With great glee they say, we want, you pay. How is your job working out for you? Oh dear, you say your unemployment check won't be coming next month! There is always an end to wanting and paying.

Pity the poor rich people of America.

No Steve, you don't need pity the rich. After all they have what you want. Just realize that all good trips must come to an end and the rich have a vote in the matter too.

The rich should exercise every vote they own - including those they bought and paid for.

The Republican party is no longer in power - America spoke.

The rich will still be rich when health care reform passes, but poor Americans will be healthier - and to the rest of us - that's what matters most.

You and people like you may care more abut the poor rich. Good for you. I hear servitude to the rich can be rewarding. Good luck with that.

Bottom line - Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and we ended up with the biggest recession since the depression. I don't think most Americans care as much about the poor rich as you do, kathie.

Have you notices how things are getting progressively worse?

"noticed", dammit.

"Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and we ended up with the biggest recession since the depression."

Yeah Stevie. That 5% unemployment rate was just terrible wasn't it?

Just a reminder Stevie, the RICH are also MOBILE. Just ask New York City.

As for 'buying votes', you libs would know all about that, wouldn't you?

You know, if there are any rich Americans who feel their are overtaxed let them move off shore if they'd rather.

Poor little rich people.

The Republican party is no longer in power - America spoke.

And America will speak again in 2010 and 2012. If the economy is still in the tank you'll likely hate what they say.

Bottom line - Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and we ended up with the biggest recession since the depression.

Without any rational cause and effect relationship it's just as accurate to say America put Democrats in charge of congress in 2008 and we ended up with the biggest recession since the depression.

I don't think most Americans care as much about the poor rich as you do, kathie.

What Americans care about are jobs and they're smart enough to know that no one works for a poor man. All taxing the rich to pay for healthcare does is create even more poor people who will then bankrupt the system. The first step in helping the poor is to get the economy humming again, something the American people are finding out Democrats are clueless to accomplish.

Why cant the lazy bastards on the left just provide for themselves, rather than expecting someone else to do it for them?

Money quote, Steve Green:

"You know, if there are any rich Americans who feel their are overtaxed let them move off shore if they'd rather."

Silly liberal. Who would then fund your massive entitlement programs? The French?

We all get 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

What we do with that time determines who and what we are, and what we earn.

Why should people who invest their time and energies, and maybe even their money wisely pay the way of people who cant wait to punch the time clock so they can get to the bar for a few, then hit the drive through on the way home to watch a ballgame.

If you want something, work for it, otherwise, STFU.

Stevie who are "you and people like you"? Are you racist. That is eerily what racists said in the 60's.

Of course no one defines rich. But I will define the left. They do not hold down a job. They have no self dicipline or respect. They have their hands out, gimme, gimme, gimme. That is why Stevie "doesn't care" about people who worked long and hard to get ahead. ww

Steve:

"The Republican party is no longer in power - America spoke."

And unless elections are suspended, they'll be speaking again in 2010. By that time, the 'people' will have had 4 years of House and Senate control by the Democrats, and 2 years of Obama's hopey changefulness.

Think they'll be happy enough to keep 'em going, or will Obama find himself without a House and Senate leg to stand on?

It's good news and good news from the Obama Administration:

1) Congratulations! Only the rich will have their taxes raised!
2) Congratulations! You're considered rich!

Steve, those who make $250,000 a year, the rich, are only 2%; of the population. They already pay for the poor, medicaid, food stamps, the S CIPS program, housing, and the rest. Now we are going to expand the poor to include those who are 400% above poverty. At some point the rich won't be able to care for all those who claim to be "poor". Really Steve it is a matter of economics and diminishing returns, not who likes who.

"The rich will still be rich when health care reform passes, but poor Americans will be healthier - and to the rest of us - that's what matters most."

