Wells Hall Off Topic Board

Using the term entitlement instead of program is one of the best weapons the GOP ever came up with for people without a pot to piss in voting against their own self-interests.

Only in American will you have people in the bottom 2 quintiles (bottom 40%) voting for a candidate who espouses cutting the very programs that benefit them and also promoting further tax cuts that will benefit those in the top 1% the most.

lars falls into that Top1% which is why he is very interested in not only keeping the tax advantages Bush2 created for him, lars wants MittFlip to not only keep what he's gained since 2001, he wants to pay for them by cutting programs that benefit those in the bottom 40%.

We are seeing what trickledown really meant. Make cuts that trickledown and affect those at the bottom the most.

Rich people want to keep the wealth they've earned?!? Shocking!

Thanks for that brilliant insight, buddy.

Not technically true. See, unlike the lyburls, I don't want to inhibit you from getting yours. I just don't want you to take mine. I sleep pretty well at night under that philosophy.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe those people who vote against entitlements don't want a govt who buys them stuff on the backs of others and by borrowing. They might actually want to take responsibility and want the govt to do the same by not overspending. I know this is a foreign concept to you but even poor people can believe in responsibility and don't want hand outs from the govt.

This is a core idea of the tea party that liberals can't grasp. I am sure it pisses liberals off too. Seeing people in the bottom 40% supporting these ideas.

Has it ever occurred to you that what you call entitlements aren't entitlements? You connies coined that term in order to disparage the working poor and to make them ashamed that they couldn't get ahead in a rigged game. The idea that no one wants to work and just live off the government isn't true and never has been. It's just a bunch of lies started by the repubs who hate that Social Security, a program that pays for itself, is so successful. You lie and lie and lie about social programs and your propaganda machine repeats the lies over and over until you convince the working class that all they are here for is to support the upper class.

You support cutting public education which is used by the working class to better themselves. You support letting people die who can't afford health care. You want Social Security privatized and the money sent to Wall Street to be pissed away by your beloved investment gamblers. The concept that everyone is supposed to be equal and have and equal opportunity is foreign to you. You firmly believe that only those with money are entitled to anything. Your philosophy is and always will be, "the poor have too much money and the rich don't have enough".

I have known for a long time that you live in an advanced state of denial. Thanks for confirming that again.

Since you never tell the truth, they must not be entitlements.

I believe the Democratic version is 'life is what you make it'

This from someone who has never posted above 2nd grade level. Too funny.

1) Perhaps you remember the concept of Pay-Go. The bill’s tax provisions are primarily progressive marginal adjustments aimed at those with Adjusted Gross Incomes of over $250,000 – the very segment who’s made a killing from the “temporary and targeted” Bush cuts of ’01 & ’03 – and where included to mitigate impact on national debt. Everyone is not suffering, regardless of your hyperbole. Longer term, the current tax system should be scraped and replaced with a simplified progressive version - one without corrupting expenditures.
2) ???? I hope you understand that the WSJ opinion editors created the title/byline, and in typical WSJ fashion the byline doesn’t match the content and is biased in a consistent direction. No, this is not the worst recovery in history. That claim is not made in George W. Bush’s economic advisor’s weakly argued opinion piece. BTW, you only see Lazear appearing on shows hosted by the likes of Larry Flippin’ Kudlow … not good.
4) Money without velocity does not equal devaluation. The injection of money was a counterbalance deflationary pressure. The danger of devaluation comes when velocity picks-up without the corresponding extraction of matching excess cash.
5) There are several market oriented changes that could be made, among other changes. The initial bill targeted coverage, premium participation, and the reduction of shameful insurance industry practices. Relatively little was done on the cost side. Costs will/must still be addressed.
6) I think making references to the “food stamp president” talking point is the sign of mindlessness, yes.
7) I’m sure you can guess that I’m not overly impressed by your economic opinions or knowledge either. Perhaps you might step out of your ideological media bubble every so often.

Thanks to the President I was able to stay on my parents health insurance. As the economy improved I was able to get a well paying job in finance despite my liberal arts degree. Hopefully the President will be able to deliver more of the change he promised in his second term. Not really a huge fan of the Democratic party, as they have no balls, but I give the President credit for going against the absolutely lunancy of the Republicans. Hopefully the Republican party will be rescued from those that see facts and books as evil liberal constructs. Its sad that reasonable Republicans are a dying breed.