# Going around WMA gates?



## JuniorPre 360

I heard on the radio this morning that a bunch of people are going to Zion National Park and are going through the gates to show how upset they are at the government. I was wondering if someone had planed on going through the federal wma's. I personally think it would be stupid to do so. I just remember over the summer someone had driven through the gate at BRBR. Any thoughts?


----------



## drakebob01

I know a duck isn't worth any kind of ticket!!! I also know the Fed LEO'S don't mess around!


----------



## JuniorPre 360

drakebob01 said:


> I know a duck isn't worth any kind of ticket!!! I also know the Fed LEO'S don't mess around!


I'm glad you brought that up. Are there guards at the gates? I know Officer Greg does a lot out there but since he is a fed, I was thinking he's forced to sit at home. But the radio made it sound like it's okay for everyone to bust through.


----------



## Pumpgunner

I don't see how anyone has the right to keep a citizen of this country off of federal land, whether the government is open or not. It's OUR land whether the dip$%*^ feds have their stuff together or not.


----------



## drakebob01

I know the refuge manager Bob and the Leo Greg are on the job! As far as I know they are the only two still on the pay-roll


----------



## Fowlmouth

The closure of the Refuges isn't a good thing, but it makes for some great rest areas for the birds right now. Just think, when they finally do open back up you will get another opening day. Maybe more birds will stick around longer because of the closure.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

it you go around the closed gate you will get a ticket for trespassing. just keep that in mind.


----------



## RichardClarke

Yeah I guess you could get a trespass. So could the San Juan county commissioners, other politicians, ZION national park tourists, etc. etc. Also Gov. Herbert is ordering the removal of barriers that are clearly state property such as road pull outs and road easements. I would say (in this current climate and chaos) if you got a ticket simply appeal it, ask for equitable treatment and more than likely it will be waived. When they have protest marches, sit ins, ATV rallys on closed federal roads, etc. etc. folks either don't get arrested or if they do they are later dismissed because hundreds or thousands of people would have to be cited. Again, simply appeal any trespass tickets and then ask why the law was selectively enforced in your situation. Yesterday I parked in front of a closed gate at a federal (US Forest Service) campground walked through the campground to reach a lake, never had an issue with law enforcement and a Forest Service LEO did drive by and never said a word, never even stopped.


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer

It isn't worth it. No doubt it is crap that we can't access the land as citizens of the nation that funds it, but I don't want to know what a federal trespassing charge amounts to. Keep in mind, if you have a firearm on your person they could probably construe it somehow to turn into a weapons violation as well. It isn't right or fair, but the consequences would not be worth it IMO.


----------



## JuniorPre 360

dkhntrdstn said:


> it you go around the closed gate you will get a ticket for trespassing. just keep that in mind.


 I don't think I mentioned that I have no interest in going around the gate or hunting and federal land during closure. I was just wondering if some jack wagon was going to and if there were people working to prevent this. Even if I believe that this whole shutdown thing is BS, I've learned that even a limit of ducks and geese is not worth possible fines or suspension from hunting.


----------



## Whiskey Hound

Stupid gooberment.......


----------



## dkhntrdstn

JuniorPre 360 said:


> I don't think I mentioned that I have no interest in going around the gate or hunting and federal land during closure. I was just wondering if some jack wagon was going to and if there were people working to prevent this. Even if I believe that this whole shutdown thing is BS, I've learned that even a limit of ducks and geese is not worth possible fines or suspension from hunting.


Im not saying you was. I was just pointing it out.So if any body was thinking about doing it.


----------



## drakesonly

I don't understand what the big deal is with everyone wanting to get on the refuge... Is it just because you can't right now?


----------



## paddler

We would be hunting the Refuge, visiting our National Parks, etc, except for the reckless actions of the Tea Party House Republicans, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al. Remember that when you vote in 2014 and beyond.


----------



## DallanC

Funny... it seems like there are two parties out there not agreeing on a solution.


