Sarah Palin isn’t holding much back:
That ‘tan’ look doesn’t suit her.
But her message is flat-on accurate. I think ol’ Nancy’s long past time to consider retirement – she’s incapable of adjusting to a reality that doesn’t revolve itself around her whims and wishes.
Hey dingbat! That swamp is still full of your cronies.!!
Now there’s a pot – kettle situation.
If you had half a brain, you’d be legally insane everywhere except the US senate.
Get the boosh v gore hate chip out of your skull before you start to buy your own bs..
Oh, I can think of several other places: The House progressive caucus, the Southern Poverty Law Center, The DCCC….The list gets rather long.
It would interesting to see the results should he be upgraded to that level.
I like how Obamacare is simultaneously “the mother of all unfunded mandates” and also “the largest tax increase in history.” LOL, which is it, Sarah?
Doesn’t matter. It’s Gospel if it falls from the mouth of Sarah “Joan of Noah’s Ark” Palin, right?
You mean you can’t wrap your head around the fact that it is both?
I thought you were smarter than that.
If it’s a tax increase, it’s — at least partially — funded. So it’s not UNfunded, genius. Unless it’s NOT a tax increase.
It can’t be both. Logical impossibility. For those of us who speak English, anyway. Maybe not for Snowflake Snooki.
I see. So you consider the US budget [or what passes for a budget the Democrats refuse to adopt] which spends a Trillion $$$ more than comes in, as being “funded.” Brilliant. Who needs a budget anyway? You should let Stockton, Cal. know that its budget was “funded.” No need for bankruptcy.
Do you know the common definition of the phrase “unfunded mandate,” Walter? It’s a mandate that comes with NO funding. If it’s accompanied by a tax increase, it’s not “unfunded,” although it may be described accurately as “partially funded” if that is the case.
I wasn’t talking — and nether was Palin — about the entire budget, but a budget with a deficit, of whatever size, isn’t usually described as “unfunded,” is it?
I don’t know anything about the case of Stockton, CA, so I won’t speak to that issue.
Ok then, how about a ridiculously underfunded mandate that would push already teetering state economies over the edge into insolvency? I think unfunded mandate communicates pretty much the same thing.
it’s — at least partially — funded
So if I give you a dollar and tell you to go buy a car I can say that the mandate to buy a car is not unfunded? You are admitting that it is only partially funded. The notion that a multitrillion dollar healthcare mandate could be the largest tax and the largest unfunded mandate is not outside the realm of possibility. Add to that the double counting of revenues that the dems used to get this thing through Congress and it is even easier to believe that this POS of legislation is everything its detractors claim.
Just because something is easy to believe doesn’t mean it’s so, Jim. Especially if one is predisposed to believe a given something.
I’m not admitting anything. I don’t know how far the penalty goes in funding the mandate. I doubt it only goes as far as you imply with your one-dollar/price-of-a-car analogy.
My point was about the definitions of words and phrases. “Unfunded mandate” has a meaning. “Tax increase” has a meaning. The two meanings are mutually exclusive.
I accept your point, but mine is that “unfunded” and “underfunded” can be so similar in practical reality that the distinction is essentially without a difference.
OK, but if it IS “the largest tax increase in American history” it must be HUGE, right? How far DOES it fall short in funding this mandate?
And forget about your point and my point. What about Palin’s point? If she doesn’t know what she’s talking about why give her any credence?
Taxes go into the general fund. Taxation and appropriations are not directly connected. Large amounts of government funds get spend on bureaucratic overhead and do not get distributed to the states. After the Federal government takes its cut the states get what is left and they have their own bloated overhead before the money gets spent on what it is intended for.
Remember also that the ACA included provisions for the IRS and hiring of thousands of workers to collect new taxes. It also included provisions for student loans and other non healthcare related issues. SO the taxes collected for the ACA can go to a lot of non healthcare related activities. I can collect $100 in taxes and spend 80%+ of it on other things before any money is delivered to the state.
By that definition, all government spending is “unfunded” or “underfunded.” And almost always has been, since there have been very few years in our history that we HAVEN’T run a deficit.
Politicians of both parties constantly call for this or that tax cut, or spending increase, or regulation, to be “paid for.” That is what Palin is referring to, and what I was criticizing her for. Not some acrobatic definition of what is “funded” and what isn’t.
Well Bruce if it winds up costing trillsions more than the trillions they collect it will is simple. Look at the trillins for Social security that we dont have.
It’s a lie.. but it’s not outside of the realm of possibilities, true.
