Quantcast

Paul Ryan Uncovers Another Inconvenient Truth In Obamacare: The Creation Of New Individual Private Health Insurance Plans Will Be Illegal.

zbacku 2012/08/11 15:29:23
Care To Comment?
What Do You Think?
I Guess The Democrat Double Speak Never Ends.
The Bottom Line:  The Government Wants Total Control Of Healthcare.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Dwight 2012/08/12 13:18:37
    I Guess The Democrat Double Speak Never Ends.
    Dwight
    But we were supposed to be able to keep the coverage And the Doctor we liked!
  • HOMBRE 2012/08/12 13:05:52
    I Guess The Democrat Double Speak Never Ends.
    HOMBRE
    +1
    You know Romney is going to win and he will straiten this piece a crap of Obamacare and flush it right down the commode. It might take a double flush but it will be erased.What a wasted 4 yrs of crap old purple lips Obama left this country;-)
  • ProudProgressive 2012/08/11 15:40:03
    Care To Comment?
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    Thanks for posting this. Ryan looks like a complete idiot desperately trying to create a phony sound bite that he can use to lie about the plan some more. The health exchanges are the heart of the plan, and Ryan knows it. Asking the question the way he did is like asking whether the Detroit Tigers can win a game with no pitchers, and getting the response that if they have pitchers they can win, but then STILL trying to get the answer of "no they can't win", when he knows that's not the question and that's not what the law does.
  • Cap ProudPr... 2012/08/12 04:44:56
    Cap
    +1
    On the off-chance that anyone on SH is tempted to place any credence whatsoever in anything you post, let me discuss here an exchange of posts we had earlier this weekend on the thread you initiated asking "Will the Republicans dump Romney at their convention?". At the end of your intro you listed reasons that the Republicans might do so, alluding to the failure of the Romney family's equestrian horse to medal in the Olympics and reiterating charges you'd made earlier that Romney had gotten a $77,000 tax writeoff for the horse.

    I had seen you make such charges earlier and had thought you'd stopped, so I hadn't bothered to rebut them. Seeing that you had renewed your allegations, I alluded to the fact that several tax experts (e.g., Richard Rubin in Bloomberg News) had commented on that allegation and had said that he'd get a deduction only to the degree hehad shown "hobby" income, which he hadn't, and that, accordingly there was no deduction. You responded by posting a page of Romney's 2010 Tax Return showing that he had disclosed a $77,000 loss with regard to the horse to which I responded by saying such a posting showed the loss, but didn't show the loss had been claimed. You responded to my posting by saying that Romney had no right to show a "play horse ... on a Federal ...

    On the off-chance that anyone on SH is tempted to place any credence whatsoever in anything you post, let me discuss here an exchange of posts we had earlier this weekend on the thread you initiated asking "Will the Republicans dump Romney at their convention?". At the end of your intro you listed reasons that the Republicans might do so, alluding to the failure of the Romney family's equestrian horse to medal in the Olympics and reiterating charges you'd made earlier that Romney had gotten a $77,000 tax writeoff for the horse.

    I had seen you make such charges earlier and had thought you'd stopped, so I hadn't bothered to rebut them. Seeing that you had renewed your allegations, I alluded to the fact that several tax experts (e.g., Richard Rubin in Bloomberg News) had commented on that allegation and had said that he'd get a deduction only to the degree hehad shown "hobby" income, which he hadn't, and that, accordingly there was no deduction. You responded by posting a page of Romney's 2010 Tax Return showing that he had disclosed a $77,000 loss with regard to the horse to which I responded by saying such a posting showed the loss, but didn't show the loss had been claimed. You responded to my posting by saying that Romney had no right to show a "play horse ... on a Federal tax return", but not showing anything evidencing a claim on Romney's part.

    What all this means to me is that PP knew even before he posted his " ... dump Romney ..." thread that Romney hadn't claimed his horse losses as a deduction. If you want to believe a guy like this, BMG, but I'd take every opinion he expresses with a grain of salt and examine every citation or fact he supplies for context and completeness.
    (more)
  • ProudPr... Cap 2012/08/12 12:21:05 (edited)
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    How many times do I have to post the actual page from the one tax return that Romney has been nice enough to let the "you people" like you and I see? The tax return showed he had disclosed a $77,000 loss with respect to the horse, which you acknowledge. I don't give a damn what that disclosure did to his bottom line. The point is that you and I and 99% of the American public do not record the expenses we incur during a given year for our cats or our dogs or our goldfish, yet Mitt Romney's pet is "taxworthy". Dont try to play games about what the effect of listing that $77,000 writeoff was on his total tax liability. That's irrelevant. The fact that a friendly pet to you and I is just another business to Mitt Romney is relevant. Even if he didn't save a dollar by listing the horse in his tax returns, the simple fact that he listed it at all is a demonstration of his arrogance, his incredible and sole focus on profit over any other consideration, and his complete disconnect with the American public.

    By the way, just a stylistic point for friendly future reference - when you start out a comment by criticizing me in the first person, it's a little jarring when you switch to "hey everyone let's talk about PP in the third person" mode. Just sayin......

    I'm also curious what yo...
    How many times do I have to post the actual page from the one tax return that Romney has been nice enough to let the "you people" like you and I see? The tax return showed he had disclosed a $77,000 loss with respect to the horse, which you acknowledge. I don't give a damn what that disclosure did to his bottom line. The point is that you and I and 99% of the American public do not record the expenses we incur during a given year for our cats or our dogs or our goldfish, yet Mitt Romney's pet is "taxworthy". Dont try to play games about what the effect of listing that $77,000 writeoff was on his total tax liability. That's irrelevant. The fact that a friendly pet to you and I is just another business to Mitt Romney is relevant. Even if he didn't save a dollar by listing the horse in his tax returns, the simple fact that he listed it at all is a demonstration of his arrogance, his incredible and sole focus on profit over any other consideration, and his complete disconnect with the American public.

