I said that majority of tax payers, those making 250K + -- meaning by the overall share, those making 250K plus pay most of the taxes in this country. While it isn't an exact number they are part of the top 10% earners who play something around 70% of the taxes in this country. I believe the top 10% starts at 160K or something like that. Was it that difficult to understand? Once more you are simply a tool for claiming victory over such a trite comment. Look at me I win a battle of opinions! Hey guys, look at me!
Why do you want their money? Why is them keeping what they earned bad? Where is Obama's balanced budget? Why do you hate America? Lets just be stupid as all fuck now....
I've enjoyed reading through this thread and it has been educational. I agree with certain points made by both sides although do not have a full understanding of the speculated future changes that employers and insurance plans will undergo to form a general yay/nay opinion. Everyone seems to be concerned about their own personal situation with good reason. For myself, I've worked for an oil & gas company for the past 8 years with roughly 1,000 insured in our group plan. Premiums have continued to significantly rise over those 8 yrs. The LASIK versus "other" insured services was a good point made earlier. I fear that medicine will continue to advance to the point of keeping us alive longer, yet continue the inefficient cost model. While it's not a pleasant subject, should we be talking more about the types of situations that require "pulling the plug"? I think the aging boomer population will require us to have this conversation after they incur huge medical expenses over the next 25 years that keep them alive long enough to bankrupt the country.
It reminds me of Cosmo Kramer discussing his possible scenarios with Elaine. Maybe we need our government to decide those types of situations for us. Maybe not.
I think there is a case for both, however I think this should be decided at the state and local levels. I think the role of the Federal government should be limited and should not decide policies for all when states where clearly given that right. For example, Cali might love Obama care and as a state, they can come up with a plan to cover those residence while Texas can work on its own plan to better suit its business, economic, and public challenges. As apposed to a general federal plan that most people just disagreed with. This would take much of the political bullshit out of the equation.
funny because that is not what your boy Romney says....he says that they are the same. in fact, his spokesperson went on tv this morning to say that Romney agrees with the President that this is not a tax, but a penalty. go see for yourself....
no you are grasping for something, anything and it is pathetic. it is just like your side to say that I hate America because I disagree with you. i am a veteran and very proud of my service and my country.