The penalty collected is going to be relatively small, and not anything close to the “largest tax” — conservatives rabbed hold of that as they flailed about in terror that the Supreme Court declared Obama right and Romney wrong about the Constituionality of the law.
The Obama campaign has Romney on camera in 29 supporting the mandate. He as for it before he was against it — and in fact, he wrote it. The mandate in the ACA is modeled after the mandate Romney put into the Massachusetts law. Exactly.
The right will give us the “largest tax increase” bullshit after the 4th, but right now they are concerned with firing up the rubes and getting the Tea Party hacks to make new misspelled racist signs. It’ll be old news by July 10.
I see that’s caught on.
That’s because it’s so freaking brilliant.
You ever think that the tax penalty is small because they don’t really care if you get the insurance, just as long as you give the government money?
The penalty collected is going to be relatively small, and not anything close to the “largest tax” — conservatives grabbed hold of that as they flailed about in terror that the Supreme Court declared Obama right and Romney wrong about the Constitutionality of the law.
The Obama campaign has Romney on camera in 2009 supporting the mandate. He was for it before he was against it — and in fact, he wrote it. The mandate in the ACA is modeled after the mandate Romney put into the Massachusetts law. Exactly.
The right will continue the “largest tax increase” bullshit until after the Tea Party rally on the 4th, but right now they are concerned with firing up the rubes and getting the Tea Party hacks to make new misspelled racist signs. It’ll be old news by July 10.
You are truly pathetic
CHickenshit. Have you ever heard of the bait and switch.
It starts out small. Since it is a tax what is going to stop future congresses from increasing it? You know like Social security used to be 1% and now it is 7.5%.
If it isnt totally funded than it can easily be considered UNFUNDED. And Obamacare is far from being totally funded.
BTW, Palin claims in the video that she “knows lots of Democrats” who want to “bail on the Democrat party.” Do you think that’s true, or do you believe, as I do, that she’s pulling that out her ass?
Interesting question Bruce. You are asking me if what Palin says is true (that she knows dmes who are going to bail on the dem party). I honestly dont know as I dont run in her circles. I cant pretend to speak for her either.
I can speak from my oOwn experiences. I know of 2 hardcoare dems who were over the top Obama supporters who have both told me the same thing. They have to think of their families and of their continued employment and that they will not be voting for Obama again. These are not folks making min wage either but making 50-70k per year If they are any indication than I believe that Obama is in serious trouble.
Obama will get the hard left vote, those like Grumpy who are the kool aid drinkers. He will also get the “dreamer ” vote, those who want a better world but IMO dont look at the world realistically. For instnace, Sure it would be nice to make friends with everyone (ala Code Pink or the wackos who went to act as human shields) but the sad fact is that not everyone wants to be friends and there are some serioulsy bad folks out there who would cut your thorat to lookat you.
Then there are the racists (all 5% of them which come from both sides of the poliitical aisle). I have many members of my extended family who are lifelong dems but who wouldnt vote for Obama on a bet becuase he is black. These are folks who if they make more than $20k a year it is a good year (that is throwing in govt aid as well) There are just as many on the right as the left who feel this way.
Some politicians will “bail” out of self preservation as they see the political winds blowing against obama. Take Obamacare for instance. Obama and friends can say it isnt a tax all they want but we just had 4 days of wall to wall coverage of SCOTUS calling it a tax. For the folks who just read the headlines they will feel the pols who say it isnt a tax are typical pols who are lying. The only good thing for the left on this is that they wont be paying taxes for another 2 years. When they do it is going to be really bad for the dems.
Then you have the fokls like my sons. Making min wage or just above it. Paying their bills and getting by without govt aid. They look at this and wonder who is going to pay for it because they know that nothing is free and smoeone is going to pay for it. They also know that the shit flows down hill and that the rich will get good healthcare regardless and the rest of us will get the crumbs that are left.
Hope that answers your question Bruce.
Oh, you could very well be right about who’s gonna win the election, RM, and for just the reasons you list.
People are tired of waiting for Obama to “fix” the economy, or for it to get better in spite of him, and in their frustration may turn to Romney. Of course, Boehner, McConnell, and the the rest of the GOP have done their level best to make sure nothing he proposes gets fully implemented, but voters may not notice that.
It is my hope, though, that when folks look at the two alternatives, they’ll see that choosing Romney means choosing Bush, who in tandem with a 12 year Republican-controlled Congress (and a “triangulating” Bill Clinton) got us into the mess that Obama has been so far unable to get us out of.
I think that Obama will scrape by as the “lesser of two evils” candidate.
