PDA

View Full Version : The littlest victims of Obamacare!



LWW
12-02-2010, 05:34 AM
The last line is astounding ... yes, I also was once brainwashed by stupidonomics ... and is the death knell of the democrooks.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for America's youth to buckle up and take a rough ride on Reality Highway. For the past two years, President Obama has promised our children the moon, stars, rainbows, unicorns and universal health care for all. But the White House Santa's cradle-to-grave entitlement mandates are a spectacularly predictable bust.

Don't take it from me. Take it from Obamacare's own biggest cheerleaders.

Late last month, the Service Employees International Union informed dues-paying members of its behemoth 1199 affiliate in New York that it was dropping its health care coverage for children. That's right. A radical leftist union, not an evil Republican corporation, is abandoning the young 'uns to cut costs.

More than 30,000 low-wage families will be affected, according to The Wall Street Journal. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Who's to blame? SEIU 1199 benefits manager Mitra Behroozi singled out oppressive new state and federal regulations, including the much-ballyhooed Obamacare rule forcing insurers to cover dependents well into their 20s:

"...(N)ew federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26," Behroozi explained in an Oct. 22 letter to members. "Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible."</span>

In a related development, over the past several months <span style='font-size: 11pt'>several insurers across California, Colorado, Ohio and Missouri have dropped child-only plans because of Obamacare-induced premium increases. Untold tens of thousands of families who purchase their plans in the private individual health market will be affected.</span>

Let us pause for a moment to ruminate on this wholly man-caused disaster. To sell Obamacare and manufacture support, desperate Democrats pandered to the college set and their parents. Former SEIU chief Andy Stern specifically touted the unfunded kiddie insurance mandate as a strategic selling point, telling the Washington Post early this year that the lobbying and public relations campaign would be "helped by which parts of the bill go into effect immediately. It's hard to talk about things that'll happen in 2019. But if you can say to people that if your kid is 26 years old, you can keep him on your insurance plan? ... They get that."

Some 20 states had already passed legislation requiring insurers to cover adult children before the federal rule was imposed. Citing results in New Jersey, Wisconsin and elsewhere, many critics pointed to how such top-down benefits mandates were driving up the cost of insurance and limiting access instead of expanding it. In response, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>top SEIU thug Dennis Rivera accused Obamacare opponents of "terrorist tactics</span>" in a conference call earlier this spring with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Now, confronted with the thorny allocation of scarce resources, profligate money managers at the SEIU are dropping thousands of kids' health coverage because they, too, can't afford to foot the bill imposed by the president whom their union bosses spent more than $60 million to elect. And SEIU's Rivera is nowhere to be found.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The SEIU also pumped tens of millions of dollars in union funds directly into the campaign for Obamacare. Workers regurgitated White House talking points hyping increased access, lower premiums and peace of mind for the working class. SEIU 1199 -- which is now cutting off health care coverage to children whose parents work in the health care industry of all industries -- was at the forefront of those D.C.-directed "reform" rallies. The same militant leaders of SEIU 1199 sent hordes of their workers on buses to an anti-tea party rally convened by Comedy Central clowns in October, while their benefits and pension funds eroded.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Yes, the union road to hell is paved with workers' own hard-earned dues money. All hail progressivism!</span>

How far we've come from the halcyon moment when President Obama rallied young college students at George Mason University in Virginia in March. To wild applause, he pledged: "If you buy a new plan, there won't be lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care you receive from your insurance companies. (Applause.) And by the way, to all the young people here today, starting this year if you don't have insurance, all new plans will allow you to stay on your parents' plan until you are 26 years old. (Applause.)"

Cue bitter laughter here. As I reported two weeks ago, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>more than 111 unions (including two SEIU affiliates), companies and insurers have now secured federal waivers to escape the first provision Obama mentioned to the George Mason University students. And more financially strapped union affiliates like SEIU 1199 will undoubtedly be canceling children's coverage to escape the costs tied to Obama's second vow.</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>For the kiddie human shields who helped the Democrats dig their own ditch, reality bites. Live and learn.</span></div></div>
Predicted by El Dubb. (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/12/01/the_littlest_victims_of_obamacare/page/full/)

LWW &lt;--- Reporting the truth that American spoon wielders refuse to do.

Qtec
12-02-2010, 06:14 AM
The truth.

link (http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/20/union-drops-health-coverage-for-workers-children/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fund is administered by 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. Union officials said the state compelled the fund to start buying coverage from a third party, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>which increased premiums by 60%.</span> State health officials denied forcing the union fund to make the switch, saying the fund had been struggling financially even before the switch to third-party coverage.

The fund informed its members late last month that their dependents will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1, 2011. Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund, some until age 23.

The union fund faced a “dramatic shortfall” between what employers contributed to the fund <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and the premiums charged by its insurance provider,</span> Fidelis Care, according to Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU. The union fund pools contributions from several home-care agencies and then buys insurance from Fidelis.

“In addition, new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Behroozi estimated that the fund faced a $15 million shortfall in 2011 and more in the following years for the coverage of workers’ children.

The union said in a statement that the state required the fund to participate in a new program — the Family Health Plus Buy-In Program — beginning in 2008. The union said it expected that by joining the program, many of its members would qualify for state assistance for health-insurance coverage. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Instead they raised insurance rate increases without any increase in funding, and then cut Medicaid funding to the same workers nine times in the last three years,” </span>the union said in a statement. </div></div>


You cannot be serious when you take Malkin seriously! She is as nutty as they come. She has all the qualifications to become a TP candidate.


Q

Qtec
12-02-2010, 06:17 AM
Oh and BTW, this affects 6,000 kids. How many kids will be affected because the GOP is denying unemployment benefits to their parents?

2 million people............how many kids?


Q

Stretch
12-02-2010, 06:48 AM
Thanks Q, It's always refreshing to hear the straight facts without the hyper partisan crap. St.

LWW
12-02-2010, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh and BTW, this affects 6,000 kids. How many kids will be affected because the GOP is denying unemployment benefits to their parents?

2 million people............how many kids?


Q </div></div>

1 - Thanks for verifying that you are willing to sacrifice the children of working Americans to advance the regime's agenda.

2 - Zero will be affected because the R's do not control congress.

3 - How many will be affected because the democrooks refuse to live by their own "PAYGO" rule?

4 - How many millions have been affected in the last 4 years of the fascist economic policy of the current congress?

5 - How long did it take to spoon feed you that load?

LWW

LWW
12-02-2010, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks Q, It's always refreshing to hear the straight <s>facts without the</s> hyper partisan crap. St. </div></div>

LWW

Stretch
12-02-2010, 07:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks Q, It's always refreshing to hear the straight <s>facts without the</s> hyper partisan crap. St. </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

lol just can't bare to see the truth eh? St.

Qtec
12-02-2010, 07:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Thanks for verifying that you are willing to sacrifice the children of working Americans to advance the regime's agenda. </div></div>


1. You just made that up.

Q

Qtec
12-02-2010, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 2 - Zero will be affected because the R's do not control congress.</div></div>

2. Denial. I have just posted several posts which describe the delaying/bring Govt to a halt tactics being used by the GOP to stop anything Obama wants to do.

Q

Qtec
12-02-2010, 07:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - How many will be affected because the democrooks refuse to live by their own "PAYGO" rule? </div></div>

Unemployment extensions are emergency spending, they do not fall under PAYGO, LOOK IT UP.

Q

Qtec
12-02-2010, 07:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4 - How many millions have been affected in the last 4 years of the fascist economic policy of the current congress? </div></div>

LMAO

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Qtec
12-02-2010, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">5 - How long did it take to spoon feed you that load?

LWW </div></div>



HaHaHa.

Q......LOL

eg8r
12-02-2010, 08:24 AM
So you are ok with 6000 victims? We were told by Obama he would save everyone.

eg8r

Qtec
12-02-2010, 08:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks Q, It's always refreshing to hear the straight facts without the hyper partisan crap. St. </div></div>

Every post by LWW has a smell on it. You just have to look at the source. If its from Malkin or any of the other nutjobs you just know its been distorted. The first paragraph gives it away.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's time for America's youth to buckle up and take a rough ride on Reality Highway. For the past two years, President Obama has promised our children the moon, stars, rainbows, unicorns and <u>universal health care for all. </u></div></div> ........and the GOP have done everything in their power to stall, oppose and dilute the eventual bill that was passed.

There is no universal healthcare so why does she even bring it up?




Q

Stretch
12-02-2010, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks Q, It's always refreshing to hear the straight facts without the hyper partisan crap. St. </div></div>

Every post by LWW has a smell on it. You just have to look at the source. If its from Malkin or any of the other nutjobs you just know its been distorted. The first paragraph gives it away.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's time for America's youth to buckle up and take a rough ride on Reality Highway. For the past two years, President Obama has promised our children the moon, stars, rainbows, unicorns and <u>universal health care for all. </u></div></div> ........and the GOP have done everything in their power to stall, oppose and dilute the eventual bill that was passed.

There is no universal healthcare so why does she even bring it up?




Q </div></div>

She brings it up because it goes nicely with Moon, stars, rainbows and unicorns. Whenever i see dialoge like this i know it's garbage info. Anything that requires that degree of fantasy imagery does so because it cannot stand on it's own bare facts. St.

Stretch
12-02-2010, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - How many will be affected because the democrooks refuse to live by their own "PAYGO" rule? </div></div>

Unemployment extensions are emergency spending, they do not fall under PAYGO, LOOK IT UP.

Q </div></div>

I see LWW's Google skills have suddenly and mysteriously disappeared. To appease his junk food addiction, and quell the pangs of propaganda withdrawal i prescribe a big Malkin Milkshake and two Limpball Burgers while watching reruns of fox news. St.

LWW
12-02-2010, 11:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - How many will be affected because the democrooks refuse to live by their own "PAYGO" rule? </div></div>

Unemployment extensions are emergency spending, they do not fall under PAYGO, LOOK IT UP.

Q </div></div>

You claimed it ... you look it up.

LWW

LWW
12-02-2010, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks Q, It's always refreshing to hear the straight facts without the hyper partisan crap. St. </div></div>

Every post by LWW has a smell on it. You just have to look at the source. If its from Malkin or any of the other nutjobs you just know its been distorted. The first paragraph gives it away.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's time for America's youth to buckle up and take a rough ride on Reality Highway. For the past two years, President Obama has promised our children the moon, stars, rainbows, unicorns and <u>universal health care for all. </u></div></div> ........and the GOP have done everything in their power to stall, oppose and dilute the eventual bill that was passed.

There is no universal healthcare so why does she even bring it up?




Q </div></div>

Because he promised it ... and delivered more uninsured, not less.

Please, at least try to pay attention.

LWW

LWW
12-02-2010, 11:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you are ok with 6000 victims? We were told by Obama he would save everyone.

eg8r </div></div>

To the left these are acceptable losses in order to advance the agenda.

As I've said, the regime sees the poor as mere stage props.

LWW

Qtec
12-02-2010, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - How many will be affected because the democrooks refuse to live by their own "PAYGO" rule? </div></div>

Unemployment extensions are emergency spending, they do not fall under PAYGO, LOOK IT UP.

Q </div></div>

You claimed it ... you look it up.

LWW </div></div>

I don't need to look it up. YOU are the ignorant one.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reid amendment

Here are some details of the pending Reid amendment, courtesy of Senator John Thune’s staff on the Senate Republican Policy Committee and Senator Judd Gregg’s Budget Committee staff.

* The Reid amendment extends unemployment insurance benefits through November 30, 2010. These benefits would be retroactive to June 2, 2010, when the last law expired. No UI benefits under this law would be payable after April 30, 2011.
* The February 2009 stimulus law created a supplemental $25 per week UI benefit. The Reid amendment would not extend that provision.
* <span style='font-size: 26pt'>The $34 B of additional unemployment spending over the next decade would be designated as an <span style="color: #CC0000">emergency, meaning it would not be subject to paygo requirements</span> and therefore does not need to be offset with other spending cuts or tax increases to avoid a 60-vote point of order</span></div></div>

Now, how do you feel? Spanked?


Q ..unlike you, I never post anything I can't back up.

LWW
12-02-2010, 04:42 PM
Designating it as an emergency doesn't mean that it meets the requirements of "PAYGO" ... show me what the original rule says.

LWW

LWW
12-02-2010, 04:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - How many will be affected because the democrooks refuse to live by their own "PAYGO" rule? </div></div>

Unemployment extensions are emergency spending, they do not fall under PAYGO, LOOK IT UP.

Q </div></div>

You claimed it ... you look it up.

LWW </div></div>

I don't need to look it up. YOU are the ignorant one.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reid amendment

Here are some details of the pending Reid amendment, courtesy of Senator John Thune’s staff on the Senate Republican Policy Committee and Senator Judd Gregg’s Budget Committee staff.

* The Reid amendment extends unemployment insurance benefits through November 30, 2010. These benefits would be retroactive to June 2, 2010, when the last law expired. No UI benefits under this law would be payable after April 30, 2011.
* The February 2009 stimulus law created a supplemental $25 per week UI benefit. The Reid amendment would not extend that provision.
* <span style='font-size: 26pt'>The $34 B of additional unemployment spending over the next decade would be designated as an <span style="color: #CC0000">emergency, meaning it would not be subject to paygo requirements</span> and therefore does not need to be offset with other spending cuts or tax increases to avoid a 60-vote point of order</span></div></div>

Now, how do you feel? Spanked?


Q ..unlike you, I never post anything I can't back up. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year or the period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_Hres6.pdf)

LWW

LWW
12-02-2010, 04:51 PM
You are in so over your head.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, H.R. 2920, is a law in the United States restoring "pay-as-you-go" or "PAYGO" budget rules in Congress that were used from 1990 until 2002. These rules required that any new spending or tax cuts be budget-neutral, offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. The proposed bill would restore those requirements, but with several major policy exemptions. It is supported by President Barack Obama in theory, but he has not vetoed any spending bill. </div></div>

OH MY! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Pay-As-You-Go_Act_of_2010)

LWW

eg8r
12-02-2010, 05:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The proposed bill would restore those requirements, but with several major policy exemptions.</div></div>What are these exemptions?

eg8r

Qtec
12-02-2010, 10:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As part of presidential-congressional budget summit agreements in 1987 and 1989, appropriations caps were enacted, and the two branches agreed not to initiate
supplemental spending above these amounts <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“except in the case of a dire emergency.”
In neither agreement was there a definition for a dire emergency,</span> or a requirement that any
supplemental spending be offset.3 </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">July 01, 2008|Richard Simon | Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush signed an emergency spending measure Monday that funds military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year, along with an expansion of veterans benefits <span style='font-size: 17pt'>and an extension of jobless aid.</span>

The measure:h.r.02642:, enacted at a time when the troubled economy tops many voters' concerns, <u>provides up to 13 extra weeks of unemployment assistance for people who have lost their jobs and have exhausted their typical 26 weeks of state benefits.</u> </div></div>

Q

LWW
12-03-2010, 04:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The proposed bill would restore those requirements, but with several major policy exemptions.</div></div>What are these exemptions?

eg8r </div></div>

That's what I', asking Snoopy to document.

The reality, as he is "GETTING" without ever "GETTING IT", is that "PAYGO" was and is window dressing.

The democrooks trumpet that they have enacted these spending rules ... yet have no actual interest in ever actually abiding by them.

LWW

LWW
12-03-2010, 04:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As part of presidential-congressional budget summit agreements in 1987 and 1989, appropriations caps were enacted, and the two branches agreed not to initiate
supplemental spending above these amounts <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“except in the case of a dire emergency.”
In neither agreement was there a definition for a dire emergency,</span> or a requirement that any
supplemental spending be offset.3 </div></div>

The UE rate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">July 01, 2008|Richard Simon | Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush signed an emergency spending measure Monday that funds military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year, along with an expansion of veterans benefits <span style='font-size: 17pt'>and an extension of jobless aid.</span>

The measure:h.r.02642:, enacted at a time when the troubled economy tops many voters' concerns, <u>provides up to 13 extra weeks of unemployment assistance for people who have lost their jobs and have exhausted their typical 26 weeks of state benefits.</u> </div></div>

Q </div></div>

And, note that the emergency was an unfunded army in the field ... not the UE rate. The UE rate at that time was 5% ... hence the added benefits was simply a sop to the seditious democrokk party which was willing to leave an unfunded army in the field if it couldn't get the POTUS to sign off on additional social spending.

If 5% UE is thge definition of emergency then we will be in a perpetual emergency for the next decade or more.

Furthermore, if even this level of UE is an emergency ... why has this congress done nothing to avoid it and everything to create it?

The regime tells us out of one side of it's mouth that this level of UE is the new norm, and out of the other side of it's mouth that it's an emergency ... and you believe both stories.

LWW

LWW
12-03-2010, 04:19 AM
Now, here's a toughie for you Snoopy ... which year is more recent. 2010 or 2008?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are in so over your head.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010</span>, H.R. 2920, is a law in the United States restoring "pay-as-you-go" or "PAYGO" budget rules in Congress that were used from 1990 until 2002. These rules required that any new spending or tax cuts be budget-neutral, offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. The proposed bill would restore those requirements, but with several major policy exemptions. It is supported by President Barack Obama in theory, but he has not vetoed any spending bill. </div></div>

OH MY! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Pay-As-You-Go_Act_of_2010)

LWW
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>July 01, 2008</span>|Richard Simon | Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush signed an emergency spending measure Monday that funds military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year, along with an expansion of veterans benefits <span style='font-size: 17pt'>and an extension of jobless aid.</span>

The measure:h.r.02642:, enacted at a time when the troubled economy tops many voters' concerns, <u>provides up to 13 extra weeks of unemployment assistance for people who have lost their jobs and have exhausted their typical 26 weeks of state benefits.</u> </div></div>

Q </div></div>

LWW

Qtec
12-03-2010, 06:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality, as he is "GETTING" without ever "GETTING IT", is that "PAYGO" was and is window dressing. </div></div>

If you believe that, WTF are you complaining about?

Q

Qtec
12-03-2010, 06:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's what I', asking Snoopy to document. </div></div>

He asked YOU!

Its up to YOU to prove your claims. I don't have time to knock down every stupid thing you have to say. That's not how it works.

Again,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are these exemptions? </div></div>

Q.........answer the question or STFU.

ALSO,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And, note that the emergency was an unfunded army in the field </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Who went to war without paying for it?</span>

War needs to be paid for,<span style='font-size: 26pt'> even the Crusaders knew that.</span>
Never before has a country gone to war [ on two fronts] and not raised taxes to pay for it. GW said, "put it on the credit card and let the next Pres pay for it."

LWW
12-03-2010, 06:29 AM
Actually, the tax cuts increased revenue enough to fund the war ... what blew up the deficit was the additional crap.

Now, had congress voted to fund the war with a tax hike attached to a spending freeze that assured any new revenue wasn't squandered thus leaving the deficit where it was or worse ... I would have supported that.

Now back to your myth.

Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Spanish-American War, and the US Civil War, were all paid for with deficit spending.

That isn't an endorsement of the policy, but it certainly shows that the current policy isn't out of the historical norm.

LWW

Qtec
12-03-2010, 06:34 AM
How many F--k--g times do I have to say it. When you make a ridiculous claim like this one,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, the tax cuts increased revenue enough to fund the war </div></div>

...back it up with something...anything...anything that might make someone think that maybe, just maybe you are not talking out your a$$ and a total moron.

Q

eg8r
12-03-2010, 07:54 AM
Well it was in the article that you served up as proof that PayGo included extending unemployment. Since it was vague I thought you would bolster your argument.

eg8r

LWW
12-03-2010, 05:04 PM
Bush signed a UE extension under rules different than the new "PAYGO" the democrooks pimped to their base.

They also extended UE in the PORKULUS RECOVERY ACT by exempting PORKULUS spending from PAYGO.

Hence they are verbally stating that the next extension would be on an emergency basis ... but they are not legislatively following their own rule(s).

LWW