King vs Burwell

[Guest]

On Wednesday the Supreme Court will listen to arguments in the case of King vs Burwell. Florida could be the biggest loser in this case if the court rules for the plaintiffs, losing half a billion dollars per month in subsidies.

Republicans are scrambling to come up with solutions or alternatives to the ACA before the court rules later this spring. They know they will be the ones to blame when millions lose their healthcare, some who just got it for the first time.

This court ruling could be the answer to GOP prayers of overturning the ACA, but it will only effect the reddest states with the worst health care and republican governors.


A Supreme Court decision against Obamacare could cost states billions and billions of dollars - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/19/a-scotus-decision-against-obamacare-could-cost-states-billions-and-billions-of-dollars/)

[Guest]

5 disasters to expect if the Supreme Court guts the Affordable Care Act | Eclectablog (http://www.eclectablog.com/2015/02/5-disasters-to-expect-if-the-supreme-court-guts-the-affordable-care-act.html)


Up to eight million adults and five million children who purchased insurance through the healthcare.gov website would lose their coverage immediately, according to this article.

Chemotherapy would stop for 12,000 and dialysis would go dark for another 10,000, and the uninsured rate would jump to 44% if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs.

[Guest]

this is probably the most important supreme court decision that will be announced this year. this country could become more divided than ever when one part has good healthcare and insurance, and the other part has neither. the ones calling for repealing the ACA can celebrate.

personal best regards

[Guest]

We don;t know how the court will rule and we don't know specifically how Congress will respond but we do know that they all really worry about votes so be ready for another kick the can solution to an Obama problem

ACA was one of the most ill-conceived plans ever formulated and approved (only by and for the Democrats) and now we all have suffered

[Guest]

We don;t know how the court will rule and we don't know specifically how Congress will respond but we do know that they all really worry about votes so be ready for another kick the can solution to an Obama problem

ACA was one of the most ill-conceived plans ever formulated and approved (only by and for the Democrats) and now we all have suffered

:BigApplause:


It's ironically appropriate that Obama's signature piece of legislation is such an unworkable disaster. Our socialist president attempted a socialist takeover of 1/6th of our economy and force a "relatively few" to pay for "the many" (i.e., subsidies). Gee, and now it begins to fall apart because the federal subsidies are potentially illegal. Who could have predicted that? :icon_bored:

(Cue Obama's repeated LIE, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!") :blahblahblah:

[Guest]

:BigApplause:


It's ironically appropriate that Obama's signature piece of legislation is such an unworkable disaster. Our socialist president attempted a socialist takeover of 1/6th of our economy and force a "relatively few" to pay for "the many" (i.e., subsidies). Gee, and now it begins to fall apart because the federal subsidies are potentially illegal. Who could have predicted that? :icon_bored:

(Cue Obama's repeated LIE, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!") :blahblahblah:


It is ironic that this exact same piece of legislation is working successfully in Massachusetts (formerly known as Romneycare) where 100% of children and 90% plus of adults have insurance, and 85% approve of their healthcare.

This ruling will only effect the states, run by republican governors, who refused to set up their own exchanges, due to their ideological beliefs. Some red states, such as AZ, KY and AR, set up exchanges and won't be effected.

[Guest]

It is ironic that this exact same piece of legislation is working successfully in Massachusetts (formerly known as Romneycare) where 100% of children and 90% plus of adults have insurance, and 85% approve of their healthcare.

This ruling will only effect the states, run by republican governors, who refused to set up their own exchanges, due to their ideological beliefs. Some red states, such as AZ, KY and AR, set up exchanges and won't be effected.

To begin, ACA is a complete disaster and has made medical care worse and more expensive

How can the plans be exact when the fact is that one is a state plan and the other a federal plan. Secondly the costs associated with the Massachusetts plan continue to rise and eventually it will become cost prohibitive.

ACA is a federal plan and like the majority of federal plans they are destined to fail..The IRS, FEC, EPA, DEPT OF ENERGY,TREASURY,HEALTH AND EDUCATION FANNIE AND FREDDIE, POST OFFICE,FCC, etc have strangled this country with unnecessary regulation, poor management and outright interference with people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Obama has superseded the rights of states in so many ways. I am interested in return of control for many of peoples needs to the state.
That is what the founding fathers included in the Declaration of Independence, U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Obama's latest move to stop the sale of certain types of ammunition to get around the Second Amendment is a prime example. and remember the Second Amendment was designed to ensure protection of the First Amendment

[Guest]

To begin, ACA is a complete disaster and has made medical care worse and more expensive

How can the plans be exact when the fact is that one is a state plan and the other a federal plan. Secondly the costs associated with the Massachusetts plan continue to rise and eventually it will become cost prohibitive.

ACA is a federal plan and like the majority of federal plans they are destined to fail..The IRS, FEC, EPA, DEPT OF ENERGY,TREASURY,HEALTH AND EDUCATION FANNIE AND FREDDIE, POST OFFICE,FCC, etc have strangled this country with unnecessary regulation, poor management and outright interference with people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Obama has superseded the rights of states in so many ways. I am interested in return of control for many of peoples needs to the state.
That is what the founding fathers included in the Declaration of Independence, U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Obama's latest move to stop the sale of certain types of ammunition to get around the Second Amendment is a prime example. and remember the Second Amendment was designed to ensure protection of the First Amendment


You seem to have your facts wrong. This is not being done by executive action. The Bureau of ATF has proposed to reclassify this particular ammunition as armor piercing (which it is). This would have consequences re its sale to the public. The president is not doing this by executive order. The proposal is out for public comment. If you feel you can justify that armor piercing ammo is really required for sport or target practice; then you should avail yourself of the comment period.

[Guest]

To begin, ACA is a complete disaster and has made medical care worse and more expensive

Who has worse medical care because of the ACA?

What medical care has become more expensive because of the ACA?

[Guest]

:BigApplause:


It's ironically appropriate that Obama's signature piece of legislation is such an unworkable disaster. Our socialist president attempted a socialist takeover of 1/6th of our economy and force a "relatively few" to pay for "the many" (i.e., subsidies).