-DallanC


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> We would be hunting the Refuge, visiting our National Parks, etc, except for the reckless actions of the Tea Party House Republicans, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al. Remember that when you vote in 2014 and beyond.


I surely will. The tea party will be getting ALL my votes from now on. You Demi's can take your ACA and use it to remove your heads from your asses.


----------



## Whiskey Hound

paddler213 said:


> We would be hunting the Refuge, visiting our National Parks, etc, except for the reckless actions of the Tea Party House Republicans, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al. Remember that when you vote in 2014 and beyond.


Mr. paddler213, *with all due respect*, and remember I'm sayin' *with all due respect*, that idea ain't worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin' it on.


----------



## Hoopermat

paddler213 said:


> We would be hunting the Refuge, visiting our National Parks, etc, except for the reckless actions of the Tea Party House Republicans, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al. Remember that when you vote in 2014 and beyond.


Why is it always the rep fault with you. Can't you have a normal conversation and not get into some dumb ass political argument.

The sky is not falling chicken little.


----------



## paddler

Just a quick quiz. Who shut down the government, and why? John Stewart said it best. Watch the October 8th introduction.:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-october-8-2013-malala-yousafzai

Give credit where due, boys. The majority of Americans does.:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...down-debate-damages-gop?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2


----------



## huntingbuddy

The shutdown is more than being about ACA, it is about our govt's out of control spending. We can not keep spending like we are. I don't care whose fault it is that the govt is shutdown, I am glad it is shut down and we are having these conversations about how much debt we are in. It is also clear what we don't need the govt to run, we are just doing fine as it is without the govt and we will do just fine without them. The govt is going to shut down and default at some point, better it happens now than later down the road. I will vote for whoever will reduce the size of govt, I don't care what party.


----------



## paddler

huntingbuddy said:


> The shutdown is more than being about ACA, it is about our govt's out of control spending. We can not keep spending like we are. I don't care whose fault it is that the govt is shutdown, I am glad it is shut down and we are having these conversations about how much debt we are in. It is also clear what we don't need the govt to run, we are just doing fine as it is without the govt and we will do just fine without them. The govt is going to shut down and default at some point, better it happens now than later down the road. I will vote for whoever will reduce the size of govt, I don't care what party.


That's one of the least informed, most stupid things I've read on here in a awhile, and in the face of some really stiff competition. Congrats!


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> That's one of the least informed, most stupid things I've read on here in a awhile, and in the face of some really stiff competition. Congrats!


Why is that stupid all might paddler? I think you anus is a little tight in your head.


----------



## huntingbuddy

paddler213 said:


> That's one of the least informed, most stupid things I've read on here in a awhile, and in the face of some really stiff competition. Congrats!


Why because you don't agree with my comment? The US govt will eventually go bankrupt and crash if we continue on the current course. I don't understand how that is hard to see. Simple math!


----------



## paddler

martymcfly73 said:


> Why is that stupid all might paddler? I think you anus is a little tight in your head.


I found his entire post ridiculous. Rather than go through it point by point, tell me what you thought was correct. Is it okay that the government is shut down? Isn't this thread about our closed Refuge? Does it matter who is responsible? Is default really inevitable? Is government spending out of control, given the sequester? Is the deficit increasing or decreasing? If you can answer those questions correctly, you'll understand why I said what I did. If not, well, I guess you won't.


----------



## Mojo1

Paddler has his head so far up Obama and the liberals *** he knows what they had for breakfast. SMH, his type of politics are exactly what's wrong with our country today!

I own a nice piece of property that adjoins a federal refuge in AR, I have a private boat launch that's connects to the river that flows thru though that refuge. They blockaded all the public accesses, keeping ereryone who uses the river to access hunting spots from doing so. 

so I started letting fisherman and bowhunters use mine. Wasn't but a day before the feebs came round wanting me to shut mine down. Of course being the swell person I am, I told them to get bent, and further I do believe the Cache river is a navagiable waterway. Hence they can't shut travel up and down the river.

