single most expensive point of entry into the healthcare system is the ER. The fewer people whose only access to the healthcare system is the ER the better - and cheaper - for all of us. Obamacare is a big step in that direction. If you really want to reduce health care costs, eliminate the insurance companies and go to a single payer system. The 15% the healthcare companies can keep does nothing for health care and is entirely used for marketing and corporate profits.

Perhaps folks should educate themselves before pretending to have all the answers for the rest of us.

I have been with Blue Cross the last 6 years. The highest increase year to year has been 5%. Just got the new rates for next year.................. 17% increase. And they even listed Obamacare as one of the reasons for the large increase. I did not hit a new age group, nothing changed. Didn't use my insurance at all the last three years.

I would like to know how forcing an insurance policy to have minimum specs like pre-natal care (which my wife and I do not need), or no co-pays on certain things, take on any pre-existing conditions, etc. would NOT raise the cost of the insurance. Maybe I don't understand how it works. But when you add on the extras and require everybody regardless of health to be covered, the price of the policy has to go up.

Mike first off thank you for actually forcing me to use a dictionary today. I looked up the word adherent. I watch fox and after about two weeks I disliked Obama a little more then I did before watching fox. Then I went to MSN and realized they hate anyone that has been successful so I stopped watching them. Then I went to CNN and realized there just idiots.

So in the end where do we get the "said education" you are talking about?

I can tell you first hand that the ER isn't the most expensive place in a hospital. I just finished 4 rounds of FullFox Chemo at $9,000 a treatment and have switched to the Oral version of Xeloda Chemo at $4,000 a treatment which doesn't include blood work, labs and meeting with my Oncologist.

So I a living the medical nightmare right now and I am pretty confident that Obama Care isn't going to do anything for all of the bills coming in my direction.

The good news is I do have insurance at just shy of $26,000.00 a year with a $5,000.00 deductable. Why is it high well because I am a small business owner and we just don't get the good rates. We even looked and switching insurance companies to my wife's. Sorry sir your pre-existing condtions are not covered (previous cancer). The good new on that front in 2014 they will have to insure me but at what costs. My current agent is expecting our policy to go up not down by at least 8 to 10 percent.

So like Greg said they need to fix the cost. Why do i get a bill for $10,000 then after adjustment the bill is $4,000.00 ?

On a side note I did watch something very interesting on MSN about the rising cost of Seniors that will soon be on medicare & SS and good news they are living longer which means that we the people still working will be paying for them which I am more then ok with. Problem is the only way to pay for them is to increase our taxes on everyone. The 1% and now the 2% don't make enough to cover the rising cost.

Okay -- You've won!

In the morning I'm going to donate all my worldly possessions to the Goodwill... and I'm going to live in a cardboard box. Surely that will make me see the light. :cheers: :lol:

Can I just have the Mustang - Pretty please. I will treat it nice I promise

I wanted it before you. :lol:

Since I live in the Midwest maybe we can share the car. We only have about 4 good months. So I'll keep it for four months and you can have it for the other eight. I'd even be willing to split the insurance 50/50

Jody ---


My take on Obamacare is that it is the most egregious tax ever levied on the "have nots" in the history of the USA. The people of this great country just haven't been hit with it yet. It's a nice "theory" that everyone should have health coverage... but this is the wrong way to go about it. It'll just end up being another bloated entitlement... mismanaged and rife with fraud.

The funny thing is -- the people that can "afford" healthcare -- already have it. The people that CAN NOT afford healthcare will now be forced to buy/pay, or be fined. The "fine" amount that I've heard ($600) is smaller than the cost of Obamacare. So many will just be forced to choose to pay more or just pay the fine which is less. My guess is that we'll build a bureaucracy to hunt down all the zillions that have no way to pay ... not even the fine... and they'll still be the ones showing up at the ER and we will treat them just as before i.e., the best medical care money can buy.


California's hospital ER's are full of NON US citizens... what are we going to do with them?

Greg,

I think it's the step they needed to take to get to single payer. They said they could not get there in one step, but if this law does what many think it will you'll have so much screaming from the middle class who's lost their coverage when their employer opts to drop it and pay the tax, or had to pay a bigger chunk of it from their employer that they can then push single payer through.

No -- I'm tired of supporting all those losers that work on it -- and paying all those track fees and buying fuel and tires.... so I'm going to cancel the trailer build (my apologies to the factory guys that will be laid off -- it's not my fault - it's the other 47% fault because they didn't pull their weight!).