But I think Palin is flat-out lying when she claims to know “lots” of Dems who have told her they’re gonna bail on the “Democrat” party. I don’t believe that EVEN ONE Democrat has told her that, unless it was some starburst-stricken rube in the crowd at one of her grift-fests, errr, I mean “events.”
:”i I think that Obama will scrape by as the “lesser of two evils” candidate.”
Maybe the republicans are trying to not implement some of Obama’s policies because they feel that he is the greater of 2 evils
Count the ever growing number of dem politicians who are announcing that they will not go to the national convention. the reason is that they know that 0bama is ballot box poison. Yeah, they are wanting to at least temporarily bail so they can keep their jobs.
How many dems up for re-election this year are staying home during the DNC this summer?
Actually Bruce it is both.
a. it mandates something which isnt paid for.
b. It has been called a tax by SCOTUS.
They dont have to be seperate.
Obama has continually called this a mandate. I think we can all agree that it is not completely funded.
Obama’s lawyer before SCOTUS also called it a tax and SCOTUS agreed.
One could also argue the same of Social Security.
a. It is a mandate since you must have it or have something that is acceptable to congress as a substitute (just like health care plans except you pay a tax if you dont have it).
b It is niot completely funded. One could argue the treasury notes but we know that is whistling in the wind and even the most optimistic projections say there will be a shortfall in the out years
c It is most definitely a tax.
Clearly the MommaMoron thinks a “deengbat” is the same as a dingbat. Clearly the MommaMoron doesn’t know anything about unfunded mandates and the
largest tax increase in the history of the universe. By the way every alleged tax increase is always the largest in history according to the extremists of the right.
But to get to the point of dingbattery – Exhibit A = her unscripted un-softball tossed moronic answers to some simple questions while running to be a heart beat away from the Oval Office.
John Stewart ( in paraphrase) put in best last week in response to her breathless whine about us Americans losing our freedoms – as she hops on the Palin snowmobile with the old man tearing up the tundra and shooting at every animal in sight.
Speaking of being a dingbat do you think MommaMoron even knew about the Republicans who walked out of Congress during the Harriet Meier Josh Bolton dustup in 2008? If so I’m sure she had the same view she now has?
Don’t forget to flush!
attack #2. Still no defense of Pelosi.
That’s because it is rather difficult to defend her psychotic ramblings.
I fully expect Grumpy to come here and post how you cant have intelligent conversations with conservatives because all they do is call names.
N, that’s not why we can’t have intelligent conversations with you folks.
We know that the real reason is that you are incapable of intelligent conversations period. You don’t have to hide that.
Now that Obama has the healthcare tax they wanted next up IF Obama is reelected.
The govt controlled 401K system. Note I dont mean social security I mean 401k which will be another black hole that the American people will be forced to pay into and Congress (on both sides of the aisle) can spend it like it is their personal reelection funds so that when it comes time for someone to retire there will be nothing but a bunch of IOUs in there as well.
Glad I am not 20 anymore.
The dems have been after people’s retirements since they realized that they cannot tax our incomes sufficiently to support their kleptocracy. If they can manage confiscate 401k’s they will get a $3 trillion windfall that they can divert to their union friends.
And what’ll they do next time? Snagging 401ks is bottom of the barrel stuff. Will they try to levy a tax on regular savings accounts? (Like those are making anything – best you can find is about 1% interest…) Or checking accounts?
They’re running out of tappable sources fast. When the money’s gone – it’ll get real interesting for them, real fast.
I expect that it is a VAT. They will try to push it as “we will get rid of income tax” if we can pass a VAT, and then find some way to not ever get rid of income taxes.
The left ultimately wants government wage controls for everyone. Then the government really will own all your wages and every penny you get really will cost the government. The left already thinks the last bit, they just need to find a way to make it a reality.
You think there’ll be enough people believing that line, that it’ll be ‘a replacement for income tax’?
I’m not so sure about that, myself. Seems to me a lot of people are wising up to the fact that it’s a bad idea to believe headlines – that the details in the fine print can completely negate the headline.
I’ll tell you, though – if the Democratic Party got behind the FairTax proposal, and was really serious about implementing it – to the point where they actually implemented the whole thing before the election – I’d seriously consider voting for Obama. Because I think it’s about the only thing that’s going to kickstart the economy out of what we’ve got going on at present.
It’ll never happen, though. It’s too devoid of opportunity for graft, ‘social engineering’ and kickbacks…
No, just rightwing extremists.
