Advertisement

jhwk2008

Follow

Comment history

Jobs lost in recession may not return

Why do you hate America? I hope you'd give up your US citizenship as well, because as a US citizen, you pay taxes on worldwide income.

May 14, 2010 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Miranda rights vs. public safety concern

The private sector added 231,000 jobs last month, the most since March 2006. Spiraling down, huh?

May 7, 2010 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Check the facts

It's not taxing the dead; it's taxing those people who avoided taxes while they were alive.

April 24, 2010 at 11:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Check the facts

Lie. Why cite 2008? In 2009, $3.5 million was exempted. And $7 million for couples. Less than 2% of all estates.

"A lot of families/farmers have to sell off assets in order to pay the the government 'their share'. Lie. Family farms get a break if they keep the farm for 10+ years. And 2% equals "a lot?"

"Didn't they pay taxes on it when it was earned?"
No, 36.3% of estates subject consist of unrealized capital gains.

Estate Tax Malarkey, http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

April 24, 2010 at 11:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Students benefit from federal loan overhaul

"SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
No, bozo. Lenders provided the loans,"

Wrong. That stopped in 2008 with the passage of H.R.5715: Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery...:
The government provided the money for the loans, the banks lent the government's money while charging fees, and the government guaranteed the loans.

Furthermore, why are Republicans clamoring for the continuation of government subsidies? Privatized profits, socialized losses!!!!

April 2, 2010 at 10:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Reform not dead

CeeDub,

1. Page 3 of the CBO analysis:
"By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured."

Previous reports?? You mean Republican press releases?

2. "I really don't want to pay premiums three or four years in advance for coverage that's going to be worse than what I have."

Huh? Can you cite any source that says you're going to have to pay premiums three or four years in advance?

3. The Republican summary: "Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions."

Key word: "access"
Translation: Insurance companies can still discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

4. Gender is a pre-existing condition. Thus, women are charged more. In eight states, insurers can reject a woman’s health insurance application if she is a survivor of domestic violence.

5. Is it not in the Republican summary?

What's the issue with pages? Have you ever seen a bill? There are about 5-6 words on a line and about 20 lines per page. Moreover, you didn't actually look at the bill, did you? You merely looked at the Republican summary, correct?

And then you claim sarcastically that you "love the same old talking points that are constantly regurgitated." Um, you regurgitated Republican talking points directly from gop.gov.

February 4, 2010 at 10:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Reform not dead

CeeDub (Anonymous) says…

"I love the same old talking points that are constantly regurgitated. =) When Obama met with the Republican Caucus Friday (finally), he was given a 30 page booklet of all their proposals for solutions"

Republican health care plan according to the CBO:

1. Insures only 3 million more people. (The Democrat's plan insures 36 million more people.)
2. Reduces the deficit by $68 Billion. (The Democrat's plan reduces the deficit by $109 Billion.)
3. Does not end discrimination for pre-existing medical conditions. (The Democrat's plan does. It's the sole reason there must be a mandate to buy coverage. Otherwise, people would only buy coverage after they get sick.)
4. Does not end gender discrimination. (The Democrat's plan does.)
5. Does not cap annual out of pocket expenses. (The Democrat's plan does.)

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705...

I'm curious CeeDub, what does it do?

February 4, 2010 at 6:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tragic irony

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…

"The CBO's projections are always right, these things never tend to underestimate costs ::cough:: Bush's prescription drug bill ::cough:: (oops!)."

Huh? You're using this for your argument?

"The Medicare prescription-drug benefit is costing taxpayers a lot, but less than expected. The Congressional Budget Office's original 10-year price tag was $640 billion over 10 years; it's now down by a third to $410 billion."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12628...

Try again.

January 29, 2010 at 11:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tragic irony

verity (Anonymous) says…

"How much will tort reform and/or buying insurance across state lines save us?"

Tort reform according to the CBO: $54 billion over the next 10 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Should it be done? Probably. Is it the answer? Absolutely not.

January 29, 2010 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tragic irony

kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…

"The people of Mass, who have a state health care plan, don't like it. And they voted against it on the Federal level. That message should tell you everything."

Lie.

68% percent of those who voted in the special election support the Massachusetts Universal Health Insurance Law. Only 27% oppose it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/...

January 29, 2010 at 10:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )