Palin 'death panel' claim sets Truth-O-Meter ablaze, page 11

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:04 AM

link

Originally posted by VinceP1974

What do you think of Jim Demitt's bill in the Senate?

I am honestly not too familiar but basically the guy thinks the deficit is going to explode, right, because of this?

I think this is coming from a Republican who doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich.

?

Obama says it will work by 2/3 coming from the reform of money sucking policy and the rest will come from taxing those who make 250,000 or more a year by taxing them 32% rather than the 28% they get now(which is what he said he wanted to do during the campaign). He went on to say the $ would be there JUST by increasing taxes on the rich but he wants to use $ from monies rendered from the reform instead of all tax payer $. I assumed from that statement that he might not have to increase the taxes as much as ne thought.

?

That's what I heard him say at the last town hall. Maybe I am misinterpreting his words. Correct me if I am wrong. (I'm sorry that I can't link to this info. -I will look around.)

rnaa

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:10 AM

link

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Also France doesn't need to defend itself as much, they have energy independence,...

Cough...Bull cough...cough.

Why then are they in so darned much of a hurry to sell nuke tech to Iran? And why were they in so darned in a hurry to defend Iraq before the invasion?

Yeah, I know, Bush lied about Iraq and that makes France's stance look good, but that wasn't why they did it in the first place. They did it because they need the oil.

anyone

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:18 AM

link

Here's what he says and a snippit:

When I was campaigning, I made a promise that I would not raise your taxes if you made $250,000 a year or less. That's what I said. But I said that for people like myself, who make more than that, there's nothing wrong with me paying a little bit more in order to help people who've got a little bit less. That was my commitment. (Applause.)

So what I've said is -- so what I've said is let's, for example, just -- this is the solution that I originally proposed; some members in Congress disagree, but we're still working it through -- what I've said is we could lower the itemized deductions that I can take on my income tax returns every year so that instead of me getting 36 percent, 35 percent deductions, I'll just get 28 percent, like people who make less money than me.

If I'm writing a check to my local church, I don't know why Uncle Sam should be giving me a bigger tax break than the person who makes less money than me, because that donation means just as much. (Applause.) If we just did that alone -- just that change alone, for people making more than $250,000, that alone would pay for the health care we're talking about. (Applause.)

So my point is -- my point is, number one, two-thirds of the money we can obtain just from eliminating waste and inefficiencies. And the Congressional Budget Office has agreed with that; this is not something I'm just making up; Republicans don't dispute it. And then the other third we would have to find additional revenue, but it wouldn't come on the backs of the middle class.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by anyone]

I'm kinda tired so gotta go sleep but I will check back tomorrow... hope I didn't jump in rudely here.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by anyone]

VinceP1974

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:39 AM

link

Originally posted by anyone

Originally posted by VinceP1974

What do you think of Jim Demitt's bill in the Senate?

I am honestly not too familiar but basically the guy thinks the deficit is going to explode, right, because of this?

I think this is coming from a Republican who doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich.

?

I asked because you seem to really be against public ignorance of important issues, and you mock people who are passionate about defending the Constution.

So i figure, someone as informed about the health care debate and the various proposals would surely know about the various proposals out there.

But you dont. You only seem to know no more than what a person would get from watching broadcast news.

In case you haven't realized , the MSM has deliberately been under informing it's viewers of information pertinent to the issue.

So how does someone like you , who does nothing to really go beyond hearing Katie Couric blather on about the typical nonsense irrelevant crap , get to think you're somehow on a higher plane?

You seem like a typical ignorant college indoctrinated leftist drone.

anyone

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:01 AM

link

reply to post by VinceP1974

You seem like a typical ignorant college indoctrinated leftist drone.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

rnaa

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:42 PM

link

Who is it that is lying about the contents of the Health Care bill?

Source: The (un)truth about health reform

As chairman of the House Republican Health Care Solutions Group, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Springfield, knows a thing or two about health care. But some of what he knows just isn't true.

"I'm 59," Mr. Blunt said last week during a meeting with Post-Dispatch reporters and editors. "In either Canada or Great Britain, if I broke my hip, I couldn't get it replaced."

We fact-checked that. At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year and two-thirds of those done in England were on patients age 65 or older. More than 1,200 in Canada were done on people older than 85.

"I didn't just pull that number out of thin air," Mr. Blunt said in a subsequent interview. It came, he said, from testimony before the House Subcommittee on Health by "some people who are supposed to be experts on Canadian health care."

"I had been given that example. I was told that 59 is the cutoff," he said.

"I'm glad you pointed that out to me. I won't use that example any more."

Mr. Blunt is a sincere man. We have no doubt he'll keep his word. But he's not the only Republican leader who has his facts wrong about British and Canadian health care. And some of his colleagues are a bit less contrite.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, recently claimed that in England, Sen. Ted Kennedy would have been denied treatment for his brain cancer.

The English National Health Service has denied that claim. The head of a related health agency complained about "untrue or misinformed" comments. And the president of the British Medical Association decried such "jaw-droppingly untruthful attacks."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

If you have problems with the Health Reform bill, no problem, just say so folks.

Just stop lying to the American people about what it is trying to accomplish.

Just stop lying about health care policies in other countries especially when they have no relevance to the American experience.

Just stop lying about your motivation.