After a back and forth with the area rep, I told them get a court order and I would. Direct quote " we aren't supposed to be doing any work, which means I can't go get one". I was like sorry for your bad luck!! 

Theres Nothing better than sticking it to the Feebs!!!:mrgreen:


----------



## paddler

Mojo, didn't you work for the government? Do you still? Are you on paid vacation? 

It sounds like you don't like the fact that your local refuge is closed. Who did that? Care to display your invincible ignorance?


----------



## Afishnado

It's really some outstanding teal hunting right now, and no need to go to the BRBR. Head out to your favorite place about 11am, find a small shallow pond, throw out a few teal decoys and shoot your limit of teal. We did this Tuesday and Wednesday and it took less than 2 hours for 4 of us to limit out. Teal really like the afternoon flight.


----------



## pelican

Herbert is getting things opened. Like him or not....the state government is doing what it should, controlling all public land within our borders. If I lived up north I wouldn't be on a forum whining about not having access to public land....I'd be on the news, probably in handcuffs, but on the news riling up more than just a handful of people reading this forum. My hell....granola kids protest the federal government all the time with public demonstrations and actually DO more than type out a few sentences. Stand up and go hunt the refuge or sit and whine while arguing with paddler. Stop waiting for someone else to fight your battle....take it to them.


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> I found his entire post ridiculous. Rather than go through it point by point, tell me what you thought was correct. Is it okay that the government is shut down? Isn't this thread about our closed Refuge? Does it matter who is responsible? Is default really inevitable? Is government spending out of control, given the sequester? Is the deficit increasing or decreasing? If you can answer those questions correctly, you'll understand why I said what I did. If not, well, I guess you won't.


I will answer one arguing with a brain dead demi isn't as fun as it used to be. We have a Demi president so of course the deficit is increasing. It has and will until someone else is in office. You Demi's want big govts. You got it. Now we can't afford it. So shut her down.


----------



## JuniorPre 360

Sorry to break up everyone's wonderful conversation, but I heard on the radio again this morning that the Utah national parks are going to receive money from the rainy day fund to open up for 10 days. Would the refuges open up to? Anyone have any info?


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> Mojo, didn't you work for the government? Do you still? Are you on paid vacation?
> 
> It sounds like you don't like the fact that your local refuge is closed. Who did that? Care to display your invincible ignorance?


No I didn't work in the civil service goverment; I served in the armed forces, there's a big difference between the two.

I retired in 2012.

Its true im no fan of the USFWS Becuase as a general rule I don't have much use for the overbearing asshats in that governmental agency trying to impose thier will on local landowners with no right to do so. My family as well as other surrounding landowners has had nothing but trouble out of them since we bought that place.

My problem is not with the refuge system, its with the management and politicians who are using it to punish the US CITIZENS......so No I don't like that refuge or any other being closed, it's total bull****, I know it, everyone else knowsit and deep down you know it.

You voted twice for Obama, a guy who has showed beyond a shadow of a doubt he has no leadership values in any fascett of the office, and yet you reference me as wallowing in irgorance? Boy you got a lot of nerve, someone oughta put a boot right up your ass till your head finally pops out.


----------



## paddler

Mojo1 said:


> No I didn't work in the civil service goverment; I served in the armed forces, there's a big difference between the two.
> 
> I retired in 2012.
> 
> Its true im no fan of the USFWS Becuase as a general rule I don't have much use for the overbearing asshats in that governmental agency trying to impose thier will on local landowners with no right to do so. My family as well as other surrounding landowners has had nothing but trouble out of them since we bought that place.
> 
> My problem is not with the refuge system, its with the management and politicians who are using it to punish the US CITIZENS......so No I don't like that refuge or any other being closed, it's total bull****, I know it, everyone else knowsit and deep down you know it.
> 
> You voted twice for Obama, a guy who has showed beyond a shadow of a doubt he has no leadership values in any fascett of the office, and yet you reference me as wallowing in irgorance? Boy you got a lot of nerve, someone oughta put a boot right up your ass till your head finally pops out.


