is there any truth to the obamacare bill that plans to put a 3% tax on all home sales after 2012. that money would go to the government to be used for obamacare purposes. that's 12K on a 400K home. sounds like a lube job to me... if it's even true.

I believe it's true or have at least heard something to that effect.

Even worse, its 15K on a 500,000 house.

I thought the money was going to be used to buy more limos?

snopes.com: 3.8% Tax on Real Estate Transactions (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp)

pretty much true but once again, its only the "high earners" . you know the working population who Obama and the Dems keep targeting for all their $ solutions. As it keeps adding up, these high earners will only be keeping 40 cents for every dollar they make.

snopes.com: 3.8% Tax on Real Estate Transactions (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp)

pretty much true but once again, its only the "high earners" . you know the working population who Obama and the Dems keep targeting for all their $ solutions. As it keeps adding up, these high earners will only be keeping 40 cents for every dollar they make.

It makes me feel lucky to be poor.

Move to the Bahamas

Nope, It will only apply to gains of more than 250,000 on your house. Even then it will only be imposed on those with an income above 200,000, 250,000 for a couple. You guys ought to look into the truth of what you type before you post it, I Googled it up because you had me starting to get mad. No need of that, there is plenty of real horror going on without people adding to the existing insanity.:smash:

I thought the 250K was for a single and 500K for a couple.

snopes it

for real estate it is 3.8% tax on real estate profits over $500,000 on the portion above $500,000. So if you sell your house and make a PROFIT of 525,000. You would pay a tax of 3.8% on $25000. So basically, you make $525000 in profits and pay $1000 in taxes on that.

The way to feed the anger is to distort reality. It is seen time and time again in this forum, typically in the original post before the details come out.

for real estate it is 3.8% tax on real estate profits over $500,000 on the portion above $500,000. So if you sell your house and make a PROFIT of 525,000. You would pay a tax of 3.8% on $25000. So basically, you make $525000 in profits and pay $1000 in taxes on that.

The way to feed the anger is to distort reality. It is seen time and time again in this forum, typically in the original post before the details come out.

The $500K is for couples. $250K for single filers.

for real estate it is 3.8% tax on real estate profits over $500,000 on the portion above $500,000. So if you sell your house and make a PROFIT of 525,000. You would pay a tax of 3.8% on $25000. So basically, you make $525000 in profits and pay $1000 in taxes on that.

The way to feed the anger is to distort reality. It is seen time and time again in this forum, typically in the original post before the details come out.

No one distorted reality in this thread. I posted the details, 3rd reply. But, all of this was HIDDEN in the healthcare bill. More sneaky crap they rammed in. most people are not aware.

No one distorted reality in this thread. I posted the details, 3rd reply. But, all of this was HIDDEN in the healthcare bill. More sneaky crap they rammed in. most people are not aware.

Sure your response was distorted.

The original post said that on a 400K house the tax was $12K.

That is not true. There is atleast a $250K deduction for capital gains (assuming a singe filer). So at the most the tax would be only on $150K (and that still would ignore the original cost of the house).

Anyone- If I'm not correct pls. correct me as I'm not an accountant.

You replied "pretty much true"

Capital Gain: Sale of a Principal Residence

John and Mary sold their principal residence and realized a gain of $525,000.
They have $325,000 Adjusted Gross Income (before adding taxable gain).

The tax applies as follows:
AGI Before Taxable Gain$325,000
Gain on Sale of Residence$525,000
Taxable Gain (Added to AGI) $25,000 ($525,000 – $500,000)
New AGI$350,000 ($325,000 + $25,000 taxable gain)
Excess of AGI over $250,000$100,000 ($350,000 – $250,000)
Lesser Amount (Taxable) $25,000 (Taxable gain)
Tax Due$950 ($25,000 x 0.038)

NOTE:
If John and Mary had a gain of less than $500,000 on the sale of their residence,
none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax. Whether they paid the 3.8% tax
would depend on the other components of their $325,000 AGI.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The new tax rate applies to Individuals with adjusted gross income (AGI) above $200,000
Couples ?ling a joint return with more than $250,000 AGI
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one distorted reality in this thread. I posted the details, 3rd reply. But, all of this was HIDDEN in the healthcare bill. More sneaky crap they rammed in. most people are not aware.

is there any truth to the obamacare bill that plans to put a 3% tax on all home sales after 2012. that money would go to the government to be used for obamacare purposes. that's 12K on a 400K home. sounds like a lube job to me... if it's even true.

snopes.com: 3.8% Tax on Real Estate Transactions (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp)

pretty much true but once again, its only the "high earners" . you know the working population who Obama and the Dems keep targeting for all their $ solutions. As it keeps adding up, these high earners will only be keeping 40 cents for every dollar they make.

This is what is spread around the internet by the false alarmists

"Obamacare Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are “rich” for only one day – the day they sell their house and buy a new one."

You can look at the version on snopes too.

Pretty much true?????? It is a entirely a distortion of reality. If a couple has a 500000 mortgage balance and sell their house for 1 million, they don't pay it. That is no where close to it being true about 3% on all home sales or 12k on a $400,000 home.

Lie's that incite anger amongst those who don't think. If someone is angry about a 3.8% tax on profits from a sale over 500,000, I have no beef with that. It is the anger from all of the distortions about what Obama has done that is f'd up. It is one after another after another. Kudo's to american spirit for checking to see if it is actually true.

for real estate it is 3.8% tax on real estate profits over $500,000 on the portion above $500,000. So if you sell your house and make a PROFIT of 525,000. You would pay a tax of 3.8% on $25000. So basically, you make $525000 in profits and pay $1000 in taxes on that.



Don't worry with the real estate market the way it is and the way it's headed the house bought for $500,000 will sell for $375,000 if your lucky.
Should be able to write it off as a loss. Ya right.

Don't worry with the real estate market the way it is and the way it's headed the house bought for $500,000 will sell for $375,000 if your lucky.
Should be able to write it off as a loss. Ya right.

ain't that the truth. it's already that way here.

...... so it's only a tax on the wealthy. i will never be in that income bracket or be able to sell a home for that much anyway. my insanely republican father-in-law alway has some wild information to share with me, so i needed to look into this one more closely and get specifics.

...... so it's only a tax on the wealthy. i will never be in that income bracket or be able to sell a home for that much anyway.

RIJIMMY ain;t gonna love that sentiment

RIJIMMY ain;t gonna love that sentiment

because I believe in myself and my income potential. I also pay attention to the CONSTANT attack on people making over 250k. Also note this is INVESTMENT dollars, not just houses. So all folks (yes, the wealthy) cashing in big investments - stocks, bonds, etc. Will pay income tax, cap gains and now THIS tax. How as an American, no matter how much money you make, not PISS YOU OFF?

...... so it's only a tax on the wealthy. i will never be in that income bracket or be able to sell a home for that much anyway. my insanely republican father-in-law alway has some wild information to share with me, so i needed to look into this one more closely and get specifics.

atta boy! thats the spirit aim high! The dems have a voter for life!

I guess Ted Knight just about sums it up for most of you....

YouTube - ‪Caddyshack- Ditch Diggers‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYJxNnABp4)

How as an American, no matter how much money you make, not PISS YOU OFF?

Used to be a rule of thumb you work thru May to pay for your taxes.
Bet it's closer to June, 6 months, now. :(

because I believe in myself and my income potential. I also pay attention to the CONSTANT attack on people making over 250k. Also note this is INVESTMENT dollars, not just houses. So all folks (yes, the wealthy) cashing in big investments - stocks, bonds, etc. Will pay income tax, cap gains and now THIS tax. How as an American, no matter how much money you make, not PISS YOU OFF?

CHECK!!

How as an American, no matter how much money you make, not PISS YOU OFF?

Now that we know you believe in your self, I'm gonna guess you could care less about anyone else.

- To your question - B/C I don't want to live in the idilic word that repubs. seem to want to live in - you know one with minimal taxes, minimal govern, minimal regulations/laws that kill jobs, minimal social services, minimal aid to higher education (you must have gone to private school all your life and never had to use a service provided by the govern) , - you know like Pakistan or Somalia. I guess my vision for this country is different that the repubs - prob. why I left the party.

2/3 of proposed repub. cuts would hurt the low and moderate income families - very telling. I guess for the richest 1% , having a larger net worth than the bottom 90% isn't enough.

because I believe in myself and my income potential.

atta boy! Now we know that moeny is your most important thing in life. The repubs have a voter for life!:rotf2:

Now that we know you believe in your self, I'm gonna guess you could care less about anyone else.

really? My tax bill and my charitable donations and town/public service would beg to differ.

- To your question - B/C I don't want to live in the idilic word that repubs. seem to want to live in - you know one with minimal taxes, minimal govern, minimal regulations/laws that kill jobs, minimal social services, minimal aid to higher education (you must have gone to private school all your life and never had to use a service provided by the govern) , - you know like Pakistan or Somalia. I guess my vision for this country is different that the repubs - prob. why I left the party.

You dont state how giving people money helps them in the long run? Has it ever Paul? Why do the cities and states that have been primarily Dem are all in the crapper? How as govt spending helped at all? Please, i want to see proof? All I have ever seen help this country is entruprenurship (cant spell it). And yes, I actually did go to private schools my whole life, my blue collar parents sent me and my sister. Both w/o degrees, busted their butts to send their kids to good schools, we still vacationed, saved $ and they both retired early. How did they do it? HARD WORK AND SACRFICE. Funny how that works.


2/3 of proposed repub. cuts would hurt the low and moderate income families - very telling. I guess for the richest 1% , having a larger net worth than the bottom 90% isn't enough.

its not telling, its common sense - only the low and moderate DEPEND on govt spending. Maybe it wouldnt hurt, maybe people would save more, sacrifice and work harder? Maybe it would make people proud to buy american, maybe lead to new ideas?
Once you again you and others mix up having with EARNING. If people have 90% of the income, its because THEY EARNED IT. They already pay SHAT loads of taxes.

and PS - Im not a repub.

atta boy! Now we know that moeny is your most important thing in life. The repubs have a voter for life!:rotf2:

no. paying for my kids education, giving them a good home and providing for my family WITHOUT RELYING ON THE GOVT is one of the most important thing in my life.

Now I can't quote a response.

Taxes are a requirement so you don't get credit for paying - the federal Pen. prob. isn't a nice place. The repub, conserv. etc. (what ever word you want to use - we can split hair on idiology labels, etc. I do incorrectly use the labels dem/reb. inappropriately) platform is to have minimal taxes and regulations - that all favors people of means who can go out an pay for whatever they need and doesn't effect them.

bad roads, crappy mass transit - buy a larger heavier duty car
poor educ. system - private schools
faulty electrical grid - private generators
no police (high crime) - live in a gated community, private police force.
crappy hospitals - private clinics, fly to a good hospital
cut back on social services - if you have $, you don't need social services
etc. etc.

No one wants to "give" people money. It's about having decent services for people to poor to be able to afford things on their own. As I've said, if you get welfare, I think you need to do some work for it. I don't see who someone can think that getting $15K a year from the govern. is enough to keep people from working (Certainly there is a tiny % who will want to sit on their butt). It's why when there are job fairs, I see long lines of people trying for those jobs.

You and your family had the where with all to pull yourselves up - many people don't.

Look at the tax burden of states that all get more/dollar in tax returns then they pay in - all states that vote repub. (south, midwest, etc). I bet Kentucky gets as much back as any state in tax revenue yet elects Rand Paul. They aught to put their $ where their mouth is an refuse fed. $.

"How did they do it, HARD WORK AND SACRAFICE". Funny how that works.

Ya, God forbid you live within your means, buy something when you
can afford it, save part of your income no matter what, and put your
family first.
If everybody did that we wouldn't be in the mess we are in as everybody
would be taking care of their own.

bad roads, crappy mass transit - buy a larger heavier duty car
poor educ. system - private schools
faulty electrical grid - private generators
no police (high crime) - live in a gated community, private police force.
crappy hospitals - private clinics, fly to a good hospital
cut back on social services - if you have $, you don't need social services
etc. etc.

State, State and State. Welcome to the United States of America. Not the Feds turf.



You and your family had the where with all to pull yourselves up - many people don't.

Ouch, I guess you believe all men are not created equal? I believe everyone in this country has equal opportunity. You dont believe that to be true. Neither did Hitler, Mao, Stalin and most supremicist groups. Im glad I differ. No matter what your economic background is, race or religion. I firmly believe you have the opportunity to succeed. All the knowledge you need is in a place called a library. there is free computer access. All libraries are free, funded by tax dollars. Get off your arse and go.

Look at the tax burden of states that all get more/dollar in tax returns then they pay in - all states that vote repub. (south, midwest, etc). I bet Kentucky gets as much back as any state in tax revenue yet elects Rand Paul. They aught to put their $ where their mouth is an refuse fed. $.
Give Paul a chance, he may just do that.

I guess you'll agree to higher state taxes, right?

So your being sent to private school didn't give you an advantage? Your having 2 parents didn't give you an advantage over someone in the foster care system?

And now I agree with Hitler, Mao and Stalin - At least I got another good laugh from you today.

I guess you'll agree to higher state taxes, right?

YES ! One that I can vote on and benefit my community! Thats how our government was structured!

So your being sent to private school didn't give you an advantage? Your having 2 parents didn't give you an advantage over someone in the foster care system?

Paul -its the angle you view things..."being sent" was not some lottery I won, it was the sacrifice and determination of my parents that "sent" me to school. The question I ask you is what advantage did my parents have? My parents were from disfunctional, alcoholic, divorced, low income families. High School degrees. I've told this story a million times on this website - I remember Thanksgiving and Christmas with my Dad (who worked nights most of my childhood) and he would leave to go into work on Christmas and T day at night and he would tell me he would get triple time for going in and he just couldnt turn down the money. But as a Dad he and I fished all over, camping in upstate new york, RI , family vacations on the beach, weekend trips . he was a fantastic guy and the best father ever. He never, not once, went out with the guys nad had a few beers, never went to a ball game, all free time was spent with his family. Now you - you believe guys who slack at work take the easy way out, spend the pay on drinks and cigarettes, never try to better themselves - you think they deserve handouts while my dad got NONE? BS. You called it" where with all" I call it accountability and responsibilty.

And now I agree with Hitler, Mao and Stalin - At least I got another good laugh from you today.
Look at what you said -

"You and your family had the where with all to pull yourselves up - many people don't."


you clearly believe that some people cant do things on there own (I'll give you health/mentail problems)
But my family could which implies superiority. you believe some people can make it and others need help. The baseline belief in dictators and tyrants is that they are superior and need to help (aka inflict their beliefs) on the masses.

Good for your parents (I don't mean that at all sarcastically). That is what the country is all about. But you and I benefited from people who sacrificed, worked hard, provided for us and spent time with us so that we knew we had to study, hard, save, etc. We had advantages that our parents did that for us. Your parents clearly showed that they could break the cycle. Unfort., many people grow up unable to break that cycle, could be born with a mom who didn't eat properly, smoked, drugs, etc. Their parents might not of read to them, provided 3 square meals, etc etc. That is reality, not a feeling of superiority.

Good for your parents (I don't mean that at all sarcastically). That is what the country is all about. But you and I benefited from people who sacrificed, worked hard, provided for us and spent time with us so that we knew we had to study, hard, save, etc. We had advantages that our parents did that for us. Your parents clearly showed that they could break the cycle. Unfort., many people grow up unable to break that cycle, could be born with a mom who didn't eat properly, smoked, drugs, etc. Their parents might not of read to them, provided 3 square meals, etc etc. That is reality, not a feeling of superiority.

Paul, that may be true in many cases. But, there are way too many people who don't even try to break that cycle, or just try to better their situation because it's less effort to just take a hand out. There's very little self reliance in this country anymore and it sucks.

There's very little self reliance in this country anymore and it sucks.

Have an concrete evidence of that or is that purely conjecture? I see you feel that way, but when you say "anymore" what are you comparing it to? The 1980's? 100 years ago? 10 years ago? What is your evidence?

[QUOTE=PaulS;864140 Unfort., many people grow up unable to break that cycle, .[/QUOTE]

Unable? why? I say unwilling. Big, big difference. So you believe governemtn should step in and provide, govt should break the cycle? Throw more $$$ at the problem. ITS NOT WORKING!!!!



and zimmy, hmmm evidendce of a lack of self reliance....

- Obamacare
- Mortgage bailouts (not one human was forced at gunpoint to sign their mortgage)
- Wall Street bailouts
- GM bailouts
- see my "banned cupcake" thread
- theres a sign with 300 lines of text at the escalator in the train stations for "escalator safety"

You know why only 1 percent of Kids who join scouting ever make Eagle Scout....because to make it they have to do the work Themselves.....Thats pretty telling right there.

People walk around everywhere feeling they are Entitled to things. It drives me nutz

You know why only 1 percent of Kids who join scouting ever make Eagle Scout....because to make it they have to do the work Themselves.....



I thought it was because they became more interested in girls?

Unable? why? I say unwilling. Big, big difference. So you believe governemtn should step in and provide, govt should break the cycle? Throw more $$$ at the problem. ITS NOT WORKING!!!!



and zimmy, hmmm evidendce of a lack of self reliance....

- Obamacare
- Mortgage bailouts (not one human was forced at gunpoint to sign their mortgage)
- Wall Street bailouts
- GM bailouts
- see my "banned cupcake" thread
- theres a sign with 300 lines of text at the escalator in the train stations for "escalator safety"

Thanks for posting the above, Jimmy. I was just going to add him to my ignore list because his comment was so ridiculous, but decided I might miss out on some really crazy, moonbat sh1t that he posts in here.

I thought it was because they became more interested in girls?

Three fluids that keep a kid from making Eagle......

Gasoline
Alcohol
Perfume

Unable? why? I say unwilling. Big, big difference. So you believe governemtn should step in and provide, govt should break the cycle? Throw more $$$ at the problem. ITS NOT WORKING!!!!



So you don't think someone growing up in Greenwich Ct. won't have more advantages that someone growing up in So. Boston?

So you don't think someone growing up in Greenwich Ct. won't have more advantages that someone growing up in So. Boston?

of course, but so? So you think we should level the playing field? The bulk of my career has been in Boston and there are many guys I know who brag of coming from Southie and are extremely successful.

The govt owes these people nothing, its not their role. The government should enforce equal opportunity and those in the slums and in the best areas have equal opportunity. There are countless success stories.

Theres no need for us to debate, we'll never agree. Im tired of the constant assault on my wages while I have to fund every single things I do and will every pay for by myself. When I did my taxes I was sick to my stomach for days, it was a disgrace and all I ever hear is more, more, more (in my John Fogarty singing voice).

The government made a law that rich people who make money and have an extreme gain on an investment are required, by law, to make a charitable donation to the healthcare of others at the threat of imprisonment and fines is something out founding fathers would have spit at. Its a shame and a sham.

Nobody said the world is a Level Playing Field

You guys type faster than me....

more for zimmy on the self reliance......

Foreclosure limbo: Staying without paying. - Jun. 9, 2011 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/real_estate/foreclosure_squatter/index.htm?iid=HP_LN&hpt=hp_c1)

- by law - you sign a truth in lending act. LAW - which says what your total payments on your home could be. These deadbeats, errrr, ummm, ahhh, I mean hapless victims of wall st greed, signed that agreement.

It seemed that your point was that you were able to succeed and therefore everyone should be able to succeed.

You also seem to think that everyone who is a lefty wants to take everyone's $ and redistribute it. Which isn't true.

Thanks for posting the above, Jimmy. I was just going to add him to my ignore list because his comment was so ridiculous, but decided I might miss out on some really crazy, moonbat sh1t that he posts in here.

Sounds like you just can't understand normal thinking :rotf2:

Unable? why? I say unwilling. Big, big difference. So you believe governemtn should step in and provide, govt should break the cycle? Throw more $$$ at the problem. ITS NOT WORKING!!!!



and zimmy, hmmm evidendce of a lack of self reliance....

- Obamacare
- Mortgage bailouts (not one human was forced at gunpoint to sign their mortgage)
- Wall Street bailouts
- GM bailouts
- see my "banned cupcake" thread
- theres a sign with 300 lines of text at the escalator in the train stations for "escalator safety"

Wall street bailout cost less than half of the savings and loan bailout in the 80's under reagan.

Gm bailout saved an enormous amount of jobs and tax payer money in the long term.

Obamacare is projected to save money in the long term

Kids parents should decide if they can have cupcakes

Again, reality is very different than what the Palinites state. Firing guns and ringing bells to warn the British :rotf2:

Wall street bailout cost less than half of the savings and loan bailout in the 80's under reagan.
From what I've read we were about 18-24 hours from not being able to take money out of ATM's. Once Lehman blew up the entire system started to shut down. I certainly thought the Paulson plan was really reckless after the fact, but the more is revealed you realize how desperate they really were.

Gm bailout saved an enormous amount of jobs and tax payer money in the long term.
Like 2 million jobs and a lot of small to mid size businesses. The automotive supply chain is enormous.

Obamacare is projected to save money in the long term
While it lays some foundation it doesn't really solve the problems.

Kids parents should decide if they can have cupcakes
Perhaps if they made good decisions we wouldn't have so many people growing up with medical problems and adding to the cost of health care. While some of these stories are pretty silly, the only way to change the behavior of a large group is by forced modeling. It's why Apple doesn't support Flash on the iPad :hihi:

-spence

more for zimmy on the self reliance......

Foreclosure limbo: Staying without paying. - Jun. 9, 2011 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/real_estate/foreclosure_squatter/index.htm?iid=HP_LN&hpt=hp_c1)

- by law - you sign a truth in lending act. LAW - which says what your total payments on your home could be. These deadbeats, errrr, ummm, ahhh, I mean hapless victims of wall st greed, signed that agreement.

Both the banks and the people who took the loans are responsible for the results of those loans. Still doesn't answer my question about lack of self reliance compared to when? The 1920's? 1970's? 2005? People throw out this crap without backing it up.

Still doesn't answer my question about lack of self reliance compared to when? The 1920's? 1970's? 2005? People throw out this crap without backing it up.

IMHO it doesn't make a difference what decade it is, self reliance is
self reliance.

If anyone wants to work hard,be loyal to his employer, reliable and trustworthy,
they will be able to get a job and go up the ladder in what ever their endeavor.

It all comes from within, the effort and willingness to work as hard as you can.

Both the banks and the people who took the loans are responsible for the results of those loans. Still doesn't answer my question about lack of self reliance compared to when? The 1920's? 1970's? 2005? People throw out this crap without backing it up.

Since I've only been around since the 70's, I'll use the 70's through 90's as my measuring stick.
RIJimmy and Justplugit have already made the case, but clearly you don't get it. It's easy enough to see that there are more people on government assistance than there were in the past 40 years. Even someone as clueless as you could look that up.:smash: While some really need it, many people are on it because to them, it beats hard work. I also see it almost daily in my job. People get hired and work just long enough to be eligible for government programs. Then, they ask me to type them up a letter so they can get welfare, etc... This is a fact. I've had people tell me that's why they quit or got fired.

I'm not in a position to write that letter for anyone, if I was I couldn't do it. That's the unfortunate truth, it's easier to get a 'kiss in the mail' than work for it, sometimes it even pays more.

I've heard many people say it's their money and the deserve it.

Unfortunately, I guess myself and others can't sleep playing the system like that, and we're the one's getting squeezed.

It's easy enough to see that there are more people on government assistance than there were in the past 40 years. Even someone as clueless as you could look that up.:smash:

Might want to check your numbers there mr. elightened. Sometimes people aren't as smart as they think, others may not be as clueless as you think. The population today is much larger, but all things equal, less welfare today than the 70's, 80's or 90's. Just as I thought, you throw crap around without knowing what you are talking about. I understand you get upset if someone has a different view of things than you, but you might benefit from actually looking at the numbers rather than going on your "feelings"

Graph shows monthly benefits in 2006 dollars.

Might want to check your numbers there mr. elightened. Sometimes people aren't as smart as they think, others may not be as clueless as you think. The population today is much larger, but all things equal, less welfare today than the 70's, 80's or 90's. Just as I thought, you throw crap around without knowing what you are talking about. I understand you get upset if someone has a different view of things than you, but you might benefit from actually looking at the numbers rather than going on your "feelings"

Amazing statistics :rolleyes: It appears (because it doesn't have adequate labeling) to be average monthly benefit per person, not total gvt outlay. It would be nice if it really showed something useful...

Amazing statistics :rolleyes: It appears (because it doesn't have adequate labeling) to be average monthly benefit per person, not total gvt outlay. It would be nice if it really showed something useful...

Label didn't show up. Value of monthly benefits adjusted to value of dollar in 2006.

Wonder if Hugo gets Obamacare for his bag of pus

Chavez recovers after surgery in Cuba: officials (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b7019a130f1e32ef787343ebff49380 f.3d1&show_article=1)

Seniors face Medicare cost barrier for cancer meds - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110613/ap_on_he_me/us_medicare_drugs)

I went in CVS last week for 3 prescriptions. Bronchitis. $185 for a inhaler.

I dropped $600 in one day on doctor visit and medication.

I can't make money that fast. How's that Massachusetts model working out you used O'bama. I put an application in for Mahealth the next night. I'm gonna live off all you #^&#^&#^&#^&bums now. :hee:

Might want to check your numbers there mr. elightened. Sometimes people aren't as smart as they think, others may not be as clueless as you think. The population today is much larger, but all things equal, less welfare today than the 70's, 80's or 90's. Just as I thought, you throw crap around without knowing what you are talking about. I understand you get upset if someone has a different view of things than you, but you might benefit from actually looking at the numbers rather than going on your "feelings"

Graph shows monthly benefits in 2006 dollars.

And there you have it. The childish, uninformed response I was waiting for. You pick and choose your statistics to suit your weak argument. I'm not sure why you use only welfare statistics when I never mentioned welfare? I guess it's because it was the only graph you could find that worked for you? Since the 1970's there have been more and more government assistance programs introduced. Some of these programs got people off welfare and into a new or different assistance program. You need to take a broader, more informed look at things before popping off. :rotf2:

Hows this as change in tone Zimmy from the democratic party......


1960s...

YouTube - ‪John F Kennedy 'Ask not'‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLdA1ikkoEc)


2009........ " If I help him, hes gonna help me.

Nuff said Boss.

YouTube - ‪Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI)

For Christ sake Jim.
Seriously, a JFK clip vs an ignorant voter?
what are you bored at the office today? I expect better from you :D

It has been hashed here many many times. there are ignorant voters on both sides. I bet with a few minutes on youtube I can find a racist or anti-gay or Obama is a muslim clip from a McCain or GWB supporter.

Now if Obama was saying 'I'm going to pay their cas and mortgage" You have a valid comparision.

For Christ sake Jim.
Seriously, a JFK clip vs an ignorant voter?
what are you bored at the office today? I expect better from you :D

It has been hashed here many many times. there are ignorant voters on both sides. I bet with a few minutes on youtube I can find a racist or anti-gay or Obama is a muslim clip from a McCain or GWB supporter.

Now if Obama was saying 'I'm going to pay their cas and mortgage" You have a valid comparision.

we are talking about a change in the country, a movement away from self reliance. Kennedy's speech was a call to action. Americans understood and believed in it. It would fall on deaf ears today.
I think these clips perfectly illustrates the change. This lady would have been deemed a commie in 1961 and marched out of the country if she made those remarks.

I think the comparison of is valid in showing the perverse sense of entitlement American's believe they have coming to them from the government.

We've gone from a country that would do anything to stay off the dole to a country that refuses to work for anything

here you go Bryan....

blames everyone EXCEPT the individuals that took the loans. No blame whatsoever on the individuals, ie: self reliance

YouTube - ‪Obama To Wall Street "We Want Our Money Back"‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnM3STewnp0&feature=related)

then there my favorite of all time...

YouTube - ‪Obama-Spread the wealth around‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM)

I was just going to add him to my ignore list because his comment was so ridiculous, but decided I might miss out on some really crazy, moonbat sh1t that he posts in here.

Even someone as clueless as you could look that up.:smash:

And there you have it. The childish, uninformed response I was waiting for. :

Might look at your own responses before you throw out the childish charge. There are more people today, so it is irrelevant to the discussion to point out that there are more people on government assistance. Also, ther people did not make your point for you. I asked you directly and you have not given one shred of evidence to back up your point. Here is another inflation adjusted graphic that covers social insurances and public assistance. Do you have anything to back up your statement or are you only going to give circumstantial evidence of what you "see at work"?

The strange thing is that the conservative side usual lambasts liberals about basing their view points on "how they feel". That is much of what I see from the other side in these pages. Lots of perceptions and feelings and little factual basis or based on distortions of the truth. The discussions would have more value if the argument was that taxes shouldn't be raised on the wealthiest to pay for others health care or the amount of government assistance is too high. The argument that people are less self reliant than the 1970's or 80's is nearly impossible to back up with any data and is based on a personal perception rather than reality. Putting JFK up against that woman though is an amusing way to make the argument, though :biglaugh:

Might look at your own responses before you throw out the childish charge. There are more people today, so it is irrelevant to the discussion to point out that there are more people on government assistance. Also, ther people did not make your point for you. I asked you directly and you have not given one shred of evidence to back up your point. Here is another inflation adjusted graphic that covers social insurances and public assistance. Do you have anything to back up your statement or are you only going to give circumstantial evidence of what you "see at work"?

I never claimed that I'm not childish. There are a lot of people on this site that would verify that I'm about as childish as it gets.

As for your statistics, you post these graphs that back up your position, which is all well and good. What you don't post is a graph showing a state by state breakdown of state assistance to families. In 1996, Clinton signed a bill taking much of the federal assistance money and allocating it to the states for state run assistance programs. There's a huge amount of state $'s going to families on these programs. Why don't you look it up.

Also, you need to look at the size of families when you compare numbers from the 70's to present. Benefits are paid out based on the number of people in the family receiving them, and the average family size has decreased since the 70's. That would also help to explain the decrease in dollars per family being paid out.

here you go Bryan....

blames everyone EXCEPT the individuals that took the loans. No blame whatsoever on the individuals, ie: self reliance

YouTube - ‪Obama To Wall Street "We Want Our Money Back"‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnM3STewnp0&feature=related)

Actually, he doesn't blame everyone except the individuals. He specifically addresses the Wall Street bailout and the responsibility to cover the costs of the bailout by firms that benefited from it. If this were a discussion of the causes of housing collapse, then you would be correct. Since it isn't and unless you are implying that the financial firms should have been left to collapse, then it is almost totally unrelated to self reliance.

Clinton signed a bill taking much of the federal assistance money and allocating it to the states for state run assistance programs. There's a huge amount of state $'s going to families on these programs. Why don't you look it up.



Medicaid costs and CHIP are included in the second graph and they are definitely a concern. I will agree 100% on that. However, the reality is that those costs have grown astronomically with increase in costs for health care, not that people are less self reliant. The problem needs to be approached from the perspective that the rise in costs make the programs unsustainable, which gets lost in the argument when it is approached from the angle that people rely on the government more today than ever. It may cost more today, but a huge number of the people that receive assistance work 40 hours a week in low paying jobs that do not offer health care. The problem starts with the lack of good jobs and the insane rise in costs in medical care. 40 years ago if you were a laborer for Bethlehem Steel or in a textile mill, you had health coverage. Those jobs are gone. I have heard the same argument about lazy no good bums living off the government my entire life and to say it is worse now is factually untrue. Medical assistance and heating assistance cost more, and the economy tanked, so these are major issues that need to be addressed as much now as ever.