(12-20-2016, 07:59 AM)Odin Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:12 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: Sorry but you are biased and are just stating an opinion that is not supported by any evidence. Besides....does it actually clean up both parties? Is it productive?Have to ask those questions otherwise you are just feeding 3T on steroids. I am skeptical of blind tribalism and labeling with no evidence or self reflection on either side to fix what needs fixing. It is the very reason why over in my country i dropped labour for another party that seems to focus on real issues.

I'm not biased. I've seen protests by  both sides many times.

He is actually correct on this one.  The most recent example on the right was the Tea Party protests over Obozocare.

You mean Koch Family Astroturf?

(12-16-2016, 10:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-15-2016, 09:32 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 03:14 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Playdude!!! How's it going.

Treating people like children doesn't result in tantrums. It results in them quietly voting against your candidate. You haven't figured that out yet?

I do think it's ironic that Rick Perry is going to be the head of a department that he thought should be eliminated. Stick to stuff like that, instead of insulting people.

Were you at the Hillary rally on election night?

No, it's being children that has the Trump Chumps voting for a Manhattan billionaire that they want to believe is their super hero.  I have to admit it's going to be fun watching them grow up and discover reality over the next 4 years.

I'm doing fine.  Looking forward to my $100,000 or so tax cut once President Pussygrabber and his GOP clowns repeal Obamacare -

 

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Cut Taxes For High Income Households, Raise Taxes For Many Others

Quote:Repealing the Affordable Care Act would cut taxes significantly for the highest income one percent of US households, according to a new Tax Policy Center analysis. At the same time, it would raise taxes on average for low- and moderate-income households.

The ACA includes several different tax provisions. On one side of the ledger is the large refundable tax credit that subsidizes insurance premiums for many people who buy coverage on the ACA’s health exchange. On the other side: tax increases designed to both raise revenue and encourage the purchase of adequate—but not excessive--insurance. They include a penalty tax for individuals without adequate insurance, an excise tax on employers with 50 or more workers who offer insufficient coverage, and the so-called Cadillac tax on generous employer-sponsored health benefits. The law also created two extra taxes on high-income individuals--a 0.9 percent payroll surtax on earnings and a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income for individuals with incomes exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 for couples).

Overall, dumping all the ACA taxes would cut taxes by an average of $180 per household in 2017—a 0.3 increase in after-tax incomes. Of course, taxes are not the only measure of people’s well-being. A new analysis by the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center estimates that eliminating the law without adopting a replacement could increase the number of people without insurance by more than 29 million, putting them at risk for out-of-pocket medical costs that would far exceed any tax savings.

Still, it is useful to look at how repealing the law would affect the tax bills of households across the income spectrum.  On average, the lowest-income households (that make less than about $25,000) would see their taxes rise by $90, or about 0.6 percent of their after-tax income. But that average masks a wide variation. Most low-income households would see no change at all in their taxes. But about 7 percent would get a tax cut of about $1,200 on average while 4 percent would face a very big tax hike, averaging nearly $3,900—mostly because they’d lose the benefit of the premium subsidies.
Winners and Losers
Middle-income households, who make between $52,000 and $89,000 would get an average tax increase of $80, but that average also tells only part of the story. About 94 percent would get a small tax cut averaging $110, but 3 percent would be hit with a tax hike averaging $6,200, reflecting the loss of the ACA’s insurance subsidies.
By contrast, nearly everyone in the highest income one percent would enjoy a substantial tax cut, averaging $33,000 or about 2.1 percent of after-tax income. Those in the top 0.1 percent would get an average tax cut of about $197,000, raising their after-tax incomes by 2.6 percent, thanks to the repeal of the net investment tax and the extra Medicare tax.
TPC took a closer look at the specific tax changes. For example, repealing the premium subsidies and coverage penalties, which were key to the basic design of the Obama health reform, mostly hurt those in the lowest 40 percent of income, who make about $52,000 or less. The highest income families would see no change in their after-tax incomes, on average, if Congress eliminated those provisions.  
By contrast, high-income households would receive nearly all the benefit of repealing the Medicare surtax and the net investment tax—no surprise since they were the explicit targets of those tax hikes. For instance, 90 percent of the benefit from repeal of the 3.8 percent net investment tax would go to those in the top one percent, who make $774,000 or more. Their 2017 tax cut would average $25,000, or 1.6 percent of their after-tax income. Those in the top 0.1 percent would enjoy an average tax cut of $165,000, boosting their after-tax incomes by 2.2 percent.
Medicare Surtax
The pattern is similar with repeal of the Medicare surtax, though the numbers are smaller. More than 99 percent would get no benefit at all. But those in the top one percent would get three-quarters of the benefit—enjoying an average tax cut of $7,300.
The story is very different when it comes to dumping the Cadillac tax. That would cut taxes by an average of $90, but the benefits are distributed much more widely. Middle income households, which make between $52,000 and $89,000, would see an average tax cut of $110, or 0.2 percent of their after-tax income. Those at the very top would see their taxes cut by a few hundred dollars on average, but the tax cut would be inconsequential as a percentage of their income.
TPC also looked at what would happen under full repeal in 2025. The lowest-income 40 percent would pay higher taxes on average, while higher income people would enjoy a substantial tax cut. A few of the lowest-income households would get hit with a big tax hike but most would pay a bit less than under current law. Nearly all high-income people would continue to receive very large tax cuts, with those in the top one percent averaging a cut of $46,000.
In short, the ACA taxes affect different taxpayers in very different ways, but in general, repealing the health reform law would, on average, cut taxes for the rich and raise them for low-income households.

And gee, you 'high earning' Trump Chumps might get a couple hundred bucks!  Whoo-hoo! 
 
Tax cuts that will come from taking decent health insurance away from 39 million people.  Tax cuts that will literally be killing other people.    
 
I'm going to donate my windfall to some of those Trump Chumps that might otherwise die or worse have a child, parent or sibling on the death bed for want of a drug or treatment.   
 
But gee, you 'high-earning' Trump Chumps are the ones that really get the payoff of being able to look down the ladder and see folks worse off that you again.  I'm sure it's nice to afford an extra case of Mad Dog each year, but I bet that superior feeling is what  really gives you a warm and cozy all over.  You must be so proud.  Congratulations on your victory over the less fortunate! 
 


By the way, Cynic Hero is still the angry White dude.  He's not going to be happy until there's a zombie apocalypse and he can directly shoot the less fortunate in thier deserving heads without the authorities getting in the way.  I think he's got his fingers crossed that the Trump regime will give him the okay even without the whole zombie thing.

I think I'll be making some serious money from now on. According to you, you'll have a $100,000 that you could give to the less fortunate assuming that you actually do care about the less fortunate.

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 05:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 04:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 07:51 AM)Odin Wrote: A puppet of the Russian state cannot be allowed to become president. The electoral college must do it's duty as Hamilton described in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers and chose someone else. I don't care if it's another Republican. Romney, Jeb, or McMullen would be fine, just not Trump.

If the Trumpistas want to revolt over it, kill them.

I hope you did not really mean killing people who oppose you in thought.

We are in uncharted territory. This could well be this century's equivalent to Vichy or Quisling. If it's proved that Trump & company are unregistered foreign agents, it means they violated several federal election laws, these are serious felonies. If it is further proved they aided and abetted cyberwar, it is treason. Should supporting groups revolt, the National Guard would be within rights to shoot them.

Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 05:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We are in uncharted territory. This could well be this century's equivalent to Vichy or Quisling. If it's proved that Trump & company are unregistered foreign agents, it means they violated several federal election laws, these are serious felonies. If it is further proved they aided and abetted cyberwar, it is treason. Should supporting groups revolt, the National Guard would be within rights to shoot them.

Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

(12-20-2016, 04:33 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 05:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 04:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: I hope you did not really mean killing people who oppose you in thought.

We are in uncharted territory. This could well be this century's equivalent to Vichy or Quisling. If it's proved that Trump & company are unregistered foreign agents, it means they violated several federal election laws, these are serious felonies. If it is further proved they aided and abetted cyberwar, it is treason. Should supporting groups revolt, the National Guard would be within rights to shoot them.

Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

This guy - 



- says you're confused.

(12-19-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

I think one violent right-wing protester managed to rack up a death toll likely greater than the entire death toll from left wing violence in US history. 

His name was Timothy McVeigh.

Also, I'd say the right-wing rebellion entitled "The Civil War" had a pretty big death toll, wouldn't you? Although some of the initial provocations by John Brown had a death toll too.

(12-19-2016, 03:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote: Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

I think one violent right-wing protester managed to rack up a death toll likely greater than the entire death toll from left wing violence in US history. 

His name was Timothy McVeigh.

Also, I'd say the right-wing rebellion entitled "The Civil War" had a pretty big death toll, wouldn't you? Although some of the initial provocations by John Brown had a death toll too.

I don't talk about Civil War and using violence to achieve political goals like you do. I tell you what's going to happen to you and all of the idiots like you once the violence/war starts.

(12-20-2016, 04:42 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 04:33 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 05:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We are in uncharted territory. This could well be this century's equivalent to Vichy or Quisling. If it's proved that Trump & company are unregistered foreign agents, it means they violated several federal election laws, these are serious felonies. If it is further proved they aided and abetted cyberwar, it is treason. Should supporting groups revolt, the National Guard would be within rights to shoot them.

Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

This guy - 



- says you're confused.

Now you are just getting stupid.

(12-20-2016, 04:54 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 04:42 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 04:33 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

This guy - 



- says you're confused.

