If you are talking about a 10K I will agree with you. If you are talking about 1 million it's called bankruptcy court.

Originally Posted by Guest

We have term limits. it's called "voting'.

And the only thing that will stop this lunacy is to relitigate the Supreme Court decision of Citizen's United, which gave corporations the power to shovel unlimited dark money into the pockets of politicians. And that decision, fyi, was from the conservative "hero" Scalia, and why Republicans were so desperate to keep the Court conservative that they held Scalia's position unfilled for over a year (in defiance of their Constitutionally mandated duty). Ginsberg said we now have "the best democracy money can buy."

Five years after Citizens United ruling, big money reigns - LA Times

You have to understand the games and trickery employed by members of Congress to get you to vote for them. Most people don't have the time nor inclination to follow every action taken by Congress. One of the biggest problems is that your Congressman and Senator will brag about all the money he takes hoke to your state or district. Since most people are only concerned about themselves and their neighborhood, they think that their guy is great. What most people don't see is all of the additional spending that is done so that your guy can bring home the bacon to you. What a lot of people also don't realize is that Congress tries to maximize their income by taking more and more from the states and then controlling how it is spent by mandates. Since they take out their costs, less money goes back to the states than if they just left it alone and let the states handle state issues.

Another great device is hearings and investigations which are not the job of Congress. These cost billions of dollars and rarely ever accomplish anything other than to get the member's names and faces on television.

Congress will do almost anything to avoid legislating, which it really their only job. Everytime that they vote on something, they risk alienating some of their constituency. Even when they do vote, those votes may be pre-approved by the party leadership. A prime example is this latest tax reform bill. Rep Peter King and a few others that live in states with high state taxes voted no on the bill. That was OK with the party leaders because they knew that if they voted for the bill it might hurt their re-election chances. They also knew that they had more than enough votes to pass it so those few votes weren't necessary.

The Senate had to such luxury every Republican had to be on board and if they weren't John McCain would have been wheeled in from his deathbed to vote.

Often a member will be able to vote for or against a bill in its initial stages which will save him from voting on the final bill.

It's all a game and a show. No one really can be sure about any of these people. The only thing that we really know about them is which party they belong to which gives you an idea if their basic philosophy somewhat aligns with yours.

Term limits by voting is a nice idea, but it's naive to think that it will work. The number one job of people in Congress is to get themselves re-elected. And they don't do it by doing the job they were sent to do.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are a fvcking idiot...

If a person has income and they go to the hospital, THEY are on the hook for the hospitals bill. If they refuse to pay, the hospital will send it to collection and could pursue a court judgement to lien their assets to satisfy the bill. Just because a person does not want to pay for something, does not mean the government steps in and pays the bill - that would be ideal in a liberals world.

"Everybody else who uses the hospital" does not pay anyone else's bill. Most people have insurance, all insurance companies (including Obammacare, Medicaid, and medicare) have a pre negotiated rate per code (every illness or service required has a code assigned to it for billing purposes). People that have insurance would only be required to pay the deductible, if they have one. People that do not have insurance and have income or resources to pay the bill, are charged at full rate (not the cheaper pre negotiated rate the insurance companies have)...

FYI - The person that has income most likely pays property tax and a portion of that is going to fire / paramedic services. If they ride in the ambulance to the hospital they will in most cases receive a bill for that transport...even though the equipment and personnel were funded by their property tax money.

What working people get subsidized care funded by seniors?

You should stick to something your qualified at, like cleaning the house!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

It's always such a good idea to start a discussion with this statement.

You are a fvcking idiot...

It will help to solve so many problems.

Taxes don't hurt as bad as spending does. I agree congress says I give you this and people vote for them not thinking about who is going to pay. All politicians put a spin on everything. When we talk health care the dems will pull out a 5 year old with a rare genetic condition and the republicans will tell you all businesses are going under. The truth is in the middle and we need a health care system so we have to do some critical thinking. Primary rule is follow the money. In 8 years of Obama care the economy has rebounded, that's a fact. The republicans want to repeal it because of the Obama Care surcharge on upper incomes. I know because I pay it. If you want to make my insurance cheaper so yours can go up in cost vote republican and try to find the error in my logic (please don't give me a triad on what could of, would of, should of been done).

Originally Posted by Guest

You have to understand the games and trickery employed by members of Congress to get you to vote for them. Most people don't have the time nor inclination to follow every action taken by Congress. One of the biggest problems is that your Congressman and Senator will brag about all the money he takes hoke to your state or district. Since most people are only concerned about themselves and their neighborhood, they think that their guy is great. What most people don't see is all of the additional spending that is done so that your guy can bring home the bacon to you. What a lot of people also don't realize is that Congress tries to maximize their income by taking more and more from the states and then controlling how it is spent by mandates. Since they take out their costs, less money goes back to the states than if they just left it alone and let the states handle state issues.

