NOBama Nation: 1.7 Trillon required for Universal Healthcare AND Global Poverty Act, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 8-6-2008 @ 07:22 PM by jetxnet
Yes, that is the cost so far (874 Billion) assessed for Obama's plans for Universal Healthcare and the Global Poverty Act.

Over 1.7 Trillion to pay for it, means your taxes GO UP! You pay for other people's healthcare, even those much less responsible than you are with their Health! Obama is a New World Order puppet, and this means his Presidency would finish the final step in creating the North American Union.

This means too, that you will support an overwhelming poor Mexican population with your tax dollars for their Health Care, while many of these poor people will not be supporting you! Sound fair? Yeah, it is if you like becoming more poor and giving away your hard-earned dollars. If you like supporting uneducated people with poor hygene and no means to make a better life for themselves otherwise, then yeah, it is fair. It levels the playing field so much, that you are taken down a notch or two, while Obama and his partners in crime will continue to rake in over 4 million per year (Obama's income last year cited via his 2007 Tax Return).


Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years."[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year,


That's just Healthcare, now move on to solving the World's Hunger problem with American Taxpayers' money (another 800 Billion+$).

Coming from a guy who also wants compensation from the United Nations for Slavery that happened over a hundred years ago.

The debt to slavery was more than paid with the blood of over 400,000 dead White American soldiers in the Civil War to free the Slaves. The Audacity of Obama.

Read about Obama's massive spending plan using your hard-earned money (and not Obama's 4 million+) using the link below (middle section).

Counter to Obamatron Rebuttal

As expected, the following Obamatrons are using the money for the Iraq war as an excuse for Obama's planned Miracles.

Here is the counter, key point, you are not paying for the Iraq war directly - but will definitely be, over and above what is being taxed now, by a considerable margin, to fund Obama's Utopia.

**Obama will not bring the troops home in a timely fashion. It's more complicated than that. Even so, it would take two years as he claims.

**Also, you are not paying for the war in Iraq, other countries are!! The US has alot of hollow debt for the war, none of it, is being taken from you! Your taxes DID NOT go up to fund the Iraq war effort.

Obama, will take from you! Cutting middle class tax, and then reinstantiatiing it for higher taxes? Yeah, sure.

Bottom line, war or not, you are going to be affected much more directly than before with regard to your income.

www.dontvoteobama.net...



[edit on 9-6-2008 by jetxnet]


reply posted on 8-6-2008 @ 07:35 PM by biggie smalls
reply to post by jetxnet


I would much rather spend 3/4 of a trillion dollars on proving food and healthcare for people as opposed to a trillion dollars on an illegal war in iraq.

I don't quite understand how you can complain about spending when we've already wasted several trillion (depending on which estimates you read) in the middle east with nothing good coming out of it. At least with universal healthcare and anti-poverty programs people will be fed and taken care of.

I'm not a huge fan of universal healthcare in the first place, but you need to look at the opposite side of the coin.

War could surpass $1 trillion - article from 2006

Cost of Iraq war is $500 billion and counting

Iraq war cost at $1.3 trillion

A report released last week by the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee put the war's 2002-08 tab at $1.3 trillion.


Nobel laureate estimates wars' cost at more than $3 trillion

When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.

Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion.


Any questions?


reply posted on 8-6-2008 @ 08:11 PM by biggie smalls
Originally posted by jetxnet
No need to back it up, your taxes didn't go up since the war began. If that doesn't explain it, what does? Other countries have paid for it mostly (the Iraq War). China, Japan and the list goes on. Do the research.


My taxes didn't go up? Is that all this is about, taxes? I think you're looking at this from a skewed point of view. Bush didn't raise taxes, but that doesn't mean anything. He just moved spending from education and other areas that are much more important to life here in the US over to the war effort.

The point is, your taxes will GO UP bigtime to cover Obama's plans for the US to solve Global Hunger (as IF it is OUR responsibility in the first place).


Ya we'll see. It doesn't matter what we think anyway, we have no real control over what happens so you can complain all day about how your taxes will be raised and nothing will happen.

I think its up to those who have a surplus of food, in this case corn, to feed others. We seem to have no problem burning corn as fuel, but when feeding the hungry is discussed there is some huge deal.

Why don't we stop subsidizing everything and we'll have billions of extra cash to use.

Oh wait, but you wouldn't want to stop helping the oil companies now would you? You do realize the US government subsidizes Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco to insure you have cheap gas? So ensuring corporate profits is OK with you, but taking care of the less fortunate is 'elitist'?

Universal Healthcare, 'nuff said.


I don't think you've said much at all. All I've read is you complaining about higher taxes, but no proof of anything. Usually when you stop spending trillions of dollars on one thing you have a surplus of a few trillion.

Simple economics.


reply posted on 8-6-2008 @ 08:19 PM by biggie smalls
Originally posted by AgentScmidt
I also find it funny people vote for liberals to bring down the size of government that Bush created and to end the war, when in fact liberals are for those things.


There is no 'liberal' and 'conservative' politician. That is a misnomer. A politician is always about big government because they don't have a job if there is small government. That's how federalism works.

Just look at the very meaning of the words liberal and conservative. If you're sitting at a table with your family and you say to your mom "please give me a liberal amount of those mashed potatoes" you're saying you want a LOT. If you say "give me a conservative amount" you are saying you want a LITTLE.


Yes the old liberal versus conservative trite. I'm glad you're stuck in the box. "They" have won. You have been assimilated into the matrix as Agent Smith, just like your avatar and name.

Liberals = MORE war, BIGGER government, MORE spending, etc. I don't think anyone on these forums are for that... so why do we have people that declare themselves as liberals and vote for democrats like Obama or Hillary? J


Actually, liberals tend to be less war, same size government (which is still bull#), and shifting spending away from war towards helping people.

ust look at all past wars, Democrats have always gotten us into wars and Republicans have gotten us out.


How about Iraq? Afghanistan? That was some stupid liberals who started those wars and the conservatives are helping us get out...

For the record, Bush and McCain are also liberals, they are RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). The only issues they are conservative on is taxes, and abortion, which is not a whole lot.


I think the word you're looking for is NeoConservative, just like the 'liberals' these days are NeoLiberals.

DINOs.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^