What part of the ACA is unworkable? It seems that a lot of people now have insurance who didn't before. What part is a disaster? The part where poor people have access to healthcare that they didn't before?

When you say that the "few" are paying for the "many", you realize that few means less than many, right? Because what we have right now is a couple of hundred million ("few" in your book) paying for around 10 million ("many" in your book).

[Guest]

People who are convinced that the ACA is a disaster will never be convinced otherwise, no matter HOW many statistics directly contradict that position. It doesn't matter to them that the uninsured percentage is down for the first time since records were being kept. It doesn't matter that people like my daughters can get insurance for the first time since they stopped being on my plan. They'll say that it's a socialist takeover of health care despite the fact that we're still buying insurance from PRIVATE companies - indicating that the person doesn't know the meaning of the words "socialist" or "take over".

Me? I believe the ACA is a flawed piece of legislation that needs to be fixed. On the whole, things ARE better than they used to be - but not by much and we still lag SO far behind the standards set in other countries.

[Guest]

snipped
Me? I believe the ACA is a flawed piece of legislation that needs to be fixed. On the whole, things ARE better than they used to be - but not by much and we still lag SO far behind the standards set in other countries.

Don't mean to hijack the thread - but - if you want this country to follow the standards set by other countries...let's start with following other country's immigration standards and their non-existant standard that provides for educating foreigners in that country's national language.

[Guest]

You seem to have your facts wrong. This is not being done by executive action. The Bureau of ATF has proposed to reclassify this particular ammunition as armor piercing (which it is). This would have consequences re its sale to the public. The president is not doing this by executive order. The proposal is out for public comment. If you feel you can justify that armor piercing ammo is really required for sport or target practice; then you should avail yourself of the comment period.

More leftist Commie comment like this is expected from lefties. The Second Ammendment says we can have the ammo we need so the federal government does'nt run rampent over us. That is gd garunteed in the American Constitution. Maybe you should read it sometime.

[Guest]

More leftist Commie comment like this is expected from lefties. The Second Ammendment says we can have the ammo we need so the federal government does'nt run rampent over us. That is gd garunteed in the American Constitution. Maybe you should read it sometime.

I've read it. I don't recall it mentioning M855 ammunition at all.

[Guest]

I've read it. I don't recall it mentioning M855 ammunition at all.

Picking fly specs out of the pepper!

[Guest]

Picking fly specs out of the pepper!

The point being that some people think that the constitution says that anybody should be able to have any gun or ammo that they want. Others think it can and should be sanely limited. Is outlawing this type of ammo reasonable? I don't know. But I do know that we have always had limits on our rights, and we will continue to have limits on our rights. And that's okay. To a certain extent. Is the U.S. going to crash and burn if I can't buy that certain ammo? I doubt it. Is this ammo even going to be outlawed? I doubt it. Is this entire discussion pointless? Probably.

[Guest]

What part of the ACA is unworkable? It seems that a lot of people now have insurance who didn't before. What part is a disaster? The part where poor people have access to healthcare that they didn't before?

When you say that the "few" are paying for the "many", you realize that few means less than many, right? Because what we have right now is a couple of hundred million ("few" in your book) paying for around 10 million ("many" in your book).

You need to put the bong pipe down friend and wrap your brain around federal tax demographics. First, only half of the households in the US pay any income tax. Second, without looking it up, something on the order of 20% of households pay for 70% of the total tax bill. If that's not the few paying for the many, then I don't know what is.

Nearly all the new enrollees in Obamacare are Medicaid recipients. Just more drain on the already bankrupt federal coffer. Should we buy them a house, furnish it, provide food and utilities also? How about a vehicle and clothing while we're at it? Wait a minute, all of these programs already exist. Lip balm... that's something I bet we don't force tax payers (your neighbors) to buy for the slackers. We need to start a national campaign against chapped lips! Some people can't afford lip balm and that's just NOT FAIR! :cryin2:

[Guest]

... we still lag SO far behind the standards set in other countries.

That gave me a hearty belly chuckle - thanks! :1rotfl:

Yep, lots of desperate Americans fleeing to "other countries" for their fantastic health care! OMG... the US has the most advanced health care on the planet, bar none. Get an education, get a job, and buy health insurance. How difficult is this? Why should I pay for YOUR health policy? GET A JOB like the rest of us!

[Guest]

Something that still confounds me is even if you now have health insurance how does that help with the high deductibles they policies carry? Sure you can get a free physical every year, but if you're just sick and need to go to the doctor, you are paying for that until you reach your $5000 deductible or whatever it is. So how does this help those that couldn't afford insurance to begin with?

[Guest]

That gave me a hearty belly chuckle - thanks! :1rotfl:

Yep, lots of desperate Americans fleeing to "other countries" for their fantastic health care! OMG... the US has the most advanced health care on the planet, bar none. Get an education, get a job, and buy health insurance. How difficult is this? Why should I pay for YOUR health policy? GET A JOB like the rest of us!

Just not even close to being true.... The US ranks LAST in Healthcare, among many of our European counterparts. For sure, we are the worlds most expensive healthcare system, by a very large margin. In addition, the US has one of the most unhealthy lifestyles and due to the cost of healthcare, many Americans don't have access....

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/)

...and on the cost side:

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/)

OK....lets try efficiency...

World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com (http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/)

[Guest]

You need to put the bong pipe down friend and wrap your brain around federal tax demographics. First, only half of the households in the US pay any income tax. Second, without looking it up, something on the order of 20% of households pay for 70% of the total tax bill. If that's not the few paying for the many, then I don't know what is.


First off, this is a debate about the ACA, not total taxes. And ACA-wise, the many are paying for the relative few. As evidenced by "only" 8-11 million people being immediately affected by King v. Burwell.

But you make a good point. The people most able to afford the cost pay the most taxes. That sounds like a good plan to me.
Would it be better if the poorest 20% paid the most taxes?
What do you think a good amount for the top 20% to pay would be?
Taxes are by design somewhat redistributive. That's the whole point. People in New Hampshire pay taxes that ultimately end up in Florida helping to repair hurricane damage. People in Utah pay taxes that ultimately end up in Iowa helping to repair tornado damage. People in Maine pay taxes that help secure the border in Arizona. That's the way taxes work.

[Guest]

First off, this is a debate about the ACA, not total taxes. And ACA-wise, the many are paying for the relative few. As evidenced by "only" 8-11 million people being immediately affected by King v. Burwell.

But you make a good point. The people most able to afford the cost pay the most taxes. That sounds like a good plan to me.
Would it be better if the poorest 20% paid the most taxes?
What do you think a good amount for the top 20% to pay would be?
Taxes are by design somewhat redistributive. That's the whole point. People in New Hampshire pay taxes that ultimately end up in Florida helping to repair hurricane damage. People in Utah pay taxes that ultimately end up in Iowa helping to repair tornado damage. People in Maine pay taxes that help secure the border in Arizona. That's the way taxes work.

The IRS should be eliminated. Taxes should be filed on a postcard. This silly morass of THOUSANDS of pages of tax code needs a complete overhaul. Replace the income tax with either a flat tax OR sales tax. The current tax code exempts half the population and penalizes the other half's success with higher rates of confiscation as one becomes more successful. That is classic Marxism.

Success (through education, hard work, risking capital) should be incentivized and rewarded, not punished! The generous safety net in this country provides strong incentive to remain dependent on the handouts. These social safety nets should protect the "unable", not the "unwilling"!

As for healthcare in America - overall it could be much better, but we disagree on the fix. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm CERTAIN government is not! Can you imagine a single-payer disaster like the IRS making life or death decisions about anyone's care? The IRS targets republicans for audits, etc... NO WAY! You can bet death panels would target political opponents just like the IRS. 50% of calls to the IRS helpline result in incorrect answers and that's after multiple call attempts and hours on hold! What SANE person would want this incompetence brought to healthcare?... or anything else!

[Guest]

The IRS should be eliminated. Taxes should be filed on a postcard. This silly morass of THOUSANDS of pages of tax code needs a complete overhaul. Replace the income tax with either a flat tax OR sales tax. The current tax code exempts half the population and penalizes the other half's success with higher rates of confiscation as one becomes more successful. That is classic Marxism.

Success (through education, hard work, risking capital) should be incentivized and rewarded, not punished! The generous safety net in this country provides strong incentive to remain dependent on the handouts. These social safety nets should protect the "unable", not the "unwilling"!

As for healthcare in America - overall it could be much better, but we disagree on the fix. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm CERTAIN government is not! Can you imagine a single-payer disaster like the IRS making life or death decisions about anyone's care? The IRS targets republicans for audits, etc... NO WAY! You can bet death panels would target political opponents just like the IRS. 50% of calls to the IRS helpline result in incorrect answers and that's after multiple call attempts and hours on hold! What SANE person would want this incompetence brought to healthcare?... or anything else!

As for the healthcare portion of your post....what does that say about us as Americans? That is just pathetic!

we've been talking about border security...that door opens OUT too, if it's so bad here...

[Guest]

You need to put the bong pipe down friend and wrap your brain around federal tax demographics. First, only half of the households in the US pay any income tax. Second, without looking it up, something on the order of 20% of households pay for 70% of the total tax bill. If that's not the few paying for the many, then I don't know what is.

Nearly all the new enrollees in Obamacare are Medicaid recipients. Just more drain on the already bankrupt federal coffer. Should we buy them a house, furnish it, provide food and utilities also? How about a vehicle and clothing while we're at it? Wait a minute, all of these programs already exist. Lip balm... that's something I bet we don't force tax payers (your neighbors) to buy for the slackers. We need to start a national campaign against chapped lips! Some people can't afford lip balm and that's just NOT FAIR! :cryin2:

Of the more than one million subscribers of the ACA in Florida, none (zero) are Medicaid recipients because Gov Scott and the legislators did not expand Medicaid. This leaves another million uninsured. Our five billion dollars per year in federal tax dollars go to other states that did expand Medicaid, (like AZ, KY)

If the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, the ones who will suffer are residents in the reddest states and Florida, whose governors rejected the ACA for ideological reasons. This country will truly become states with good healthcare and insurance, and states with neither.

[Guest]

Of the more than one million subscribers of the ACA in Florida, none (zero) are Medicaid recipients because Gov Scott and the legislators did not expand Medicaid. This leaves another million uninsured. Our five billion dollars per year in federal tax dollars go to other states that did expand Medicaid, (like AZ, KY)

If the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, the ones who will suffer are residents in the reddest states and Florida, whose governors rejected the ACA for ideological reasons. This country will truly become states with good healthcare and insurance, and states with neither.

NONSENSE!

Get a job and purchase insurance.

ACA is ALL about destroying healthcare and rising from the ashes of the INEVITABLE Obamacare implosion is single-payer. Then political death squads like the IRS.

[Guest]

NONSENSE!

Get a job and purchase insurance.

ACA is ALL about destroying healthcare and rising from the ashes of the INEVITABLE Obamacare implosion is single-payer. Then political death squads like the IRS.
Get A Job. Sounds like a good title for a song.

[Guest]

NONSENSE!

Get a job and purchase insurance.

ACA is ALL about destroying healthcare and rising from the ashes of the INEVITABLE Obamacare implosion is single-payer. Then political death squads like the IRS.


Do you mean single-payer socialized medicine, like Medicare for all? Sounds like a good idea.

[Guest]

Do you mean single-payer socialized medicine, like Medicare for all? Sounds like a good idea.


Please don't tell me you reproduced... :1rotfl:

[Guest]

The IRS should be eliminated. Taxes should be filed on a postcard. This silly morass of THOUSANDS of pages of tax code needs a complete overhaul. Replace the income tax with either a flat tax OR sales tax. The current tax code exempts half the population and penalizes the other half's success with higher rates of confiscation as one becomes more successful. That is classic Marxism.