    By the way, just a stylistic point for friendly future reference - when you start out a comment by criticizing me in the first person, it's a little jarring when you switch to "hey everyone let's talk about PP in the third person" mode. Just sayin......

    I'm also curious what your comments have to do with Paul Ryan's attempt to lie about the Health Care Reform Law. If you had a problem with my "Dump Romney" poll you were certainly welcome to post your comments on that site. Does this mean that you agree that Paul Ryan is indefensible?
    (more)
  • Cap ProudPr... 2012/08/12 15:59:31 (edited)
    Cap
    I thought that the difference between you and Harry Reid on the one hand and Joe McCarthy on the other was that after Joseph Welch turned to McCarthy during the McCarthy/Army hearings and said, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?", I thought McCarthy had had the decency to STFU; but, I checked, and he didn't, he tried to ask another question and the hearing was gavelled into recess. You'll likely be delighted to know, accordingly, that you are not merely close, you are exactly like McCarthy.

    Why do I say this? It's not because I'm a merciless, mud-slinging, truth-ignoring polemicist as you have demonstrated yourself to be, it's because I have a degree of respect for the truth and you blatantly and obviously do not. Proof?

    I have demonstrated that your remarks about Romney taking a writeoff on his taxes, at least on a current basis, are lies. Your response has not been to admit and apologize, or even equivocate, rather, you have blustered on - as above - that the far more important point is that Romney is an arrogant and spoiled rich elitist whose presumptuousness in putting such information on his tax form is worse yet than his elitist attempt to reduce his taxes by despicably (even if legally) claiming equestrian hobby expenses as ...

    I thought that the difference between you and Harry Reid on the one hand and Joe McCarthy on the other was that after Joseph Welch turned to McCarthy during the McCarthy/Army hearings and said, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?", I thought McCarthy had had the decency to STFU; but, I checked, and he didn't, he tried to ask another question and the hearing was gavelled into recess. You'll likely be delighted to know, accordingly, that you are not merely close, you are exactly like McCarthy.

    Why do I say this? It's not because I'm a merciless, mud-slinging, truth-ignoring polemicist as you have demonstrated yourself to be, it's because I have a degree of respect for the truth and you blatantly and obviously do not. Proof?

    I have demonstrated that your remarks about Romney taking a writeoff on his taxes, at least on a current basis, are lies. Your response has not been to admit and apologize, or even equivocate, rather, you have blustered on - as above - that the far more important point is that Romney is an arrogant and spoiled rich elitist whose presumptuousness in putting such information on his tax form is worse yet than his elitist attempt to reduce his taxes by despicably (even if legally) claiming equestrian hobby expenses as a deduction. If that were the only place your misrepresentations were occurring, fine, perhaps I wouldn't call you a liar (though I think there would be a legitimate basis to do so, but, if you'll go back over our correspondence I think you'll see I'm far more temperate than you, particularly as regards personal insults), but we haven't been corresponding in a vacuum, we've been corresponding on SodaHead. SodaHead tells me that on Saturday - the very day that you and I were exchanging much of the above referenced correspondence - on another thread questioning Michelle Obama's expenditures as First Lady, you advised the thread author that he "won't have to worry whether [Mrs. Obama] took a $100,000 writeoff for her horse." In my book that removes enough semantical doubt to say that you're a liar. Congratulations, it's a term I've bestowed on few SHs.

    As to the balance of your posting: First, thanks for your stylistic advisement. I think my presentational choice worked for that posting, but I'll keep your advice in mind for future consideration. Second, as I thought I fairly clearly stated in my opening my last posting, my point in commenting on this thread was to alert anyone who happened upon your posts that such writings presumptively are vile pieces of demagoguery untethered to any innate moral need for truth. The question isn't why I commented here, but why I haven't gone on to other threads to reiterate my observations. Perhaps I shall.
    (more)
  • zbacku ProudPr... 2012/08/12 12:35:16
    zbacku
    +1
    So you agree that no one will be able to create a NEW 'private' health insurance plan.

    And, no the Tigers seem not to be able to win even with Verlander on the Mound.
  • ProudPr... zbacku 2012/08/12 12:38:30 (edited)
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    Look on the bright side - since his no-hitter Johann Santana's ERA is higher than the unemployment rate.

    And no, through the health exchanges the insurance companies can do whatever they want. That's the point. Ryan's badgering was based on a nonexistent premise.
  • zbacku ProudPr... 2012/08/12 13:10:24
    zbacku
    +1
    You do understand that IF I had a job, and IF I had to change my policy in any way. I would NOT be able to without having to buy from an 'exchange'. Which would make the resulting insurance inferior to the original.

    LOL. I'm waiting to see the look on all those Union members when their employer's dump their high end insurance policies. Of course, I know that won't happen until the 'waivers' given by Obama run out.

    Maybe Santana's Manager should have taken him out like he was thinking.
  • zbacku ProudPr... 2012/08/12 13:12:29
    zbacku
    Off to Church and a little softball later on. Have a good day.
  • Schläue~© zbacku 2012/08/12 14:09:23
    Schläue~©
    This jackass doesn't comprehend the difference between an investment and a goldfish.

    That kind of 'logic' just rewrote Triple Crown history, and negated the contracts of every pro-sports player and entertainer on the planet.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/24 13:52:14

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals