mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Okay well your very own source says it's because of taxes. Now you're saying your source is guilty of false presumptions. So are you sticking by your source or not?
What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
Okay well your very own source says it's because of taxes. Now you're saying your source is guilty of false presumptions. So are you sticking by your source or not?
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): Employment In U.S. Lags Where It Was In 2007. “While several European countries have fared worse, Canada, Sweden and even Britain, which is trapped in yet another recession, have enjoyed healthier job gains than the United States. In fact, of the nine countries surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only perennially-troubled Italy and Japan performed worse.” But Obama’s big Wall Street donors have done well.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): Waiter and waitress nation: The May payrolls report shows the US creating jobs, just not many good ones.
Well, the Silicon Valley plutocrats who donate to Obama need people to handle the valet parking.
UPDATE: A reader email: “Remember when Bush was president…..and Liberals derided the jobs being created as ones ‘flipping burgers?’ Amazing how their current position on the political power food chain colors some people’s perceptions.” Yes, those were called McJobs.
Well, the Silicon Valley plutocrats who donate to Obama need people to handle the valet parking.
UPDATE: A reader email: “Remember when Bush was president…..and Liberals derided the jobs being created as ones ‘flipping burgers?’ Amazing how their current position on the political power food chain colors some people’s perceptions.” Yes, those were called McJobs.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Fed study: Tax hikes, not spending cuts, are slowing the recovery
Why is the Obama recovery the weakest recovery since the Great Depression? According to a new study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, it is not because the federal government failed to borrow and spend too little during the height of the economic downturn.
In fact, the San Francisco Fed reports that “federal fiscal policy was unusually expansionary during the Great Recession” thanks largely to the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economic stimulus program passed by Congress in 2009. As a consequence, federal government saving in the recession fell faster—that is, the deficit grew faster—than our historical norm would predict.”
The San Francisco Fed does note that after the recovery began “fiscal policy sharply reversed course” and has since been “much more contractionary than normal.” But in total “federal fiscal policy has been a modest headwind to economic growth so far in the recovery, but no more so than usual given the weak pace of growth.”
Looking ahead, however, the Fed does see fiscal policy slowing growth, but not, as liberals would have you believe, due to spending cuts:
Surprisingly, despite all the attention federal spending cuts and sequestration have received, our calculations suggest they are not the main contributors to this projected drag. The excess fiscal drag on the horizon comes almost entirely from rising taxes. Specifically, we calculate that nine-tenths of that projected 1 percentage point excess fiscal drag comes from tax revenue rising faster than normal as a share of the economy.
So the next time a liberal complains about austerity, be sure to ask them which of President Obama’s many tax hikes they want to repeal first.
Why is the Obama recovery the weakest recovery since the Great Depression? According to a new study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, it is not because the federal government failed to borrow and spend too little during the height of the economic downturn.
In fact, the San Francisco Fed reports that “federal fiscal policy was unusually expansionary during the Great Recession” thanks largely to the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economic stimulus program passed by Congress in 2009. As a consequence, federal government saving in the recession fell faster—that is, the deficit grew faster—than our historical norm would predict.”
The San Francisco Fed does note that after the recovery began “fiscal policy sharply reversed course” and has since been “much more contractionary than normal.” But in total “federal fiscal policy has been a modest headwind to economic growth so far in the recovery, but no more so than usual given the weak pace of growth.”
Looking ahead, however, the Fed does see fiscal policy slowing growth, but not, as liberals would have you believe, due to spending cuts:
Surprisingly, despite all the attention federal spending cuts and sequestration have received, our calculations suggest they are not the main contributors to this projected drag. The excess fiscal drag on the horizon comes almost entirely from rising taxes. Specifically, we calculate that nine-tenths of that projected 1 percentage point excess fiscal drag comes from tax revenue rising faster than normal as a share of the economy.