Success (through education, hard work, risking capital) should be incentivized and rewarded, not punished! The generous safety net in this country provides strong incentive to remain dependent on the handouts. These social safety nets should protect the "unable", not the "unwilling"!

The flat tax and a national sales tax are both just too regressive. The reason for a progressive tax code is that poorer people are less able to pay taxes AND buy food. An argument could be made that our tax code is TOO progressive, and that something flatter with fewer deductions and loopholes would be better, but to change to something that is as regressive as you suggest is just absurd. Confiscating is confiscating. The rich are in a better position to afford it.

I worked hard and achieved some modicum of success. I have never once in all my years of being taxed, felt that I was being punished. I've been able to provide for my family, plus help the less fortunate. Win-win.

[Guest]

My father who made it through the Depression always felt fortunate to make enough to have to pay taxes.

My relatives in Sweden pay high taxes but are carefree when it comes to education, healthcare, and retirement. The senior ones are a happy lot.

[Guest]

The rich are in a better position to afford it.

I worked hard and achieved some modicum of success. I have never once in all my years of being taxed, felt that I was being punished.

"The rich are in a better position to afford it."

I'm sorry but that's absolutely classic liberal arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "rich" and then pass laws to confiscate his wealth all under the guise that he can "afford it"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the rich are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll hoard it or waste it. Liberals believe society will be better served by redistributing those earnings to make things "fair".

Concerning the quoted second point, I'm happy you've achieved "some modicum of success". As gently as possible, I suggest your success likely does NOT include paying the highest tax rate in the nation or being subjected to "special taxes" aimed at punishing "the rich" like the "Additional Medicare" (Obamacare) tax, does it? After one enjoys being singled out for multiple "soak the rich taxes" your tune of not being punished might change.

Here's a thought - REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT! Less government = less burdensome taxes. See the problem is that the liberal masses vote in favor of heavy tax burdens because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it. The "rich", like "big corporations", are demonized and become an easy target for confiscation by the masses who are simply looking for more goodies like "Obama-phones" (FREE cell phones to low-income citizens, and likely many illegal aliens too!)

[Guest]

"The rich are in a better position to afford it."

I'm sorry but that's absolutely classic liberal arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "rich" and then pass laws to confiscate his wealth all under the guise that he can "afford it"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the rich are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll hoard it or waste it. Liberals believe society will be better served by redistributing those earnings to make things "fair".

Concerning the quoted second point, I'm happy you've achieved "some modicum of success". As gently as possible, I suggest your success likely does NOT include paying the highest tax rate in the nation or being subjected to "special taxes" aimed at punishing "the rich" like the "Additional Medicare" (Obamacare) tax, does it? After one enjoys being singled out for multiple "soak the rich taxes" your tune of not being punished might change.

Here's a thought - REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT! Less government = less burdensome taxes. See the problem is that the liberal masses vote in favor of heavy tax burdens because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it. The "rich", like "big corporations", are demonized and become an easy target for confiscation by the masses who are simply looking for more goodies like "Obama-phones" (FREE cell phones to low-income citizens, and likely many illegal aliens too!)

Regardless of what you may think, I'm not liberal or arrogant. I simply understand that people who have more money are better able to pay higher taxes than those who make less money. Pretty simple stuff, really. I'm sorry but your position is absolutely classic conservative arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "lazy" and then pass laws to confiscate what little he has since he's not a "job creator"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the poor are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll spend them on cigarettes and booze.

Reducing the size of government, it is true, would probably reduce the tax burden. But that wasn't the point of the post I originally quoted. That post wanted to reallocate the "confiscation" from the "relatively wealthy" to the "relatively poor" through the use of regressive tax policies.

See the problem is that conservatives vote in favor of heavy tax burdens on the poor because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it.

Your arguments make just as much sense against you as they did in support of you. (That's not the sign of a good argument)

[Guest]

Regardless of what you may think, I'm not liberal or arrogant. I simply understand that people who have more money are better able to pay higher taxes than those who make less money. Pretty simple stuff, really. I'm sorry but your position is absolutely classic conservative arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "lazy" and then pass laws to confiscate what little he has since he's not a "job creator"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the poor are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll spend them on cigarettes and booze.

Reducing the size of government, it is true, would probably reduce the tax burden. But that wasn't the point of the post I originally quoted. That post wanted to reallocate the "confiscation" from the "relatively wealthy" to the "relatively poor" through the use of regressive tax policies.

See the problem is that conservatives vote in favor of heavy tax burdens on the poor because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it.

Your arguments make just as much sense against you as they did in support of you. (That's not the sign of a good argument)

:icon_bored:

It's pretty easy to spot those paying little tax supporting the high taxes levied upon what they demonize as "the rich". It's classic class-warfare straight out of the liberal handbook.

[Guest]

Please give me a specific example of when conservatives voted for a heavy tax burden on the poor.

[Guest]

Please give me a specific example of when conservatives voted for a heavy tax burden on the poor.

Never said they voted on it. But conservatives continue to advocate for Flat/Fair/Sales taxes. One thing these all have in common is that they place a larger burden on those least able to afford it. Now if you believe that relatively poorer people should pay more in taxes, that's ok. But just come out and say, "I believe that poor people should spend less money on food, and more money on taxes."

[Guest]

:icon_bored:

It's pretty easy to spot those paying little tax supporting the high taxes levied upon what they demonize as "the rich". It's classic class-warfare straight out of the liberal handbook.

Who is demonizing the rich? This is just your standard "straight out of the liberal handbook" nonsense. It's spouted so often on here as to become hackneyed and meaningless.

[Guest]

Please give me a specific example of when conservatives voted for a heavy tax burden on the poor.

Conservatives continue to advocate for Flat/Fair/Sales taxes. One thing these all have in common is that they place a larger burden on those least able to afford it. Now if you believe that relatively poorer people should pay more in taxes, that's ok. But just come out and say, "I believe that poor people should spend less money on food, and more money on taxes."

[Guest]

"See the problem is that conservatives vote in favor of heavy tax burdens on the poor."


Never said they voted on it.

:1rotfl:

[Guest]

Conservatives continue to advocate for Flat/Fair/Sales taxes. One thing these all have in common is that they place a larger burden on those least able to afford it. Now if you believe that relatively poorer people should pay more in taxes, that's ok. But just come out and say, "I believe that poor people should spend less money on food, and more money on taxes."

i think everyone should have some skin in the game. its bs when half pay no tax and a quarter get a handout from the government for just filing a return. its called the earned income tax credit and its bs. how do you get something back when you didn't pay any in?

maybe the bottom half could forego a few smokes, booze, cadillacs, fancy clothes, jewelry, hawaiian vacations, or fishing boats? i don't know what they're spending their extra dough on and i don't care but it's a stupid argument to say its either food or pay your taxes. you ever driven in a poor neighborhood and seen all the stupid junk piled everywhere?

[Guest]

Regardless of what you may think, I'm not liberal or arrogant.

You ARE definitely LIBERAL, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

And I do believe you're happy to vote in favor of tax increases, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T AFFECT YOU.

That's liberal thinking... pass the buck to the other guy.

[Guest]

Who is demonizing the rich? This is just your standard "straight out of the liberal handbook" nonsense. It's spouted so often on here as to become hackneyed and meaningless.


I really would like to see citations from "the liberal handbook" including title, author, publisher, and pages.

The liberal handbook I know is The New Testament of The Holy Bible.

[Guest]

I really would like to see citations from "the liberal handbook" including title, author, publisher, and pages.

The liberal handbook I know is The New Testament of The Holy Bible.

Karl Marx
Philosopher
Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist.
Born: May 5, 1818, Trier, Germany
Died: March 14, 1883, London, United Kingdom
Spouse: Jenny von Westphalen (m. 1843–1881)
Education: University of Jena, University of Bonn, Humboldt University of Berlin
Children: Eleanor Marx, Laura Marx, Jenny Marx Longuet, Jenny Eveline Frances Marx, Henry Edward Guy Marx, Edgar Marx
Books
View 35+ more
Das Kapital (1867)
Das Kapital
1867
The Communist Manifesto (1848)
The Communist Manifesto
1848
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)
A Contribution to the Crit...
1859
Capital, Volume I (1867)
Capital, Volume I
1867
The German Ideology (1932)
The German Ideology
1932

[Guest]

ACA has cost my wife and I $3,000 more per year. Our healthcare used to be free, but we were told that because of the increases in costs due to Obamacare that we would now be required to pay $250 a month just to keep the same coverage.

[Guest]

ACA has cost my wife and I $3,000 more per year. Our healthcare used to be free, but we were told that because of the increases in costs due to Obamacare that we would now be required to pay $250 a month just to keep the same coverage.

...and we care because...?

[Guest]

...and we care because...?

WOW......how rude! The topic is about ACA and healthcare coverage. That comment was just rude and uncalled for since the poster was clearly not even off topic. Care to clarify your hidden agenda in that comment?

[Guest]

...and we care because...?

Because that was the question that was asked. And WHAT are you talking about??????????????????

[Guest]

You ARE definitely LIBERAL, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

And I do believe you're happy to vote in favor of tax increases, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T AFFECT YOU.

That's liberal thinking... pass the buck to the other guy.

You're an idiot.

[Guest]

GOP governors scramble for answers on ObamaCare | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235450-gop-governors-scramble-for-answers-on-obamacare)


"Republicans potentially have a PR nightmare on their hands, because what happens when eight million people lose their subsidies" says this article.

If the SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs, this ruling will mostly only effect the states whose governors refused to set up exchanges for ideological reasons and just as the 2016 election gets into full swing. It will be interesting to see how those governors, some of whom might be running for president, explain themselves.

[Guest]

GOP governors scramble for answers on ObamaCare | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235450-gop-governors-scramble-for-answers-on-obamacare)


"Republicans potentially have a PR nightmare on their hands, because what happens when eight million people lose their subsidies" says this article.

If the SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs, this ruling will mostly only effect the states whose governors refused to set up exchanges for ideological reasons and just as the 2016 election gets into full swing. It will be interesting to see how those governors, some of whom might be running for president, explain themselves.


And no one has more at stake than Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.


More evidence Republicans will probably do nothing if Supreme Court guts subsidies - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/10/more-evidence-republicans-will-probably-do-nothing-if-supreme-court-guts-subsidies/)

[Guest]

You're an idiot.

:1rotfl:

You liberals are so easy to spot. You come on this and other forums and say,"Hey guys, I'm a republican and super conservative and all... but I really like Hillary."

:1rotfl:


Then you say weird liberal junk like, "Hey it's not fair that the CEO makes more than the janitor. We're all the same you know...on the same team and everything. And we ought to tax those rich guys and those evil big corporations more."

:1rotfl:


The liberal mantra is always the same. Vote for tax increases on OTHER people! It's just not fair they have more.... :blahblahblah:

[Guest]

...and we care because...?

Nasty liberal not to mention rude. I thought your big heart bled for the little guy??

[Guest]

:1rotfl:

You liberals are so easy to spot. You come on this and other forums and say,"Hey guys, I'm a republican and super conservative and all... but I really like Hillary."

:1rotfl:


Then you say weird liberal junk like, "Hey it's not fair that the CEO makes more than the janitor. We're all the same you know...on the same team and everything. And we ought to tax those rich guys and those evil big corporations more."

:1rotfl:


The liberal mantra is always the same. Vote for tax increases on OTHER people! It's just not fair they have more.... :blahblahblah:

I've never said any of those things. You seem to think that because I've said that a progressive tax system is more "fair", somehow I'm a screaming liberal with mental problems wanting to confiscate people's earnings.

I believe in fiscal conservatism. I believe in a strong defense. I believe in a progressive tax system. I don't like Hillary. I've only voted for a Democrat once in my life.

But according to you, it's easy to spot me as a liberal. Talk about arrogance. Not to mention stupidity.

By the way, the first U.S. income tax was instituted during the Civil War. By an overwhelmingly Republican congress. It was progressive.

[Guest]

I've never said any of those things. You seem to think that because I've said that a progressive tax system is more "fair", somehow I'm a screaming liberal with mental problems wanting to confiscate people's earnings.

I believe in fiscal conservatism. I believe in a strong defense. I believe in a progressive tax system. I don't like Hillary. I've only voted for a Democrat once in my life.

But according to you, it's easy to spot me as a liberal. Talk about arrogance. Not to mention stupidity.

By the way, the first U.S. income tax was instituted during the Civil War. By an overwhelmingly Republican congress. It was progressive.

My CENTRAL premise is correct. YOU have no issue with passing confiscatory tax rates, and all sorts of special "soak the rich" additional taxes, on others because YOU will never be subject to them! You can spout your philosophy all day, but in the end, that's why you maintain your support of "progressive tax rates". At least be honest.

It's ridiculous on its face that 20% of the citizens carry the huge bulk of the tax load. The tax base must be broadened. Regardless of its origin, a progressive tax system is a liberal notion of confiscating the wealth from a few to redistribute to the many. It is opposite of everyone paying their "fair share". It is the epitome of liberalism.

A flat tax or national sales tax is "fair" to all. No one is treated differently. The "wealthy" will OBVIOUSLY still pay FAR MORE due to the larger dollar amount of their income or purchases. It will still be strongly bifurcated with the relatively few carrying the load, but all citizens will pay SOMETHING!

Now, try not to blow a gasket (AGAIN) like a teenage girl sighting a spider!

[Guest]

My CENTRAL premise is correct. YOU have no issue with passing confiscatory tax rates, and all sorts of special "soak the rich" additional taxes, on others because YOU will never be subject to them! You can spout your philosophy all day, but in the end, that's why you maintain your support of "progressive tax rates". At least be honest.

It's ridiculous on its face that 20% of the citizens carry the huge bulk of the tax load. The tax base must be broadened. Regardless of its origin, a progressive tax system is a liberal notion of confiscating the wealth from a few to redistribute to the many. It is opposite of everyone paying their "fair share". It is the epitome of liberalism.

A flat tax or national sales tax is "fair" to all. No one is treated differently. The "wealthy" will OBVIOUSLY still pay FAR MORE due to the larger dollar amount of their income or purchases. It will still be strongly bifurcated with the relatively few carrying the load, but all citizens will pay SOMETHING!

Now, try not to blow a gasket (AGAIN) like a teenage girl sighting a spider!

Your CENTRAL premise is incorrect. As are most of your statements that flow from that mistaken view. I have NEVER indicated that I support confiscatory tax rates. EVER. Nor have I have ever advocated "all sorts of special "soak the rich" additional taxes". Those are just fantasies that you've manufactured in your head. At least be honest.

I've never argued that the tax base shouldn't be broadened. And your statement that a progressive tax rate is a "liberal notion of confiscating the wealth from a few to redistribute to the many" is a cockamamie delusion.

As a percentage of earnings a flat or sales tax places a much greater burden on those at the low end of the income scale. That is indisputable. A 15% flat tax on $30,000 is much more confiscatory than a 15% tax on $100,000. It just changes who is getting confiscated from.

[Guest]

And your statement that a progressive tax rate is a "liberal notion of confiscating the wealth from a few to redistribute to the many" is a cockamamie delusion.



Seriously, what's wrong with you?

I'll try to simplify this as much as I possibly can and I'll just hope you then understand. If not, I give up.

Let's reduce the entire US population to 5. 1 of those 5 pays nearly the entire tax bill and the top two pay it all combined. The bottom three, in varying degrees, receive money from the top two (via welfare, housing & energy assistance, tuition grants, food stamps, free cell phones, etc...)

Do you now understand how that "tax money" taken from the top two is "redistributed" or are you already lost? Is this simplified version what you call a "cockamamie delusion"?

[Guest]

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

I'll try to simplify this as much as I possibly can and I'll just hope you then understand. If not, I give up.

Let's reduce the entire US population to 5. 1 of those 5 pays nearly the entire tax bill and the top two pay it all combined. The bottom three, in varying degrees, receive money from the top two (via welfare, housing & energy assistance, tuition grants, food stamps, free cell phones, etc...)

Do you now understand how that "tax money" taken from the top two is "redistributed" or are you already lost? Is this simplified version what you call a "cockamamie delusion"?

Just because our current tax code is screwed up doesn't mean that a progressive tax code is, by definition a stupid, unfair liberal conspiracy to separate hard working job creators from their money. A progressive tax code that broadens the tax base and lowers tax rates would be great.

See - I've never argued that our current tax code is fair, balanced, optimal, etc. All I've ever said is that a progressive tax system is better from a fairness standpoint, then a flat tax. Somehow you got it in your head that I am in favor of our current tax situation, and that if we could take even more from rich people, it would be better. But I never said that. Then you got all mean and kept trying to tell me what I thought. So I got mean and sarcastic back.

A Flat tax is regressive. It takes the same percentage of tax from everybody. Whether they can afford it or not. A flat tax takes money from the working poor. And in the end, we're just going to give that money, and more, back to them. Just because it's easy to understand doesn't make it automatically better.

[Guest]

Just because our current tax code is screwed up doesn't mean that a progressive tax code is, by definition a stupid, unfair liberal conspiracy to separate hard working job creators from their money. A progressive tax code that broadens the tax base and lowers tax rates would be great.

See - I've never argued that our current tax code is fair, balanced, optimal, etc. All I've ever said is that a progressive tax system is better from a fairness standpoint, then a flat tax. Somehow you got it in your head that I am in favor of our current tax situation, and that if we could take even more from rich people, it would be better. But I never said that. Then you got all mean and kept trying to tell me what I thought. So I got mean and sarcastic back.

A Flat tax is regressive. It takes the same percentage of tax from everybody. Whether they can afford it or not. A flat tax takes money from the working poor. And in the end, we're just going to give that money, and more, back to them. Just because it's easy to understand doesn't make it automatically better.