I don't want to burden you with my castoffs... That would be too democratic of me right? I mean - I'd act like I was going to give you something - but I'd really just be giving you added expenses in reality!

:D

Single payer is just another step closer to socialism... Thank gawd we only have another 4 years to get there. :willy: :lol:

Cute, but not a substantive reply to my comments. I can see you don't want to discuss these issues seriously.

As for the anecdotal stories concerning health care - if we were a single payer system, everyone would be covered for the same basic (perhaps age adjusted) premium. Thank the GOP (and the insurance company lobbyists that bought them and their Democratic sympathizers) that the insurance companies are still involved, still need to be assured their profit, and therefore still need to be able to slice and dice the insurable populace to assure that they still "earn" that profit.

If you think the single payer system is great, look at Canada. There is a lot of canadians on here. Ask them!
Healthcare is a privilege. If you truly can't afford it there are already systems in place. If you can but choose not to, then it's your problem, your responsibility. That's the problem, there is no personal responsibility, and Obama loves it

Please excuse the red, it just goes so good with the white and the blue. ;)

Here is something that I think we may all agree on. :) I saw it a few minutes ago and signed it.
__________________________________________________ _______

ACLJ ‏@ACLJ We must stop sending billions of our tax dollars to radical regimes http://bit.ly/Uw2XE0 Sign the petition. Stop funding radical regimes.

"Anti-American violence continues in an alarming number of Middle East and North African nations. With the Obama Administration continuing to send U.S. taxpayer dollars to these nations, Congress is taking action.

Congressional leaders are attempting to stop nearly $500 million dollars from being sent to Egypt. Soon there will be hearings to investigate the death of our Ambassador and other Americans in Libya. Support their efforts; sign our petition calling for the Obama Administration to stand up for America and halt the funding.
__________________________________________________

Petition to Stop Funding Radical Middle East Nations

"To: President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton
Your Administration must stand up for America - stop apologizing and condemn these abhorrent attacks. All U.S. funding to these countries must end until stable governments – which support America – are put in place."

http://bit.ly/Uw2XE0


Side note-I used to not give petitions much thought. However, I saw one of the ACLJ's recent petitions snowball into a worldwide effort that put so much pressure on our State Department and then the U.N. as well, that Iran released one of their own citizens, a peaceable young husband and father, from an Iranian prison who had been sentenced to death...for saying things they didn't like!

I agree !

Agreed.

I had my annual physical last week and asked my Doctor what he thought about this mess. He replied that if the government would just force the insurance companies to code services the same and allow him to submit payment request on a standard form, he would be miles ahead on paperwork. An interesting thought.

Darren

@MKELCY....What is always with the Fox references ? And people are fools because they don't agree with you....You are just full of Liberal talking phrases that show a foolish side of yourself...So someone has a different point of view they must watch Fox ? Please, now that is ignorant.

We have our point of view based on real world experience..Just because we don't have your view of the world doesn't mean we watch Fox...That statement in itself is just a sheep herd talking point mentality...

Proof is in the pudding....The last 4 years have been a disaster...And the next 4 ? Well I won't say what will happen, but let's see where it leads..

You want real dialogue and debate, get off the calling people fools, and stop saying everyone who doesn't agree with you watches Fox...It is just a Liberal talking point, and not reality.

When the middle class pays for all the policies put in place, who will you blame ? When most people that are in need must drive gasoline powered cars and Obama and his energy Czar ON CAMERA said they want gasoline prices to be high like Europe to FORCE the green mandate, who will you blame ? Fox ? When the Obamacare tax hits the middleclass who will you blame ? Fox ? That argument is old and tired..The middle class is going to bear the costs and the poor will be crushed..

Our local charities are suffering the worst Inventory they have ever seen...The supplies to help the poor..The reporters say it is because people are struggling to pay their bills and gasoline, and higher food costs...Oh ya, it was ABC...So save your breath trying to blame me for watching Fox,haha... This is before 2013 when things get worse..

The printing and spending has devalued the currency or dollar unit to a point of danger...And forcing energy policies that raise the costs on the poor and middle class is just wrong...How many poor people are going to trade in their cars for a hybrid ? ZERO...So they suffer the energy mandate of this President, among other foolish policies.