So the next time a liberal complains about austerity, be sure to ask them which of President Obama’s many tax hikes they want to repeal first.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Lame Excuses for the IRS Scandal Get Lamer and Bite More Dust
Recall that from the outset, after it was revealed that the IRS was targeting conservatives and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, IRS-apologists came out with the claim that the unwarranted scrutiny was the result of staffers in Ohio offices who went rogue. As such, according to the apologists, we were not supposed to think that the agency as a whole was rotten to the core; just that there were a few isolated bad apples who in no way, shape, or form were representative of the IRS as a whole.
That theory never held much water to begin with. It holds even less water now:
An IRS staffer in Cincinnati told congressional investigators that a Washington official was the driving force behind the targeting of Tea Party organizations in 2010, and showed unprecedented interest in those groups’ tax-exempt applications.
Elizabeth Hofacre, the Cincinnati staffer, said that she started receiving applications from Tea Party groups to sift through in April, 2010. Hofacre’s handling of those cases, she said, was highly influenced by Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in Washington.
Hofacre said that she integrated questions from Hull into her follow-ups with Tea Party groups, and that Hull had to approve the letters seeking more information that she sent out to those organizations. That process, she said, was both unusual and “demeaning.”
“One of the criteria is to work independently and do research and make decisions based on your experience and education,” Hofacre said, according to transcripts reviewed by The Hill. “Whereas in this case, I had no autonomy at all through the process.”
“I thought it was over the top,” she added, in interviews held by investigators in both parties from the House Oversight and Ways and Means committees. “I am not sure where it came from, but it was a bit unusual.”
Hofacre, who oversaw Tea Party applications from April, 2010, to October, 2010, said Hull eventually became slow to endorse her letters. She eventually took another position within the IRS that year, after dealing with what she called “irate” applicants.
“And I see their point,” Hofacre said. “Even if a decision isn’t favorable, they deserve some kind of treatment and they deserve, you know, timeliness.”
The story goes on to state the following entirely unremarkable conclusion:
[t]he investigators’ interviews with Hofacre and another Cincinnati staffer, Gary Muthert, cast some doubt on statements from the former acting IRS commissioner, Steven Miller, and other agency officials that the targeting of Tea Party groups was limited to Cincinnati.
Recall that from the outset, after it was revealed that the IRS was targeting conservatives and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, IRS-apologists came out with the claim that the unwarranted scrutiny was the result of staffers in Ohio offices who went rogue. As such, according to the apologists, we were not supposed to think that the agency as a whole was rotten to the core; just that there were a few isolated bad apples who in no way, shape, or form were representative of the IRS as a whole.
That theory never held much water to begin with. It holds even less water now:
An IRS staffer in Cincinnati told congressional investigators that a Washington official was the driving force behind the targeting of Tea Party organizations in 2010, and showed unprecedented interest in those groups’ tax-exempt applications.
Elizabeth Hofacre, the Cincinnati staffer, said that she started receiving applications from Tea Party groups to sift through in April, 2010. Hofacre’s handling of those cases, she said, was highly influenced by Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in Washington.
Hofacre said that she integrated questions from Hull into her follow-ups with Tea Party groups, and that Hull had to approve the letters seeking more information that she sent out to those organizations. That process, she said, was both unusual and “demeaning.”
“One of the criteria is to work independently and do research and make decisions based on your experience and education,” Hofacre said, according to transcripts reviewed by The Hill. “Whereas in this case, I had no autonomy at all through the process.”
“I thought it was over the top,” she added, in interviews held by investigators in both parties from the House Oversight and Ways and Means committees. “I am not sure where it came from, but it was a bit unusual.”
Hofacre, who oversaw Tea Party applications from April, 2010, to October, 2010, said Hull eventually became slow to endorse her letters. She eventually took another position within the IRS that year, after dealing with what she called “irate” applicants.
“And I see their point,” Hofacre said. “Even if a decision isn’t favorable, they deserve some kind of treatment and they deserve, you know, timeliness.”