The feces is strong in this one. Your Invincible Cloak of Ignorance is impervious to facts, reason and reality.

Those politicians who are punishing you right now are the ones you blindly support. Deal with it.

Jimmy, you worked for the federal government you hate so much for an entire career. Do you understand the irony?



martymcfly73 said:


> I will answer one arguing with a brain dead demi isn't as fun as it used to be. We have a Demi president so of course the deficit is increasing. It has and will until someone else is in office. You Demi's want big govts. You got it. Now we can't afford it. So shut her down.


Actually, marty, the deficit has been shrinking since Obama took office, after increasing drastically during the Bush years. You're 0 for 1. As I said, the post was uninformed and stupid. It would appear you are as well. Care to try again?

http://stinkingtruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/6089355018_3eea3fa4be_z.jpg


----------



## Mojo1

Typical liberal BS, nothing but double talk around with little to no facts to support your statements. Only defense you have is either the race or ignorance card. 

Folks are getting tired of that ****, the reconing is coming. Anyways

How's that ACA treating you Doc?? I knew several Docs down here and they ain't happy with it. As we as many others in the medical community. Still think it's a grand law??


----------



## Mojo1

How could they know if the deficit is shrinking?? They haven't passed a budget in years, we operate on CR's now.

And if in fact it is shrinking, I guess it couldn't have anything to do with those ignorant evil republicans fighting to reduce spending? Or could it. 
Probably closer to the truth:mrgreen:


----------



## paddler

Mojo1 said:


> Typical liberal BS, nothing but double talk around with little to no facts to support your statements. Only defense you have is either the race or ignorance card.
> 
> Folks are getting tired of that ****, the reconing is coming. Anyways
> 
> How's that ACA treating you Doc?? I knew several Docs down here and they ain't happy with it. As we as many others in the medical community. Still think it's a grand law??


Yep, the day of reconing is coming. Watch the Republicans cave. What a stupid trick to pull; hopefully they will pay next year. Did you see the poll yesterday that 47% of people want a Democrat-controlled Congress, vs 39% for Republicans? These are facts, Jimmy. Can they penetrate your invincible ignorance?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013...-government-shutdown-poll/UPI-96801381447323/

What about ACA don't they like, Jimmy? Which provisions, exactly? Please be specific.


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> Actually, marty, the deficit has been shrinking since Obama took office, after increasing drastically during the Bush years. You're 0 for 1. As I said, the post was uninformed and stupid. It would appear you are as well. Care to try again?
> 
> http://stinkingtruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/6089355018_3eea3fa4be_z.jpg


That little picture graph is your source? An estimate? Really Jon?? Funny money is ruling the day under our new King. With the stimulus of GWB. Barry has took us all. His large 800B stimulus, cash for clunkers, auto bailout, QE1, QE2, and now QE3 which is spending at the rate of 85Billion a month. Actuall cost estimates on the ACA are close to 2 trillion, some estimates take it over that. Govt borrowing 40 cents to every dollar we are well on the path of creating another mess.

BTW, new estimates of enrollees into ObamaCare are around 51,000 people. So much for your belief that millions enrolled the first day. What a disaster of a roll out. Shows the incompetent of our government.


----------



## Mojo1

-O,- so many polls, all worded to support whichever party is funding them.

Most of the ones I bothered to look at showed the citizens are feed up with politicians in general. Looks like it might turn into a vote out the bums out election. Obama ain't looking too popular either

I don't think the government has any business getting in the healthcare market place. Much as they don't belong in a lot of other areas. Those are the states to deal with. Whoever believes that any government ran program could ever be affordable is delusional. I think a lot of folks are finding out the truth of that now. Everyone keeps pointing at how much traffic there is on the website. That's is very popular. That's it great for poor people to have coverage. Those are the wrong stats to look at.