Now you are just getting stupid.

You need to sit up, look around, and see who you've gotten in bed with.

I'm willing to admit my crowd includes the Birkenstock crowd as well as Hollywood airheads.  I guess you doing the equivalent is just a tad too scary for you - best just to not think about it, right?

(12-20-2016, 04:46 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote: I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

I think one violent right-wing protester managed to rack up a death toll likely greater than the entire death toll from left wing violence in US history. 

His name was Timothy McVeigh.

Also, I'd say the right-wing rebellion entitled "The Civil War" had a pretty big death toll, wouldn't you? Although some of the initial provocations by John Brown had a death toll too.

I don't talk about Civil War and using violence to achieve political goals like you do. I tell you what's going to happen to you and all of the idiots like you once the violence/war starts.

This is classic chickenhawk - in their mind, its always someone else that is killed. 

Doesn't work that way.

(12-20-2016, 03:00 PM)David Horn Wrote: Think about this for a second.  If prevention of unsuitable candidates is no longer under consideration, and I believe it is not, then what purpose does the institution serve?  I guess you can argue that it promotes geo-diversity, but so what?  Is that a better option than minority rule? 

I don't see the EC being added to the trash heap any time soon, but a serious discussion of its fate is long overdue.  If nothing else, the bias created by adding the number of Senators to the number of Representatives to get each state allocation is unsupportable.  Kill that, at least.

(12-21-2016, 12:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 03:00 PM)David Horn Wrote: Think about this for a second.  If prevention of unsuitable candidates is no longer under consideration, and I believe it is not, then what purpose does the institution serve?  I guess you can argue that it promotes geo-diversity, but so what?  Is that a better option than minority rule? 

I don't see the EC being added to the trash heap any time soon, but a serious discussion of its fate is long overdue.  If nothing else, the bias created by adding the number of Senators to the number of Representatives to get each state allocation is unsupportable.  Kill that, at least.

Originally, the United States were perceived of as a union of states.  There are many mechanisms in the Constitution intended to preserve the power of the states.  That perspective seems dated.  I see us more as a union of People rather than a union of states.  From that perspective, I'd kind of like to see us going to direct vote.

The founding fathers also trusted the well educated elite above the populist urges of the People.  There are mechanisms in the Constitution that place elected officials in power rather than the People.  I see the Electoral College as such a mechanism.  Again, I distrust the founding father's wisdom.  I'd as soon see direct vote.

While I'd as soon cast aside the EC, the founding fathers had reasons for what they did.

(12-20-2016, 05:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 04:54 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 04:42 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 04:33 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote: Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

This guy - 



- says you're confused.

Now you are just getting stupid.

You need to sit up, look around, and see who you've gotten in bed with.

I'm willing to admit my crowd includes the Birkenstock crowd as well as Hollywood airheads.  I guess you doing the equivalent is just a tad too scary for you - best just to not think about it, right?

Are we in any deeper with him than you are in with the black who gunned down six white cops in Dallas. You want to play racial games.  I'll play racial games that will raise the stakes of the game so high that it begins to place your life on the line. DO YOU THINK I WOULD GIVE A SHIT IF SOME DUMB ASS LIBERAL FOOL INTO PLAYING RACIAL GAMES FOR VOTES WAS LYNCHED INSIDE MANHATTAN BY MINORITIES JUST BECAUSE HE WAS WHITE?

(12-20-2016, 06:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 04:46 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

I think one violent right-wing protester managed to rack up a death toll likely greater than the entire death toll from left wing violence in US history. 

His name was Timothy McVeigh.

Also, I'd say the right-wing rebellion entitled "The Civil War" had a pretty big death toll, wouldn't you? Although some of the initial provocations by John Brown had a death toll too.

I don't talk about Civil War and using violence to achieve political goals like you do. I tell you what's going to happen to you and all of the idiots like you once the violence/war starts.

This is classic chickenhawk - in their mind, its always someone else that is killed. 

Doesn't work that way.

I've never got into a fight or entered one without accepting the possibility of myself feeling pain or getting hurt during the fight.

(12-21-2016, 05:49 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 06:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 04:46 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think one violent right-wing protester managed to rack up a death toll likely greater than the entire death toll from left wing violence in US history. 

His name was Timothy McVeigh.

Also, I'd say the right-wing rebellion entitled "The Civil War" had a pretty big death toll, wouldn't you? Although some of the initial provocations by John Brown had a death toll too.

I don't talk about Civil War and using violence to achieve political goals like you do. I tell you what's going to happen to you and all of the idiots like you once the violence/war starts.

This is classic chickenhawk - in their mind, its always someone else that is killed. 

Doesn't work that way.

I've never got into a fight or entered one without accepting the possibility of myself feeling pain or getting hurt during the fight.

You've never been in a firefight; you just want other people to be.