Another great device is hearings and investigations which are not the job of Congress. These cost billions of dollars and rarely ever accomplish anything other than to get the member's names and faces on television.

Congress will do almost anything to avoid legislating, which it really their only job. Everytime that they vote on something, they risk alienating some of their constituency. Even when they do vote, those votes may be pre-approved by the party leadership. A prime example is this latest tax reform bill. Rep Peter King and a few others that live in states with high state taxes voted no on the bill. That was OK with the party leaders because they knew that if they voted for the bill it might hurt their re-election chances. They also knew that they had more than enough votes to pass it so those few votes weren't necessary.

The Senate had to such luxury every Republican had to be on board and if they weren't John McCain would have been wheeled in from his deathbed to vote.

Often a member will be able to vote for or against a bill in its initial stages which will save him from voting on the final bill.

It's all a game and a show. No one really can be sure about any of these people. The only thing that we really know about them is which party they belong to which gives you an idea if their basic philosophy somewhat aligns with yours.

Term limits by voting is a nice idea, but it's naive to think that it will work. The number one job of people in Congress is to get themselves re-elected. And they don't do it by doing the job they were sent to do.

Yes...it is...it's distraction while they keep on stealing from the treasury.

Which GUARANTEES that they are corrupt crooks. EVERY one of them.

Their #1 job is "earning" for those who put them there. Taking form the treasury and giving it away...THAT is their #1 job. THAT is what will get them elected.

Many think the electronic voting machines are so crooked that "voting" doesn't even matter any more. Results are pre-programmed in and our vote means nothing...well it ALWAYS meant nothing when BOTH candidates are well vetted and corrupt. Telling you pick this one or that one...isn't really a choice.

Originally Posted by Guest

It's always such a good idea to start a discussion with this statement.

It will help to solve so many problems.

ONLY if the f@cking idiot listens.

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

It's always such a good idea to start a discussion with this statement.

It will help to solve so many problems.

I call a spade a spade...
If you think you can reason with "Dumbette the top 4% earner", go for it. She is all over the place with her thoughts, reminds me of the Tithead on here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Hey, I have little doubt the republicans will treat me well financially. If you want to think they are going to look after the lee well off I don't think I can change your opinions, but I would suggest you limber up and practice grabbing your ankles. It's coming.

Originally Posted by dumbete

Hey, I have little doubt the republicans will treat me well financially. If you want to think they are going to look after the lee well off I don't think I can change your opinions, but I would suggest you limber up and practice grabbing your ankles. It's coming.

You seem to know a lot about getting ready to take it in the grit hole...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by dirtbanker

You are a fvcking idiot...

If a person has income and they go to the hospital, THEY are on the hook for the hospitals bill. If they refuse to pay, the hospital will send it to collection and could pursue a court judgement to lien their assets to satisfy the bill. Just because a person does not want to pay for something, does not mean the government steps in and pays the bill - that would be ideal in a liberals world.

"Everybody else who uses the hospital" does not pay anyone else's bill. Most people have insurance, all insurance companies (including Obammacare, Medicaid, and medicare) have a pre negotiated rate per code (every illness or service required has a code assigned to it for billing purposes). People that have insurance would only be required to pay the deductible, if they have one. People that do not have insurance and have income or resources to pay the bill, are charged at full rate (not the cheaper pre negotiated rate the insurance companies have)...

FYI - The person that has income most likely pays property tax and a portion of that is going to fire / paramedic services. If they ride in the ambulance to the hospital they will in most cases receive a bill for that transport...even though the equipment and personnel were funded by their property tax money.

What working people get subsidized care funded by seniors?

You should stick to something your qualified at, like cleaning the house!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

You know Dirt, you need to work on your greetings and salutations. Obamacare is not an insurance company like a lot of people think. Medicaid never covers the full cost of a hospital stay and the hospitals have to wait months for any reimbursement. Private pay doesn't pay very well waiting for collection agencies and their fees and bankruptcy filings definitely affect accounts payable. And yes, DRGs are billing tools but collecting is a different story. And just like shrinkage raises prices in retail no pay or slow pay raises healthcare costs. They get passed along to those who pay.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

There are three different ways to look at the debt increase during an administration and depending who's side you're on you'll either look at the most favorable or the most unfavorable. Like I said, even though we give the president blame or credit, debt comes from Congress spending more than they take in.

On January 20, 2009, when President Obama was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion. That's almost double.

That is very simply how much the debt rose during the Obama administration. How much of that he was responsible for is a matter of discussion. Even though Congress is responsible for all of the spending the president still to sign the bills. Now a lot of different factors come into play here. Does the same party hold the Congress and the White House? Were bills passed with a clear veto-proof majority?

You can make numbers look like whatever you want, but the fact is that the debt grew almost as much in the eight years of the Obama presidency than it did for the previous two hundred and forty years of the nation.