I don't care how many flocked to the exchanges for coverage, I just want to know how many actually signed up for it after going to the site. How many could actually afford it?? Those are the questions you should be asking.

This plan is nothing more than another lame attempt to garner support and votes from folks by supplying false hope and/or giving out entitlements. Much like all the other programs they pimp to everyone. It's not about the people, it's keeping them selves in power that really matters.

They all need to go, we need term limits. We need to break the cycle of handouts and entitlements that enslave us to our "leaders".

Despite the efforts of the founders and all our laws. We have still managed to establish a professional cast of leaders to govern us, do you really support that??

Ive seen thru the rouse. have you?? Who's the ignorant one now???


----------



## paddler

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp=53254386&#53253309


----------



## huntingbuddy

paddler213 said:


> Actually, marty, the deficit has been shrinking since Obama took office, after increasing drastically during the Bush years. You're 0 for 1. As I said, the post was uninformed and stupid. It would appear you are as well. Care to try again?
> 
> http://stinkingtruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/6089355018_3eea3fa4be_z.jpg


Bush Last year
2008-$459 billion (That was the highest it ever was during his presidency)

Obama 
2009-$1413 billion
2010-$1294 billion 
2011-$1299 billion
2012-$1100 billion
2013-$759 billion (which isn't over yet)

So to say Obama is reducing the deficit is a half truth. He is reducing the deficit he created! If you notice in that little graph you posted the graph climbs steeply between 2008 and 2009l. The same time that Obama took office. Nice try paddler, you're almost as good as Barry at twisting the facts.


----------



## mycoltbug

I just saw a post by pheasants forever that said that the federal refuges will be back open tomorrow. https://www.facebook.com/pheasantsforever?hc_location=stream


----------



## izzydog

The Tea Party did it! And the deficit is going down by trillions every year! Jon Stewart told me so and Stephen Colbert was there to back him up!:mrgreen:


----------



## Hoopermat

Paddler didn't anyone ever tell you. Not every thing you read on the Internet is true. 
Except what al gore says. :mrgreen:


----------



## Afishnado

mycoltbug said:


> I just saw a post by pheasants forever that said that the federal refuges will be back open tomorrow. https://www.facebook.com/pheasantsforever?hc_location=stream


Just a few minutes ago on my way home from my hunting club I did see the Federal cop taking down the "Bird Refuge Closed" signs, so maybe there is some truth to that. Guess I should have stopped and asked him. But is the Bird Refuge considered a waterfowl production area?


----------



## Guest

I talked with the Refuge Manager today and the Refuge is still closed. Only the Waterfowl Production Areas in the Dakotas are going to be opened. He said that there is some confusion about the Pheasant Forever web page.


----------



## paddler

Afishnado said:


> Just a few minutes ago on my way home from my hunting club I did see the Federal cop taking down the "Bird Refuge Closed" signs, so maybe there is some truth to that. Guess I should have stopped and asked him. But is the Bird Refuge considered a waterfowl production area?


Maybe Herbert could pay the Feds to open it up. Why does he get to cherry pick which federal lands are open to the public? Are Happy Hikers more important than waterfowlers? Just think, we could do this piecemeal all over the country. Or maybe just open the entire government.

I don't see Obama settling for anything less than opening the government and raising the debt ceiling before any budget talks take place. Oh, and the ACA is off the table. Passed by the House and Senate, upheld by the Supreme Court, Obama won the election partly because of it, the House Republicans voted 40(Yikes!) times to repeal it, then they shut the government down to try to stop it. Nothing is going to stop it. Maybe we should call Republicans "The Party of Slow Learners"?