OK brain child. Show me where conservatives are carrying on about how awful it is that tax cuts are costing the government money? Conservatives have complained for years that the idea that tax cuts cost the government money belies an underlying belief that all money belongs to the government and that NOT taking your money via taxes is actually a form of government spending.
It is a standard conservative position that tax cuts NEVER cost he government money because the government gets paid via taxes. Tax cuts may shrink revenues but they can never cost the government. Cost implies spending. tax cuts are not spending.
It’s more extreme to want to take away guns that people use to protect their families.
We’ll have to wait to impose a VAT on ya till AFTER we confiscate all your guns, Jim. We know you Sons of Liberty will never accept it unless you’re disarmed.
Why not just pass a tax on guns or ammo? After all it has been proposed more than once.
Because that is one of the few areas of the economy that is not a basket case right now?
Well, THAT has to change… Tax the hell out of it, so they’ll be even with the rest of the economy!
THey have already talked about doing the govt 401k tax on all incomes. 5% of whatever you make would go into your govt 401k to earn whatever they say (probably 1%). It wont be Social security it will be a 401k tax so that they can continue to collect social security. Of course nothing will stop them from spending the 401k tax money they collect. And of course they can mandate it since it is a tax and will call it such. Why go with the trickle down stuff when they can skim 5% right off the top before you even get your money.
No, only right wing extremists’.
You’ll note ‘the usual suspects’ don’t DEFEND Pelosi, they just attack Palin. Wonder why?
Because Palin the quitter as P or VP would be the worst thing that could happen to our nation. She’s a low IQ egomaniac who can’t let go of her 15 minutes of fame.
Mr Derp says, “Look Shiny!!!”
Thanks Grump. Like I said, ‘the usual suspects’ don’t DEFEND Pelosi, they just attack Palin.
Grumpy- is that a Rainbow by your name?
Grumpy has done us the favor of putting out a marker so we can identify his BS more easily.
It’s the “gay pride” Oreo picture that was making the news a week or two ago. Grumpy’s playing his typical game of “shock the squares,” choosing an icon that he hopes will piss people off.
In this case it’s merely a bullshit flag.
What’s Grumpy’s favorite part of a Rainbow Party? At the end when he can taste the rainbow.
My lawyer will be in touch with yours concerning reimbursement for mindfloss…
Some thoughts can never be un-thought!
I’d have to care, for it to piss me off.
Poor gumby, so baffled by his own BS that he doesn’t even realize how stupid he sounds.
That’s rich! You liberals sick the attack dogs on her, bury her in lawsuits so deep as to keep her away from doing her job effectively, then you call her a “quitter” when she steps aside to let someone not in the left’s crosshairs do the job Alaskans deserve from their governor so she can tackle your frivolous lawsuits more effectively. Of course, this likely was the left’s plan from the beginning: either get a lawsuit to stick in order to remove her from office or force her out by burying her in lawsuits.
She’s a wimp.
She’s unqualified to hold a national office. When the going get s tough she cashes out makes as many speeches as he can to cash in on her 15 minutes of fame. That is exactly what happened – she quit her job as governor in order to make money.
Yep, the attention slut is also a money slut.
Liberal Revisionist History 101. She quit because she cared about the state she was governing. She did more work in the years she was governor than Obama has done his whole life. And how very telling that you would describe her using the term “slut.” Typically hypocritical liberal jackass.
Let’s see you screw up the courage to say that to her face, you brave little Grumpy, you.
And Obama is qualified? By the way, she left the public servant position of governor to save the state from litigating all the bogus lawsuits the “tolerant” left thru at her.
Funny how the left always likes to claim that conservatives are stupid, but they run candidates that refuse to release their college transcripts (obama, kerry) or needed affirmative action to get in in the first place (obama, warren).
Who’s stupid? Conservatives that believe in a free market economy? or leftists who demand a government command economy that drove people to risk death rather than remain in countries like East Germany and Cuba?
Since I only claim that Palin is a moron is then all the “conservatives”?
My point is that it is a common meme among leftists, that conservatives are stupid. The Palin comments are of the same piece as the criticism of every other conservative candidate I have seen for the last 32 years.
I think that’s not true. But at any rate you know what they say – if the shoe fits, wear it.
If you bothered to look back you would find that every GOP president since Ford has been ridiculed as stupid. If you think that s not true it merely demonstrates your own ignorance.
Well, every GOP president since Ford has actually BEEN stupid, except Bush the First, who was good at foreign policy but clueless about everything else.
Saying it does not make it so. Prove it.