Funny after the Depression guys like Vanderbuilt,Rockerfeller,Carneige, and others brought the poor into the middle class.. They created Jobs to allow the poor to become middle class..

Did they reap obscene profits ? Sure they did, but without them the job creators, the poor wpould not have risen into the middle class..

Now ? Obama depends on his base of Poor voters...Trying to punish the rich is just political and not economics....It is to please his voters...In reality it won't pay the Debt...

So the middle will suffer the most, the poor will NOT be pulled up into the middle class, and the Rich will be the scapegoat but will still be rich...

That is my prediction for the next 4 years...And people will try to blame Bush, Fox news and the Right....Which is laughable at best.

P.S. I am not posting to change someone's mind..Even talking with friends with liberal views, I don't try to change their minds...Let them believe what they want. But when they try to say I am brainwashed by Fox, I wll call them on it everytime..I don't need to watch T.V or read the paper to know what is going on.

we just need tax reform. everyone should pay the same % and all should pay for healthcare. how ever we get there. eventually we should get there.

I have just as much of a problem with the obstructionist congress as the entitlement rich white house.:willy:

I agree -- FLAT TAX -- personal and corporate... ZERO deductions. But I'd index the flat tax by income - less for those earning less and more for high earners. Maybe a 10 - 15 - 25% deal or something.

I agree on the congress/white house comment as well. We need to toss them all out and have a do-over. :cheers:

MY first response in this thread. Agree 100%...

Romney and I are in complete agreement on just giving up on the 47%... Why bother? You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.

There's just not much conversation to be had when one's view is that the glass is empty and the other guys is that it's full.

There are some that throw direct insults at you if you don't have their same beliefs and thoughts. Rather than "whatever, thats not what I feel but I can agree to disagree and move on" they will imply you are an idiot and their dog is smarter than you are......
Quite typical. :rolleyes:

I agree with you...I know that I am not going to convince someone that my view is better...I don't really care to...Everyone is free to think and believe what they want....But when they try to tell me that I am a fool or that I must watch certain programs because of what I believe, it doesn't sit well with me.. And i won't let it just slide by unchecked.

I take care of MY economy and my Family..

Term limits would be nice....That way we could pump the septic tank of Politicians every few years..

Agreed. :cheers:

AMEN!



They've already done the math --- I've heard it repeated on several news shows (as in CNBC - Not Fox! Which I've never watched) - that if you taxed the "rich" 1% ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of their income - you still couldn't balance the budget..

Thus the SPENDING needs to be reeled in --- and the taxes need to go up as well... And I think almost anyone with half a brain can understand that math. The problem is -- Nobody that's getting "help" wants to help - and nobody that's paying wants to pay more unless they get some spending cuts. I totally get that.

It's POLITICS.... and I think the PEOPLE of the United States of America are sick and tired of BS politics. I know I am.

All I ask is that the 535 plus the POTUS -- start to actually work for ALL the People rather than playing to their special group.

Only the last 4 years have been a disaster?

For different reasons....But as far as working through the recession, the last 4 years have been a disaster...And how we got here was a disaster..

But we could go back really far including the disaster of Vietnam, But I was sticking to the Debt and Taxes..

And the quote was meant that if we agree that the last 4 have been a disaster, keeping the same Leaders will not change anything...And I don't expect them to change...So I won't be surprised when they don't.:cheers:

It is all about the lesser of two evils....I have my view on who is worse, but that doesn't mean that the other side is great.

If anyone here considers being referred to as a Fox News viewer as an insult, perhaps there is hope for the right in this country. Otherwise, I'd like to be shown where I insulted anyone in this thread.

Otherwise, you boys keep working on your reach around technique, you're obviously enjoying yourselves. (For those keeping score at home, that was, and was intended to be, an insult.)

Jeez Mike....you just validated Bucket's characterization of Libs. Congrats man; that's a promotion to irrelevance.

P.S. with the right female partner, a reach around aint so bad.

(That was not intended as a shot at for you Bucket)

But who are the 47%? People talk about insults here but I want to understand. I get that the feeling is too many people get free stuff or want free stuff from the government, but how do we arrive at the 47% figure, and how do we arrive at everyone who voted for Obama, wants free stuff and/or is poor, things stated repeatedly here.

Certainly some part of the 47% gets a check and is not or has not been a contributing member of society but most paid or provided service, and they pay taxes like anyone else.