The story goes on to state the following entirely unremarkable conclusion:
[t]he investigators’ interviews with Hofacre and another Cincinnati staffer, Gary Muthert, cast some doubt on statements from the former acting IRS commissioner, Steven Miller, and other agency officials that the targeting of Tea Party groups was limited to Cincinnati.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
What "many tax hikes" are there to choose from? Tanning beds?
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Number Of U.S. Households On Food Stamps Hits Yet Another All-Time High, More Than 23 Million…
Cost to the taxpayers, $6,340,839,766 per month.
Via Zero Hedge:
Yesterday, briefly, we were confused by the eruption in the stock market following a not too bad sub-200K nonfarm payrolls number. Because we know that in the New Normal bad is always good, no matter what the well-coifed TV pundit du jour tells you. Then we remembered that yesterday is when the USDA releases its monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data, i.e. Americans on Foodstamps.
It was here that the ramp was perfectly explained, because while the bad (for stocks of course) data was that individual foodstamps recipients rose by 170K in March – if just a whisker below all time highs – it was the number of American households on foodstamps, which rose to a new all time high of 23,116,441 (each collecting an average of $274.30 per month) that perfectly explained the Dow Jones’ 200 point surge higher: the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-classes to the 1% continues without a hiccup.
Cost to the taxpayers, $6,340,839,766 per month.
Via Zero Hedge:
Yesterday, briefly, we were confused by the eruption in the stock market following a not too bad sub-200K nonfarm payrolls number. Because we know that in the New Normal bad is always good, no matter what the well-coifed TV pundit du jour tells you. Then we remembered that yesterday is when the USDA releases its monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data, i.e. Americans on Foodstamps.
It was here that the ramp was perfectly explained, because while the bad (for stocks of course) data was that individual foodstamps recipients rose by 170K in March – if just a whisker below all time highs – it was the number of American households on foodstamps, which rose to a new all time high of 23,116,441 (each collecting an average of $274.30 per month) that perfectly explained the Dow Jones’ 200 point surge higher: the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-classes to the 1% continues without a hiccup.
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,124
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Jobs get the nod as the catalyst, but without the sweet setup the move would not be as significant. Basically jobs at 175K but a rising unemployment rate at 7.6% is supposed to keep the Fed from any near term action. What it does, however, is keep the Fed on track for a rate hike in late summer/early fall.
Nonfarm Payrolls, May (8:30): 175K actual versus 159K expected, 149K prior (revised from 165K)
Nonfarm Private Payrolls, May (8:30): 178K actual versus 175K expected, 157K prior (revised from 176K)
Unemployment Rate, May (8:30): 7.6% actual versus 7.5% expected, 7.5% prior
Hourly Earnings, May (8:30): 0.0% actual versus 0.2% expected, 0.2% prior
Average Workweek, May (8:30): 34.5 actual versus 34.5 expected, 34.5 prior (revised from 34.4)
Three to four months down the road for the start of removing stimulus appears to be the right timetable for stocks, at least here in early summer. That likely changes as the new school year looms. It might change Monday given the internals noted above.
The irony is, the real unemployment rate, when using historical workforce participation average rates over decades (65.8% versus the current 63.4%) is 11.3%! The Fed is talking about an improving economy but the numbers used to gauge improvement have been ‘dumbed down’ to the current woeful economy. By any historical standards unemployment is at a crushing 10+% but because the government adjusts every other statistic only when benchmark changes accentuate the positives, it is not about to calculate unemployment based upon historical participation rates.
Further, the rise in the unemployment rate to 7.6% was the result of rising sentiment and confidence as reported this past week. More people feel better about the economy and went look for work. But there are not enough jobs and frankly, not many good jobs.
Quantity over quality.
We created more jobs (175K) but the average hourly wage was flat versus a 0.2% expected gain. Once more you see the jobs created remain low-end with a large percentage being part-time.
Time quality: Part-time is on a big upswing. A new record at 2.68M temporary staffing jobs as 25,600 such jobs were added. Over the last four months temporary jobs are up just under 100,000, second only to restaurants. Historically temporary jobs peak when the economy peaks given tight labor markets. Hardly the case right now, at least in terms of the jobs market. Maybe the economy is topping out, but jobs are still lagging.
The key is what we have discussed before: the sweeping change of our workforce makeup in response to the sweeping change of the ‘affordable healthcare act.’ Investor’s Business Daily picked up on this discussion this weekend.
Pay Quality: 55% of jobs created in May came from sectors paying below average wages: retail and hospitality. Given the bulk of jobs came from this group, the average wage limped in at $23.89. Over the past 12 months average hourly wages are up 2%. In the 10 months prior to the recession that started in 12/07 gains averaged 3.5%.
The jobs creators and what they pay:
Leisure and Hospitality: 43K jobs at an average pay of $13.45/hour.
Retailers: 27.7K jobs at $16.63/hour.
Temporary help: 25.6K jobs at $15.74/hour.
Again, almost 100K of the 175K jobs produced are in the lowest pay categories.
The lagging jobs groups and what they pay:
Construction: 7K jobs at $26.06/hour
Manufacturing: -8K jobs. Average wage $24.22/hour.
As we have detailed the past year, the jobs created are in the lower pay areas. The economy is STILL LOSING JOBS in some of the HIGHER PAY categories.
The piece de resistance: 21% of jobs lost in the recession were in occupations paying hourly wages of $13.83 or less. In the ‘recovery,’ those low pay occupations account for 58% of the jobs created. Today I heard a White House official touting 7 million jobs created in this administration.
Harken back to the Milton Friedman story where he was shown a works project where thousands of workers were using shovels to dig a canal. Friedman asked why they were not using earth moving machinery to which the communist official replied ‘because using shovels creates more jobs.’ Milton responded ‘why not have them use spoons?’
Man, if we had some spoons we could REALLY make some progress . . .
The Friedman story is a twist of the current situation but it underscores that creating crappy, low paying jobs is no substitute for real investment and invention that creates real industry and economic activity and thus new inventions and cutting edge jobs that RAISE the standard of living. Indeed, this data clearly shows our standard of living is declining as we replace good jobs with low paying jobs.
A renaissance underway?
I heard one economist again mention the manufacturing ‘renaissance’ underway . . . as the regional manufacturing reports outside of Chicago are all negative, the national ISM is contracting, and manufacturing lost another 8K jobs, the third straight month of losses. Renaissance? Not in terms of jobs. Manufacturing has had to retool to meet competition from China and elsewhere.
The GRAND IRONY: we complain of China’s low-cost labor force but the ‘solution’ we have come up with is a system that rewards job creators if they create part-time, lower pay jobs. In essence, we are ‘dumbing-down’ our workforce pay, moving toward China. Hell of a way to compete.
In any event, at the current rate it will take another 6 years to get the unemployment rate down to 5%. Longer if you compare apples to apples, i.e. using historical participation rates versus the artificially ones in place now.
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,124
The Shine Is Off
Paranoid investors pushed gold to $1,900 an ounce in 2011, but the bubble has burst.
The run-up in gold prices in recent years—from $800 an ounce in early 2009 to above $1,900 in the fall of 2011—had all the features of a bubble. And now, like all asset-price surges that are divorced from the fundamentals of supply and demand, the gold bubble is deflating.
At the peak, gold bugs—a combination of paranoid investors and others with a fear-based political agenda—were happily predicting gold prices going to $2,000, $3,000, and even to $5,000 in a matter of years. But prices have moved mostly downward since then. In April, gold was selling for close to $1,300 per ounce—and the price is still hovering below $1,400, an almost 30 percent drop from the 2011 high.
There are many reasons why the bubble has burst, and why gold prices are likely to move much lower, toward $1,000 by 2015.
First, gold prices tend to spike when there are serious economic, financial, and geopolitical risks in the global economy. During the global financial crisis, even the safety of bank deposits and government bonds was in doubt for some investors. If you worry about financial Armageddon, it is indeed metaphorically the time to stock your bunker with guns, ammunition, canned food, and gold bars.
But, even in that dire scenario, gold might be a poor investment. Indeed, at the peak of the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, gold prices fell sharply a few times. In an extreme credit crunch, leveraged purchases of gold cause forced sales, because any price correction triggers margin calls. As a result, gold can be very volatile—upward and downward—at the peak of a crisis.
LINK
It's worth noting once more that Dances With Falsehoods lied to us for almost 4 years, lecturing us how DOOM AND GLOOM was just around the corner, we should be investing in gold, etc. etc.
THEN THE GOLD BUBBLE BURST...and lo and behold, it seems that AJ was NOT invested in gold like he claimed, he was invested in the stock market all along, thank you very much, and was realizing gains from the stock market run-up.
You see, yammering about gold was simply him passing along The Narrative.
What have we learned?
Never believe one God damned word that comes out of AJ's mouth. Situational red man speaks with forked tongue.
Paranoid investors pushed gold to $1,900 an ounce in 2011, but the bubble has burst.
The run-up in gold prices in recent years—from $800 an ounce in early 2009 to above $1,900 in the fall of 2011—had all the features of a bubble. And now, like all asset-price surges that are divorced from the fundamentals of supply and demand, the gold bubble is deflating.
At the peak, gold bugs—a combination of paranoid investors and others with a fear-based political agenda—were happily predicting gold prices going to $2,000, $3,000, and even to $5,000 in a matter of years. But prices have moved mostly downward since then. In April, gold was selling for close to $1,300 per ounce—and the price is still hovering below $1,400, an almost 30 percent drop from the 2011 high.
There are many reasons why the bubble has burst, and why gold prices are likely to move much lower, toward $1,000 by 2015.
First, gold prices tend to spike when there are serious economic, financial, and geopolitical risks in the global economy. During the global financial crisis, even the safety of bank deposits and government bonds was in doubt for some investors. If you worry about financial Armageddon, it is indeed metaphorically the time to stock your bunker with guns, ammunition, canned food, and gold bars.
But, even in that dire scenario, gold might be a poor investment. Indeed, at the peak of the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, gold prices fell sharply a few times. In an extreme credit crunch, leveraged purchases of gold cause forced sales, because any price correction triggers margin calls. As a result, gold can be very volatile—upward and downward—at the peak of a crisis.
LINK
It's worth noting once more that Dances With Falsehoods lied to us for almost 4 years, lecturing us how DOOM AND GLOOM was just around the corner, we should be investing in gold, etc. etc.
THEN THE GOLD BUBBLE BURST...and lo and behold, it seems that AJ was NOT invested in gold like he claimed, he was invested in the stock market all along, thank you very much, and was realizing gains from the stock market run-up.
You see, yammering about gold was simply him passing along The Narrative.
What have we learned?
Never believe one God damned word that comes out of AJ's mouth. Situational red man speaks with forked tongue.
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,124
The cowardly vettebigot is once again obsessed with the individual insurance market.
Ack-cent-chew-ate teh negative, hero boi.
Ack-cent-chew-ate teh negative, hero boi.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
S&P revises U.S. credit outlook to stable from negative » 
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
And this analysis makes sense if:
1) ... you're a reality denier that pretends exchange subsidies don't exist but then also complain how much those nonexistent subsidies cost.
2) ... you don't factor in the fact that insurance until now has been kept at a certian price because insurers know they can drop you if you need services.
3) ... you think comparing apples to Honda Civics makes sense. The increase the study is pointing to compares the cost of insurance with lesser benefits to plans with much greater benefits. And then it says because there's a price difference between crappy plans and decent ones that there's a cost increase.
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,124
You lack the courage to address his valid points.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Gotta love the lying and distortion coming from the right about who gets Exchange subsidies. Every article I've seen including Vette's willfully misleading one are trying to pass it off as some kind of benefit for low-income poor people. Let's look at a few subsidy situations for non-poor people though. Vettemans of the forum, you may want to look away because facts are about to shred your narrative.
Assumptions: Silver plan with good benefits, nonsmokers, parents age 34 and 30, kids are on full insurance and not catastrophic. Assuming mythical worst-case scenario that the companies on exchanges aren't giving discounted rates and are all at the cap.
- Family of 4 making $70k per year: $10,922 annual cost (cap) minus 40% subsidy. That's $6500 or $540 per month for Silver. $357 per month if they want Bronze.
- Family of 6 making $85,000 per year: $12,839 annual (cap) mius 37% subsidy. $672 per month, $417 for Bronze.
- Average American family of four making $49k per year: $10,922 annual cost (cap) minus 70% subsidy. That's a mere $3,225 per year or $268 per month for a silver plan. $166 per month for a Bronze plan.
Only low-income people are getting subsidies? Gimme a fucking break, liars.
Assumptions: Silver plan with good benefits, nonsmokers, parents age 34 and 30, kids are on full insurance and not catastrophic. Assuming mythical worst-case scenario that the companies on exchanges aren't giving discounted rates and are all at the cap.
- Family of 4 making $70k per year: $10,922 annual cost (cap) minus 40% subsidy. That's $6500 or $540 per month for Silver. $357 per month if they want Bronze.
- Family of 6 making $85,000 per year: $12,839 annual (cap) mius 37% subsidy. $672 per month, $417 for Bronze.
- Average American family of four making $49k per year: $10,922 annual cost (cap) minus 70% subsidy. That's a mere $3,225 per year or $268 per month for a silver plan. $166 per month for a Bronze plan.
Only low-income people are getting subsidies? Gimme a fucking break, liars.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
You don't criticize Obamacare. You lie about it and believe other people's lies without checking facts for yourself. All you're doing is yammering away. You might as well be reading your a nursery rhyme and saying it's a detailed refudiation of the ACA.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
From your own article:
So what it really says is not that there's an 85% increase, but a 55%-85% increase. But 85% sounds more scary so you concealed (or denied) the truth. And that's before a 70% tax subsidy for a family making $49k - and that subsidy is applied AFTER the increase. THAT MEANS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE GOING TO ME PAYING LESS WHILE ALSO GETTING MUCH BETTER INSURANCE.
This is why you don't have any credibility Vette. The facts (math) says that most people are going to be getting more health care for less money. And you lie, spin, and parrot lies all day long to avoid having to tell the truth about something.
Now if you think I've missed something here then I'd love to hear what facts you can show me. But I have the feeling that your response will be more fact-free gibberish, non-sequiters, personal attacks, or fecal-based retorts. Prove me wrong.
So what it really says is not that there's an 85% increase, but a 55%-85% increase. But 85% sounds more scary so you concealed (or denied) the truth. And that's before a 70% tax subsidy for a family making $49k - and that subsidy is applied AFTER the increase. THAT MEANS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE GOING TO ME PAYING LESS WHILE ALSO GETTING MUCH BETTER INSURANCE.
This is why you don't have any credibility Vette. The facts (math) says that most people are going to be getting more health care for less money. And you lie, spin, and parrot lies all day long to avoid having to tell the truth about something.
Now if you think I've missed something here then I'd love to hear what facts you can show me. But I have the feeling that your response will be more fact-free gibberish, non-sequiters, personal attacks, or fecal-based retorts. Prove me wrong.
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,124
Once again, the Vettebigot is comparing apples to Toyotas.
He truly is one stupid son of a bitch.
He truly is one stupid son of a bitch.
- Status