Why is it assumed the poor cannot pay their share?
Where in the history of the USA was it stated the poor did not have to pay taxes if they could not afford it?
Some of us remember having to pay taxes when we were on a near bread and water budget!

The real issue of the current times is the amount of free loading thta is being funded by the few tax payers in the USA.

There are far too many people collecting from the current welfare programs who should not be.

The classics? Food stamps and unemployment compensation.
I personally know of too many unemployed who are perfectly content to stay home and collect unemployment. They are the first to protest if their "benefits" (:1rotfl:) are about to expire and demand an extension (again).

Food stamp abuse is a well know problem for years and all that has happened over the years is to multiply the problem.

Two excellent examples of those working having to pay for those who ELECT not to work.

Affordability has nothing to do with it anymore. It has become an expectation, just as the highlighted satement above implies.

[Guest]

Supreme Court Case May Devastate Hospitals In 34 HealthCare.gov States - The National Memo (http://www.nationalmemo.com/supreme-court-case-may-devastate-hospitals-in-34-healthcare-gov-states/)


Hospitals in 34 healthcare.gov states would be devastated, if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in King vs Burwell. This, of course, is especially true in Florida.

[Guest]

Supreme Court Case May Devastate Hospitals In 34 HealthCare.gov States - The National Memo (http://www.nationalmemo.com/supreme-court-case-may-devastate-hospitals-in-34-healthcare-gov-states/)


Hospitals in 34 healthcare.gov states would be devastated, if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in King vs Burwell. This, of course, is especially true in Florida.

All dependent upon subsidies. I think it is imperative that at some point supporters of ACA wake up and understand the only reason it is affordable is if the government picks up the tab (oh by the way that would be those of us in the minority that pay taxes).

I wonder how all these hospitals made out before the subsidy floodgates were opened?

I wonder how many are milking the system knwoing it comes from the government? How dare I make such an accusation? How about the other "freebie" medicare that is fraught with fraud by the medical industry/institutions?

There is nothing affordable about the Obama ACA in reality!

[Guest]

Why is it assumed the poor cannot pay their share?
Where in the history of the USA was it stated the poor did not have to pay taxes if they could not afford it?
Some of us remember having to pay taxes when we were on a near bread and water budget!

The real issue of the current times is the amount of free loading thta is being funded by the few tax payers in the USA.

There are far too many people collecting from the current welfare programs who should not be.

The classics? Food stamps and unemployment compensation.
I personally know of too many unemployed who are perfectly content to stay home and collect unemployment. They are the first to protest if their "benefits" (:1rotfl:) are about to expire and demand an extension (again).

Food stamp abuse is a well know problem for years and all that has happened over the years is to multiply the problem.

Two excellent examples of those working having to pay for those who ELECT not to work.

Really? So everybody should pay 15% of their income (that's the most commonly stated flat tax amount) whether they can afford it, or not. If the choice is between them living in their car with their kids or paying 15% of their income to the government, you'd choose confiscating their income.

There is no doubt that there is abuse. There is abuse in any program, of any type, public or private. Can't be stopped because there are unscrupulous people out there. It would be great if it could be reduced. But does that mean that we condemn everybody that participates in those programs?

[Guest]

Really? So everybody should pay 15% of their income (that's the most commonly stated flat tax amount) whether they can afford it, or not. If the choice is between them living in their car with their kids or paying 15% of their income to the government, you'd choose confiscating their income.

There is no doubt that there is abuse. There is abuse in any program, of any type, public or private. Can't be stopped because there are unscrupulous people out there. It would be great if it could be reduced. But does that mean that we condemn everybody that participates in those programs?

You wrongly, again, assumed the rate of 15% for everybody to pay. I guess to make YOUR case. I merely stated where does it state whether one could afford it or not as a factor to pay taxes or not.

Affordability is an all too often abused, by design, term.

As in those on food stamps cannot afford to pay for almost anything. But it is easy to see what many can afford when they shop.

[Guest]

"As in those on food stamps cannot afford to pay for almost anything. But it is easy to see what many can afford when they shop."

Precisely, tell us what YOU have PERSONALLY SEEN people purchase with their SNAP EBT card (food stamps) that you think is not appropriate. What stores were being used?

How can you actually determine if a person is using an EBT card rather than a regular debit or credit card when they are paying for their purchases?

[Guest]

"As in those on food stamps cannot afford to pay for almost anything. But it is easy to see what many can afford when they shop."

Precisely, tell us what YOU have PERSONALLY SEEN people purchase with their SNAP EBT card (food stamps) that you think is not appropriate. What stores were being used?

How can you actually determine if a person is using an EBT card rather than a regular debit or credit card when they are paying for their purchases?

I did not say or did not infer what card anybody used to buy anything with! You have, fast forwarded, again, on your incorrect conclusion, of what I said.
May suit your case, but not what I said or inferred or alluded.

Your style or pattern is concerning as it mis-represents one's intentions.
Henceforth I will no longer respond to the incorrect presentation of my posts.

[Guest]

I did not say or did not infer what card anybody used to buy anything with! You have, fast forwarded, again, on your incorrect conclusion, of what I said.
May suit your case, but not what I said or inferred or alluded.

Your style or pattern is concerning as it mis-represents one's intentions.
Henceforth I will no longer respond to the incorrect presentation of my posts.

You should read the list of items that cannot be purchased with the SNAP program. You should also know that there are no real "stamps" for food stamps. Those were done away with years ago and now, people have a plastic card that looks like any other debit or credit card.

Get outside and play some golf. Try to be happy. The Villages is a great place. Enjoy it and enjoy other people. Go to the squares and be happy.

[Guest]

You should read the list of items that cannot be purchased with the SNAP program. You should also know that there are no real "stamps" for food stamps. Those were done away with years ago and now, people have a plastic card that looks like any other debit or credit card.

Get outside and play some golf. Try to be happy. The Villages is a great place. Enjoy it and enjoy other people. Go to the squares and be happy.

Not one new piece of information or revelation in the first paragraph.

