De Ja Vu

We have another "Press Conference"  coming up tonight.  Whoopee!

bossman:

We have another "Press Conference"  coming up tonight.  Whoopee!

It will be interesting to watch Alabama, I mean Obama, try to explain again his Health Care Program.

bossman:

We have another "Press Conference"  coming up tonight.  Whoopee!

I think prime-time infomercial is a much better description...

Burghman:

 

This is an important moment for American families who are being buried and bankrupted by health care costs 

Feel free to let us know just how many of those there are...

Now, do you mean the 10 million illegal immigrants Obama counts in the "50 million uninsured in the US", or the 17 million who choose not to get it, or the 9 million children that are counted in CHIP programs provided by states?  Obama can't even give a firm number.

Using math, his number 50 million reduces to 14 million, less than 5% of the US population...

Of course, he hasn't even read the health care plan, and has admitted such.  But that's not a lie, right? (wink wink)

Burghman:

 

get awy with lies and breaking the law

What law was broken?

Burghman:

 

Obama has met with republicans

Sorry, but Obama running into a Republican on his way to the men's room doesn't count as a "meeting"...

Burghman:

 

Sounds like you've been looking into that ...........what promise has he broken ?

How about the lie that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8 percent if the "stimulus" got passed?  Last check 9.5% in June seasonally adjusted national unemployment rate....

Here's a couple of lies from a piece in on the AP wire:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5_BVcffmTDiWRShx5LiOjCO_7YgD99AJCS01

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama's unkept tax pledge

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER (AP) – Jul 8, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It's a promise he's already broken and will likely have to break again.

Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already increased tobacco taxes — which disproportionately hit the poor — to pay for extending health coverage to 4 million children in working low-income families.

Now, lawmakers are looking for more revenues to help pay for providing medical insurance to millions more who lack it at a projected cost of $1 trillion over the next decade.

The floated proposals include increasing taxes on alcohol, which could raise $62 billion over the next decade, and a new tax on sugary drinks such as soda, which could raise $52 billion.

<further down in the article>

Obama made a firm tax pledge during the presidential campaign, repeating it numerous times in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day: no tax increases for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or couples making less than $250,000.

"Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year.

But less than a month after taking office, Obama signed an expansion of child health care financed by 62-cent tax increase on each pack of cigarettes.

Obama also signed an anti-smoking bill in June that grants authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. To pay for the new program, a fee is being imposed on the industry — and presumably passed on to consumers — estimated to generate more than $5 billion over the next decade.

YAY!!! President attention w**** on tv again! Look at me, look at me...I'm over here behind the teleprompter reading the answers to pre-selected questions from my media propaganda corp.

Well, the press conference is over.  Does anybody know actually what he said?  (Those with their nose up his you know what can probably agree to something.)

No real details, only the same generalities;  you can keep your current coverage;  you you can pick a plan if you have no coverage;  previous ailments won't hinder getting a policy;  etc.  Same rhetoric, no details.  It's accepted by the know-nothings, however.

This is the slickest guy to come around since "Slick Willie."

I'll repeat my thoughts on the White House Press Corp:  What a bunch of wimps.  No guts to ask a tough question.  They just sit on their hands and whern called on, it's "Thank you Mr. president."  "What do you think about the weather?"

P.S.  This is not a reply or an answer to Burgman, since I ignore him.  He's still in the last decade.

Bossman Mike

bossman:

Well, the press conference is over.  Does anybody know actually what he said?  (Those with their nose up his you know what can probably agree to something.)

No real details, only the same generalities;  you can keep your current coverage;  you you can pick a plan if you have no coverage;  previous ailments won't hinder getting a policy;  etc.  Same rhetoric, no details.  It's accepted by the know-nothings, however.

This is the slickest guy to come around since "Slick Willie."

I'll repeat my thoughts on the White House Press Corp:  What a bunch of wimps.  No guts to ask a tough question.  They just sit on their hands and whern called on, it's "Thank you Mr. president."  "What do you think about the weather?"

 

P.S.  This is not a reply or an answer to Burgman, since I ignore him.  He's still in the last decade.

Bossman Mike

 Your posts are about as "informative" as you claim Obama's presser was.

For those grownups that would like to read the transcript

"If somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health-care costs over the next 10 years, that's guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, I think most people would be opposed to that. Well, that's the status quo. That's what we have right now. So if we don't change, we can't expect a different result.

"And that's why I think this is so important -- not only for those families out there who are struggling and who need some protection from abuses in the insurance industry or need some protection from skyrocketing costs, but it's also important for our economy.

"And by the way, it's important for families' wages and incomes. One of the things that doesn't get talked about is the fact that when premiums are going up, and the costs to employers are going up, that's money that could be going into people's wages and incomes. And over the last decade, we basically saw middle-class families; their incomes and wages flatlined. Part of the reason is, because health-care costs are gobbling that up."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/us/politics/22obama.transcript.html?pagewanted=print

Yep........changing nothing will hurt america's people and working families

 And over the last decade, we basically saw middle-class families; their incomes and wages flatlined. Part of the reason is, because health-care costs are gobbling that up."

Only for middle income families that sat on the fat arses and did nothing to improve their status in life. If you work hard and apply yourself anything is possible.

Don't whine about costs with three cars in the driveway and a TV in every room. Every kid has a cell phone paid by their parents.

Get used to it. If your home costs (mortgage, insurance, taxes) is greater than 28% of your gross, you deserve to suffer. Live within your means.

North Side:

 And over the last decade, we basically saw middle-class families; their incomes and wages flatlined. Part of the reason is, because health-care costs are gobbling that up."

Only for middle income families that sat on the fat arses and did nothing to improve their status in life. If you work hard and apply yourself anything is possible.

Don't whine about costs with three cars in the driveway and a TV in every room. Every kid has a cell phone paid by their parents.

Get used to it. If your home costs (mortgage, insurance, taxes) is greater than 28% of your gross, you deserve to suffer. Live within your means.

 You should read up on wages & income

 Those charts make me happy...i like what I what I see.

North Side:

 Those charts make me happy...i like what I what I see.

 Very Insightful..........seems you don't understand how best to achieve a thriving economy.

Burghman:

 You should read up on wages & income

Same tired, boring rhetoric.  Ironic it's in a thread called Deja Vu.....

Nice website you pointed us to, especially in the fact it mentions nothing about taxes and the burden of taxation in this country.  No mention anywhere in there about the top 10% (in your graph represented by the top 20%, at around $103,000/yr) paying over 70% of the taxes in this country.

And of course, Burghman will probably regurgitate the same tired, old argument "But the wealthy pay less in taxes blah blah blah blah"....we've been down this road before.  So here's a link showing the bottom 50% paid a 3.01% average tax rate while the top 5% paid 20.68% and the top 1% paid 22.79% average rates respectively, while the following data shows who pays what in America. 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

Washington, DC, October 4, 2007 - New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows.

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2005 (updated October 2007)

Source: IRS

The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

Burghman:

Very Insightful..........seems you don't understand how best to achieve a thriving economy.

Feel free to provide any examples of when a Marxist economy (which is what Obama wants) was ever "thriving"....