Debt is not a stand alone number. You have to look at it in relation to GDP i.e. the size of the economy, and whether there were major catastrophes, recession, war, etc. Two companies could each have debt of $100. If one country earns $1 million, the debt of $100 is nothing. If the other country earns $200, the $100 debt is a big deal. The President does not have control over all the debt. For example, Obama inherited war costs from Bush that went on for years. And an obstructionist republican congress didn't help either. Obama wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy which Congress wouldn't enact, which would have reduced the deficit. Nor did a recession help, the biggest one since the great Depression. That was huge - the recession caused a massive decline in government revenues, and that started a year before Obama took office. And of course, the recession caused extra expenditures such as unemployment insurance. And comparing debt from 240 years ago is not comparing apples with oranges, due to inflation. Lastly, had there not been a burst of spending under Bush, the budget surplus would have been available to help out during the recession. Instead, Bush used it to pay for the unpopular war. Remember "weapons of mass destruction"?

Originally Posted by Guest

Debt is not a stand alone number. You have to look at it in relation to GDP i.e. the size of the economy, and whether there were major catastrophes, recession, war, etc. Two companies could each have debt of $100. If one country earns $1 million, the debt of $100 is nothing. If the other country earns $200, the $100 debt is a big deal. The President does not have control over all the debt. For example, Obama inherited war costs from Bush that went on for years. And an obstructionist republican congress didn't help either. Obama wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy which Congress wouldn't enact, which would have reduced the deficit. Nor did a recession help, the biggest one since the great Depression. That was huge - the recession caused a massive decline in government revenues, and that started a year before Obama took office. And of course, the recession caused extra expenditures such as unemployment insurance. And comparing debt from 240 years ago is not comparing apples with oranges, due to inflation. Lastly, had there not been a burst of spending under Bush, the budget surplus would have been available to help out during the recession. Instead, Bush used it to pay for the unpopular war. Remember "weapons of mass destruction"?

And if you add a third company that earns $75...that $100 debt is an even bigger deal. That 3rd company is the US.

We owe over $20 trillion...we spend over $4 trillion...but our income is less than $3 trillion. We're bankrupt.

November spending:

Receipts, Outlays, and Surplus/Deficit for November 2017

Total Outlays $347 Billion $4,164,000,000,000 ($4.2 trillion) for the year
Total Receipts $208 Billion $2,496,000,000,000 ($2.5 trillion) for the year
Deficit $139 Billion That's $1,668,000,000,000 ($1.6 trillion) for the year.

We borrowed 40% of what we spent. How long do you think that will last?

Monthly Treasury Statement

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

You know Dirt, you need to work on your greetings and salutations. Obamacare is not an insurance company....no pay or slow pay raises healthcare costs. They get passed along to those who pay.

You know Chi, I have no problem with greetings and salutations to people with sense. I do not waste the "nice" stuff on the hopeless.

I did not say Obammacare was insurance company, it is a government program that insurance companies provide coverage for the enrolled...big difference !?

Those costs do not get passed on to the government as Dumbete suggested. Those costs certainly do not get passed on to the insurance company (pre negotiated rates). Those costs get passed on to the very guy Dumbete was complaining about...the guy that decided he did not want to have healthcare.

I do wonder why you attempt to bolster these idiots, encouraging them to post their nonsense, and then they get fvcked by the rest of us on here...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

And if you add a third company that earns $75...that $100 debt is an even bigger deal. That 3rd company is the US.

We owe over $20 trillion...we spend over $4 trillion...but our income is less than $3 trillion. We're bankrupt.

November spending:

Receipts, Outlays, and Surplus/Deficit for November 2017

Total Outlays $347 Billion $4,164,000,000,000 ($4.2 trillion) for the year
Total Receipts $208 Billion $2,496,000,000,000 ($2.5 trillion) for the year
Deficit $139 Billion That's $1,668,000,000,000 ($1.6 trillion) for the year.

We borrowed 40% of what we spent. How long do you think that will last?

Monthly Treasury Statement

So true.

The wife asked me last month how I could be so stupid. I asked if after 39 years she just now catching on who is the slow one. Yes without insurance you are on the hook but when you owe a million dollars the answer is called bankruptcy. Medical debt is the leading reason for bankruptcy. The loss does not go to the federal budget but it goes to everybody else who uses the hospital. You pay for medicare you are paying for those who would rather buy a new boat over paying for health insurance. You need insurance ro drive a car why shouldn't you have to be financially responsible regarding health care. The reason republicans tell you Obamacare is so terrible is they don't want to pay the Obama care surcharge. I know I pay it. That's what they are really trying to eliminate. I am pretty slow if there is a fault in my logic I'm listening.

Originally Posted by Guest

Don Baldwin, why don't you just crawl back into your little hole. It must be difficult, being the kid on the block that everyone hated.

You speak for yourself & your libtard friends, Mr Baldwin is right on target with his posts. I have yet to see anyone dispute the facts he presents, instead they resort to name calling. Typical of you people. Merry Christmas, Make America Great Again.