Bush 43 read over 200 books per year and most of those were books on things like economics and the like. He wasn’t stupid and the left has never put forth any rational argument to demonstrate it.
Reagan had a long and distinguished career as president of the Screen Actor’s Guild before becoming Governor of California. He balanced the budget and was reelected. He didn’t run for a third term. Stupid people do not get elected to public office over and over.
Ford had a degree in economics and a JD. He may have been clumsy, but that does not equate to intelligence.
“Saying it does not make it so.” Rich coming from you, Jim, but relax. Some of these are jokes….Is this thing on? I know you’re out there, ladies and germs — I can hear ya breathing!
So Reagan was a union man, huh? (Relax, I knew that.)
“Stupid people do not get elected to public office over and over.” Two points: one, you mean like Pelosi? And Rangel? And two, Palin wasn’t elected over and over.
not the same office over and over. It is one thing to hold a congressional seat where it is more due to your political party than to your own ability. IT is quite another to be elected to head a professional association, or a State wide or National office where you have to have some demonstration of ability (unless of course you are obama and the media deliberately refuses to run any story on your background and ability).
BTW, I assumed I was talking to adults who had adult reading comprehension skills, so I skipped the “/sarc” tag at the end of my “confiscate all your guns” joke. But poor unfortunate Rodney has embarrassed himself with a comment below showing (pretending?) that he thought I was serious.
Perhaps it is because there are just so many of you talking about taking our civil rights (guns) away and advocating the murder of our children (Hugh G) that it just doesn’t seem that funny.
Everybody’s a critic!
Why bother with a demonstrated racist such as he?
No need to when the messenger is a moron.
#2……………..thanks again for the verification.
For the libs like Chickenshit Grumpy who are arguing that the tax will only be paid by folks who dont have health insurance here is a list of 20 new taxes from your bud Obama.
1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004
6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959
8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957
No actual number but let’s just say “billions and billions” as the middle class gets taxed for its health benefits. Next year (2013), these kick in:
10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-9311. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes. Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-9312. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,98613. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,99514. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,38915. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,99416. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,00017. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax 18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,99320. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
I like them all.
Perhaps the first truthful thing he has ever uttered here.
So which is your favorite?
1) a tax on Catholic Hospitals for being Catholic
2) a law that allows the IRS to capriciously reject your deductions
3) an unrelated tax on energy because cheap energy should be illegal
4) a tax on making new drugs that save lives aimed at preventing people from inventing drugs that save lives which will make the actual cost of healthcare go up.
5) A carve out deduction for obama’s contributors
6) a tax on white people
7) elimination of the benefit of HSA’s so the government can tax you better
8) a penalty for stopping your HSA that he government just made worthless
9) taxing your, up until now, pretax health benefits
10) a tax on saving for your kid’s college or your retirement
11) an increase in your payroll tax
12)a tax on the people who make lifesaving medical equipment which will increase the actual cost of healthcare
13) An blanket tax on all healthcare
14) a tax on families with special needs children ( I guess they just should have aborted them like obama wanted)
15) a tax on the healthcare benefits of senior citizens
16) wage controls on people working for private companies
17) individual mandate tax for those who don’t buy insurance
18) a tax on small employers who cannot afford to pay employees health benefits which will result in increased unemployment
19) a tax on health insurers making health insurance more expensive so the government can tax you more give the tax in #9
20) a tax on expensive health plans where the government is actively
driving up the cost of health plans so ultimately the majority of plans
will fall into this category.
I’m figuring the ones where the government taxes people for having
special needs kids and where they tax the healthcare benefits of the
All of em by god. Especially the ones you have to pay.
Thanks for proving that you really don’t care about anyone but yourself. Leftist scumbag. You probably think that parents of special needs kids should be forced to euthanize their children at an early age.
Only is they’re extremist right-wingers like you.
You are a GOPist.
A troll describes Nancy Pelosi thus:
She’s a wimp.
She’s unqualified to hold a national office.
Yep, the attention slut is also a money slut.
She’s unqualified to hold a national office.
A leftard announces his intent:
We’ll have to wait to impose a VAT on ya till AFTER we confiscate all
your guns, Jim. We know you Sons of Liberty will never accept it unless
Some assembly required.
I’m still waiting for Moma Obama to show me the money tree, 3 bil. to the paks. Moma is a discrace.
Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
Editors: Warner Todd Huston, Rick, David Robertson, Doug Johnson, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert
Comment Section Editors: Maggie Whitton, Rodney Graves
Emeritus: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port
In Memorium: HughS
All original content copyright © 2003-2012 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.