Some percentage of that 47% is included because of the bush tax cuts, which pushed 8 million people completely off the tax rolls. The current talks are unlikely to change that because neither democrats nor republicans will go so far as to let them all expire forever, but it's worth noting where some of it comes from. The lesson from that is that you can't cut taxes, and then complain that some people dropped off from paying taxes.

Now let's talk rationally about the idea that only poor people who want stuff from Obama. If you look at the exit polls, from Fox news for example (seriously the first google result, not commenting anything about it), you'll see that Obama got at least 42% support from all income levels.

He did get strong support from those making < 30k, but is everyone making under 30k poor liberal garbage? Or is it more likely that it's generally comprised of young people who simply make < 30k now? For example they are in college. Young people voted at nearly the same percentage as "poor" people, so it's something to consider that they are likely one and the same group.

Essentially, around 45% of "rich" people supported Obama. Are those people part of the 47%?

I agree to an extent about government waste, people getting checks for nothing, and so forth, but you cannot complain about broad labels and attacking different groups like the rich, and then go and do that exact same thing, labeling those who think different than you as poor, stupid, etc.

The 47% was a 'reference' for those folks that Romney figured he could not reach regardless of what he said... I used it in the same manor. A reference to MKelcy - that I wasn't really interested in trying to change his mind. I figured he wasn't going to agree to ANYTHING that I would say.


I don't recall him (Romney) --- or me (GregWeld) --- labeling them as stupid.. or poor... The reference was simply that you can't reach everyone.


See, to me this is part of the problem. We get bogged down arguing semantics rather than the basic issues. Sorry - you can count me out of arguments like that. They're pointless. Let's stick to just trying to find, or arguing about, a solution rather than picking up on whether someone watches Fox news - or wants to challenge an idea based on semantics. :cheers:

you never disappoint. :rolleyes:

I think for most of the electorate... this has been the choice for the last several elections. The choice really hasn't been FOR someone as much as it has been AGAINST someone else. Sadly --- I lay that at the feet of BOTH parties. We just don't seem to be able to get someone (let's go back to Reagan who carried 49 of 50 states or on the democratic side - Clinton - although that's a stretch in reality because of Ross Perot) that a majority of people can seem to get behind.

I thought Obama was going to be "the leader" --- based on his first election. But he's clearly made his bed with labeling the "rich" as something no one should aspire to... and with the disaster (my own label) Obamacare.

I'm for everyone getting healthcare - I just don't agree with the Obamacare way of doing that. But that's just ONE issue. I never vote single issues. I ALWAYS vote for the PERSON that I think can do the best job overall. I'm a right down the middle kind of guy. I just want a LEADER that is for what's best for everyone.

Ok so here's a question. Let's say they come to an agreement before the end of the year. Let's say it has revenue and cuts in the ballpark of halfway in between what the first offers were, in the range of 2 trillion, probably 1.2 revenue, 800 cuts. Clearly not the silver bullet to the deficit but a start and just generally calms everyone down.

Next year, let's say they negotiate tax reform and vastly simplify the tax system. This is widely anticipated as both sides want to do it although of course they differ on the details, but let's again assume it ends up balanced. The expectation is most rates would drop except capital gains which may increase, but it's way early to say.

All of that happens, does your view of the president change at all? Take all of your ideas about what you think would fix things, like a flat tax and realistically look at what can be accomplished, and what would at least qualify as him doing a satisfactory job?

That would qualify handily in my book! Then if "they" would modify Obamacare to create some cost controls in healthcare....he'd be the guy I voted for in 2008. :cheers:

That's pretty funny because I've tried to engage you on who the real drivers of the economy are, and you "surrender," and then talk about all the folks you're keeping employed building a car trailer.

New housing starts at an annual rate of approximately 900,000 units in November mean jobs for housing construction, furniture, appliances, cars, schools, etc. We need consumers to buy those houses, which the "job creators" building them apparently think will be there, even in this Obama dominated economy.

You may think that car trailers, yachts and wine cellars for the 1% are the drivers of the economy, but that's simply not the case. Without consumers, there are no jobs. Perhaps you disagree and can explain why; or perhaps you disagree but can't explain why.

Here's the simple non-semantic assertion - without consumers, there are no jobs, and putting more dollars in the hands of the lower and middle class more directly translates to consumer spending and, yes, jobs.

Notice, no semantics, just clear assertions based on facts. But feel free to "surrender" again and preach to the true believers about the 47% leeches who are destroying this country.