Also missing the point that someone on the food stamp program could use another card or method of payment to pay for those things not aloud.....like wine, beer, cigarettes, lobster tails, etc. (all REAL examples from real live cashiers).

Get It???? Food stamps for what is allowed. Other means for non allowed. Another reminder the subject is affordability.

The inference of the second paragraph above is :censored: BS!

[Guest]

snipped
Get outside and play some golf. Try to be happy. The Villages is a great place. Enjoy it and enjoy other people. Go to the squares and be happy.

I venture to post that following such advice is perhaps one reason for low information voters taking part in our local and national elections!

Participating in exchanges - even as small as this forum - contributes to better informed voters - IMHO anyway.

[Guest]

You wrongly, again, assumed the rate of 15% for everybody to pay. I guess to make YOUR case. I merely stated where does it state whether one could afford it or not as a factor to pay taxes or not.


Wrong. You stated that the poor should pay their fair share of taxes. Whether they could afford it or not. This was stated in conjunction with your previous statements that a flat tax is fair, and a progressive tax is not. Therefore, one can only assume that you believe that the poor should pay the same tax as everyone else. Even if it means that they can't afford housing. 15% is the most commonly used hypothetical flat tax. Please feel free to substitute any percentage. The flaw in your argument remains the same.

My only argument has been that a flat tax is more onerous on the middle class, and devastating to the budgets of the poor, then a progressive tax is confiscatory to the relatively wealthy.

I'm all in favor of broadening the tax base and, if feasible, lowering tax rates, without pushing people further into poverty. That can be done with a progressive tax plan, not with a flat tax.

With that, I am done.

[Guest]

I venture to post that following such advice is perhaps one reason for low information voters taking part in our local and national elections!

Participating in exchanges - even as small as this forum - contributes to better informed voters - IMHO anyway.
I know Rush Limbaugh coined low information voters but what does that mean?

[Guest]

I know Rush Limbaugh coined low information voters but what does that mean?


1. NOT COINED BY Rush Limbaugh !!!!

2. "Low information voters, also known as LIVs or misinformation voters, are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about politics. The phrase is mainly used in the United States, and has become popular since the mid-1990s."

Low information voter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter)

"Origins[edit]
American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase "low-information signaling" in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters, in lieu of substantial information, to determine who to vote for. Examples include voters liking Bill Clinton for eating at McDonald's, and perceiving John Kerry and Barack Obama as elitist for wind-surfing and golfing respectively.[1]

Also to be noted, used on both sides of the "aisle"

"In September 2012, comedian Bill Maher, made fun of undecided voters on his HBO program Real Time calling them "low-information voters, otherwise known as dip****s."[13] Also in September, the NBC program Saturday Night Live ran a mock public service announcement featuring undecided low-information voters asking questions such as "When is the election?" and "Who is the president right now? Is he or she running?”[14][15]

In January, 2013, Alicia Colon used the similar phrase "low-info" in her column, "Low-Info Voters Just Not Interested In Politics", for the Irish Examiner USA newspaper.[16]"

Amazing how LOW INFORMATION posters will say anything.

[Guest]

Wrong. You stated that the poor should pay their fair share of taxes. This was not me!!!

Whether they could afford it or not.

This was stated in conjunction with your previous statements that a flat tax is fair, and a progressive tax is not. This was not me either!

Therefore, one can only assume that you believe that the poor should pay the same tax as everyone else. Wrong assumption, again.

Even if it means that they can't afford housing. 15% is the most commonly used hypothetical flat tax. Please feel free to substitute any percentage. The flaw in your argument remains the same.

My only argument has been that a flat tax is more onerous on the middle class, and devastating to the budgets of the poor, then a progressive tax is confiscatory to the relatively wealthy.

I'm all in favor of broadening the tax base and, if feasible, lowering tax rates, without pushing people further into poverty. That can be done with a progressive tax plan, not with a flat tax.

With that, I am done.

Now let's try this again: since when does affordability determine whther one pays a tax or not? Once again trying to ONLY state everybody should have to pay taxes. Nothing about the low end paying the same as the upper end!

There should be no free rides. And we all know that would take a huge plank out of the democratis platform.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1030424]1. NOT COINED BY Rush Limbaugh !!!!

2. "Low information voters, also known as LIVs or misinformation voters, are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about politics. The phrase is mainly used in the United States, and has become popular since the mid-1990s."

Low information voter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter)

"Origins[edit]
American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase "low-information signaling" in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters, in lieu of substantial information, to determine who to vote for. Examples include voters liking Bill Clinton for eating at McDonald's, and perceiving John Kerry and Barack Obama as elitist for wind-surfing and golfing respectively.[1]

-____________

Low Information Voters are mostly found in the rural areas of the South and rural areas of the Mid-West. Small town closed minds are usually on the right fringe groupings. :popcorn:

[Guest]

I have have looking for a polite "label" for the masses who got duped by Obama.

LIVs......thank you.

[Guest]

I have have looking for a polite "label" for the masses who got duped by Obama.

LIVs......thank you.

They're called D-I-P-S-H-I-T-S!

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1030424]1. NOT COINED BY Rush Limbaugh !!!!

2. "Low information voters, also known as LIVs or misinformation voters, are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about politics. The phrase is mainly used in the United States, and has become popular since the mid-1990s."

Low information voter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter)

"Origins[edit]
American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase "low-information signaling" in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters, in lieu of substantial information, to determine who to vote for. Examples include voters liking Bill Clinton for eating at McDonald's, and perceiving John Kerry and Barack Obama as elitist for wind-surfing and golfing respectively.[1]

-____________

Low Information Voters are mostly found in the rural areas of the South and rural areas of the Mid-West. Small town closed minds are usually on the right fringe groupings. :popcorn:

Wow - I find that statement pretty offensive and totally disagree from my own experience. I grew up in a small rural town and I would say there was and still is a pretty even mix of Republicans and Democrats. However, I have spent the last 30+ years in the suburbs of a major northeastern city and I am surrounded by LIVs!