Steve, where are you in life's journey right now, high school??? Let's go back in history and see how the legacy of LBJ's War on Poverty has fared since 1964. Oh, yeah, those social programs would probably be working without a hitch if there were not those inconvenient interludes called Republican presidencies. Two things you can count on, Steve: 1) The socialist agenda relies on a disaffected class of people who can be convinced that someone else is responsible form their state in life. Those living in poverty are a fertile ground from which to recruit. 2)And this is important, one of the worst things that can happen to a socialist is to have the poor become successful. It's been said many times, healthcare reform is not really about better health, it's about centralization of power. Ah, class warfare, at least there is one battle Obama and his sycophants are up for fighting. When you start making a living wage, having to support a family, paying a mortgage, you'll get it.

Many economic indicators turned down by August, 2000 and enough were down by October of the same year that the country was officially in recession. Bush's tax cuts came after that.

The silly thing about envious people complaining about tax cuts is that they don't look at the longer term evidence. Do tax cuts help the rich? Certainly they do, but in the longer term they actually help moderate/low income folks more. How? When the unemployment rate goes from 15-20% (real) like it is now to the 5% rate, the jobs created are mostly moderate and low income jobs. It turns out that that represents an order of magnitude more money than what the rich people netted.

Conversely raising taxes also hurts lower and moderate income families more because they are the ones who lose their income when jobs are lost due to higher taxes. Having the 'gubmint' pay for your red or blue pills doesn't provide anywhere near the benefit of a job.

Nice to see that republicans still prefer to lick the hands of the rich. Yes, CHANGE has come.

And in related news:

Some 14,700 rich Americans, worried about a stepped-up U.S. crackdown on offshore tax cheats, have turned themselves in under the government's amnesty program.

The Internal Revenue Service amnesty program, which ended in October, offered reduced penalties for voluntarily disclosing previously undeclared foreign holdings. It is part of a broader effort by the United States and other authorities to crack down on tax evasion.

Of the nearly 15,000 newly disclosed accounts, many involved bank accounts in Switzerland and Europe, but assets were hidden in more than 70 countries.

Participation in the IRS program was "unprecedented" and the final number was nearly double the agency's estimate in October, U.S. Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman told reporters in a telephone briefing.

Barbara Kaplan, a lawyer for high net-worth clients in New York, said: "The IRS has never got anything like that in response to prior initiatives. It's a little higher than I anticipated based on the pace of my own practice and the panic that was out there."

A high-profile U.S. lawsuit against Swiss banking giant UBS AG led the bank to agree earlier this year to promise to reveal the names of 4,450 client accounts held by Americans. Those accounts at one time were worth a total of $18 billion.

Suddenly rich Americans, 15,000 so far, are realizing the free ride the got under the Republicans is OVER.

Change is good.

Vic

"Suddenly rich Americans, 15,000 so far, are realizing the free ride the got under the Republicans is OVER.

Change is good.

Vic"

You sir are an asshat of the highest order.

Suddenly rich Americans, 15,000 so far, are realizing the free ride the got under the Republicans is OVER.

First Steve Green and now you. Something happens and if it's bad you attribute it to Republicans and if it's good you attribute it Democrats without checking your facts or establishing any rational linkage.

Here's a link to the unabridged version of the story you posted and you'll see that footnote 3 states "The IRS and US Department of Justice's efforts against UBS, it should be noted, were well underway at least by 2007, when George Bush was president." Republicans were not giving the rich a free ride in breaking the law as you claim. Please try to get your facts right.

"Something happens and if it's bad you attribute it to Republicans and if it's good you attribute it Democrats without checking your facts or establishing any rational linkage."

Sorry, but this IS a post about poor, persecuted rich people.

And the panic is all about the Obama administration coming after the rich and their hidden assets.

The Bush administration looked the other way for 8 long years.

Vic

Sorry, but this IS a post about poor, persecuted rich people.

And the panic is all about the Obama administration coming after the rich and their hidden assets.

The Bush administration looked the other way for 8 long years.

Well I thought you were just negligent in checking your facts, but given the link I provided and your repeated false claims it must be that either you can't read or you can't accept reality. Both ailments seem to plague liberals.

Oh I see - you can't think for yourself - you need someone to explain it to you.

Ok, remember this?

"The IRS and US Department of Justice's efforts against UBS, it should be noted, were well underway at least by 2007, when George Bush was president."

Well underway - no results.

Obama gets elected and promises to crack down on this kind of tax abuse - and we get results.

Bush - 2007 - efforts well underway - no results.

It's so simple and obvious I thought even you could figure it out, Maclorry.

Well I thought you were just negligent in checking your facts, but given the link I provided and your repeated false claims it must be that either you can't read or you can't accept reality. Both ailments seem to plague liberals.

I'd make a broad, sweeping generalization about conservatives with their heads up in their dark places, but you've already made that point for me.

Thanks.

Vic

You are pointing to the fact that Bush was trying and you attempt to give him credit for Obama's results -- you ignored the fact that Bush had failed to produce any results even though his efforts were "well underway in 2007". He failed to produce results. We're almost to the end of 2009, and are only now seeing results - a year after Obama took office.

Obama declares war, and the rich tax cheats fold their tents in panic - after no results under Bush's failed efforts years ago.

Sheesh.

Vic

Obama gets elected and promises to crack down on this kind of tax abuse - and we get results.

Are you really that dense? It was under Bush that the action you highlight was started and without that start there would be no results under Obama. Lawsuits take years to resolve and this one just happened to be resolved 9 months into Obama's term. Obama inherited this case from Bush.

Apparently you're so naive that you thought this complex case was started after Obama took office and you're so immature that you can't accept the readily provable fact that it was started years before under Bush.

From the article I linked.

The DPA required UBS to accept responsibility for its criminal actions, and to agree to implement a number of procedures for reporting and compliance. If UBS fails to perform its obligations under the DPA, then the US Government can seek conviction on the already admitted facts. The DPA also required UBS to pay a stupendous fine of US$780,000,000. The DPA was entered into on February 18, 2009.

Obviously, Obama had little if anything to do with UBS admitting it's criminal actions and entering the DPA less than 30 days into his term. Yes, round 2 of the case was won under Obama, but there would have been no second round if there had not been a successful outcome for round 1. Your statement that "The Bush administration looked the other way for 8 long years" after I posted a link to the above information is a demonstrable lie. Will you continue to deny the truth and demonstrate beyond any doubt that you're a liar?

Pity the poor rich people of America.

Pity the poor poor people who are employed (or rather will NOT be employed) by said rich people.

There's a reason unemployement is continuing it's upward climb...what is it now, 9.5-10% now? Was it not supposed to go about 8% with the Stimulus?

Do poor people generally provide jobs for other poor people?

You know, if there are any rich Americans who feel their are overtaxed let them move off shore if they'd rather.

And they will. They are already moving out of New York, for example.

Rich Britons frequently move off-shore to avoid the crushing tax rates.

Or they will minimize their tax load by not taking raises that put them into a new tax bracket (perhaps taking more days off in exchange instead).

But the fewer "rich" people you have, the more the "unrich" people will pay to make up the shortfall.

Unless you think money is magically going to come out of Obama's arsehole.

Soon YOU will be paying more too.

Well I thought you were just negligent in checking your facts, but given the link I provided and your repeated false claims it must be that either you can't read or you can't accept reality. Both ailments seem to plague liberals.

Neither. Just a talking parrot. A horse with its blinkers on. Just repeat the mantra: "Bush bad, Republicans bad, Rich bad, Vic wants a gubermint cracker. Squawk."

Under the plan passed by the US House of Representatives (HR 3962) a single person making $44,000 per year would pay 17% of their income for their 'free' healthcare. A family of four making $104,000 would pay 20% of their income for their 'free' healthcare.

Or go to jail.

Those are not the income levels of rich people, those incomes levels are the middle class, about to get whacked by a huge tax increase to pay for everybody elses health care. The truly rich don't pay taxes, as Leona Helmsley said a long time ago, taxes are for the little people.

George Soros' company just reported its income for the last reporting period, it was $2Billion!!! Now there's a rich person. Do you really think he pays almost half of that in taxes? Doubtful. Warren Buffet is on record as saying that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does.

The middle class is about to get taxed to extinction, there won't be a middle class if "healthcare reform" passes. And that is exactly the plan of Obama and his cronies.

Under the plan passed by the US House of Representatives (HR 3962) a single person making $44,000 per year would pay 17% of their income for their 'free' healthcare.

Jesus! Is this pre-tax income or post-tax?

Either way. I'm near that pay range, and I already pay about 30% in taxes from 5 different levels (Fed, Medicare, State, City, School)

Remember when I posted about people minimizing the tax load by not taking a raise?...

I'm trying to pull up the bill online...two minutes and it's STILL downloading...Christ...must be a big arsed bill...

From National Underwriter, The News Source for Life and Health Agents:

The House bill would provide subsidies for eligible individuals and families earning less than 400% of the federal poverty level, and the bill would adjust the eligibility levels for inflation.

For taxpayers who earn more than 400% of the FPL and are not eligible for subsidies, the cost of coverage would be high in a post-H.R. 3962 world.

Individuals earning $50,100 per year, for example, or 425% of the FPL, would pay about $5,300 per year in premiums, and they would be responsible for an average of $2,000 per year in deductibles, co-payments and other "cost sharing," according to CBO estimates.

A family of four earning 425% of the FPL -- $102,100 per year - could expect to pay $15,000 per year for coverage and take responsibility for an average of $5,500 per year in cost-sharing, the CBO estimates.

A single person who makes $50,100 per year would pay $7300 (14.5%) and a family of four who makes $102,100 would pay $20,500 (20%).

http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/News/2009/11/Pages/CBO-Combs-Through-HR-3962.aspx

Looking at that, Boots, George Carlin's 'Seven Words you can't say on TV' come to mind...

And looking at those numbers again, Boots - that'll be in ADDITION to your usual Federal and State income taxes.

"Free health care". Right. Ever notice how when someone sells you something 'free' there's usually fine print attached that costs you a hell of a lot in the end?

This just in.

BEIJING -- President Obama directly acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay will not close by the January deadline he set, but he said he hoped to still achieve that goal sometime next year.

Using Michael Moore's standard, Obama just admitted he lied to the American people.

Obama refused, however, to set a new deadline.

Once again, after making a fool of himself Obama comes around to adopting another Bush policy.

Is it possible that lil ole steve green is one of those 4 generations of welfare recipients? Sure sounds like it to me. We pay and pay and pay, and they demand and demand and demand. Obama and Pelosi are pushing more and more of that on us. Steve - will you be willing to get a job and pay for health care for some other lazy bastard? What you don't understand is that we can only pay so much, then we are forced into a welfare program ourselves. Personally, I have too much respect to expect someone else to pay for me.
Madalyn

Can the leeches of society like Steve at least thank the "rich" for paying for EVERYTHING for them nowadays, as well as providing jobs to those few that bother to work?

The figures I quoted above regarding the taxpayer costs of HR 3962 (a single person making $50,100 pays 14.5% of their income, a family of four making $102,100 pays 20% of their income) are as JLawson points out, BEFORE all of your other taxes (Federal, State, Medicare, Social Security, along with property taxes and sales tax).

If you don't pay you have the option of going to jail. Obama's healthcare reform plan has absolutely nothing to do with health care, it is how this administration will criminalize freedom. We will become like the serfs of any socialist state, we will pretend to work and they will pretend to pay us. The government will control every aspect of life, while maintaining a separate system of health care, high incomes, and high pensions for itself.

mac lorry "Well I thought you were just negligent in checking your facts, but given the link I provided and your repeated false claims it must be that either you can't read or you can't accept reality. Both ailments seem to plague liberals."

Wrong again mac... vic is just an asshole

Wrong again mac... vic is just an asshole

Well I was giving Vic the benefit of the doubt at that time, but you'll see that by post #27 I was openly calling him (I assume it's a him) a liar, and he chose to leave the thread rather than defend himself. Demonstrating Vic is a liar means a lot more to me then calling him an asshole.

"Demonstrating Vic is a liar means a lot more to me then calling him an asshole."

Ok, He's a lying asshole!