----------



## huntingbuddy

paddler213 said:


> Maybe Herbert could pay the Feds to open it up. Why does he get to cherry pick which federal lands are open to the public? Are Happy Hikers more important than waterfowlers? Just think, we could do this piecemeal all over the country. Or maybe just open the entire government.
> 
> I don't see Obama settling for anything less than opening the government and raising the debt ceiling before any budget talks take place. Oh, and the ACA is off the table. Passed by the House and Senate, upheld by the Supreme Court, Obama won the election partly because of it, the House Republicans voted 40(Yikes!) times to repeal it, then they shut the government down to try to stop it. Nothing is going to stop it. Maybe we should call Republicans "The Party of Slow Learners"?


Yeah lets keep raising the debt ceiling, and inflating our currency. I bet that will solve our problems. Good idea paddler, I bet that will make us better off in the long run. (Sarcasm)

If we raise the debt ceiling and continue to inflate our currency, we will experience a downfall worse than the dot com bust and the housing bubble combined. What do I know though, I am just a kid studying Austrian economics!


----------



## paddler

Read Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics. Good place for you to improve your education.


----------



## Hoopermat

paddler213 said:


> Maybe Herbert could pay the Feds to open it up. Why does he get to cherry pick which federal lands are open to the public? Are Happy Hikers more important than waterfowlers? Just think, we could do this piecemeal all over the country. Or maybe just open the entire government.
> 
> I don't see Obama settling for anything less than opening the government and raising the debt ceiling before any budget talks take place. Oh, and the ACA is off the table. Passed by the House and Senate, upheld by the Supreme Court, Obama won the election partly because of it, the House Republicans voted 40(Yikes!) times to repeal it, then they shut the government down to try to stop it. Nothing is going to stop it. Maybe we should call Republicans "The Party of Slow Learners"?


What are you Al-Qaeda?
The mindless nonsense that come out of your computer is a bit suspicious. 
Maybe Nazi. 
Something smells funny. Almost like socializm. 
Does your name end with a ski? Do you have a fondness for vodka? Do you wear a funny hat with facial hair year round?
I can't quite put my finger on it but either way it smells rotten.


----------



## Afishnado

paddler213 said:


> Read Krugman, Noble laureate in economics. Good place for you to improve your education.


Bwaahahahahaha, that's funny right there, I don't care who you are. Dr. Seuss has far more of an I.Q. 
But in all seriousness, stupid will always defend stupid, and you CAN NEVER argue with that!!


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> Read Krugman, Noble laureate in economics. Good place for you to improve your education.


Krugman is as big as an asshat as you are paddler. If that's where you get your info you are a moron.


----------



## Afishnado

martymcfly73 said:


> Krugman is as big as an asshat as you are paddler. If that's where you get your info you are a moron.


Like I said, Dr. Seuss gives better information and has a far better understanding of economics.


----------



## Afishnado

And oh yeah, I am a government employee for a undisclosed government agency. And yes, I am still being paid (quite well thank you).


----------



## huntingbuddy

paddler213 said:


> Read Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics. Good place for you to improve your education.


Haha you sure are good for you comedy! Paul Krugman really! How about you study Ludwig Von Mises! You love to criticize Bush to no end, and praise Obama till the cows come home. Obama is doubling down on the exact same policies. In fact I would say he is more than doubling, he is tripling what Bush did! Paul Krugman had no idea the housing crash was coming. It would be akin to being a meteorologist and not being able to see a hurricane ten miles from Florida. Listen to Peter Schiff, he predicted the housing crash, maybe he can educate him a little bit.


----------



## paddler

We'll see how this all works out. So far, Americans place the blame for the shutdown squarely where it belongs, on Republicans. Their favorability is at 24% and in freefall. What will happen when they surrender unconditionally? The midterm elections should be interesting. In the meantime, remember they locked you out of the Refuge. Keep voting against your best interests, seems to be working great so far.


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> We'll see how this all works out. So far, Americans place the blame for the shutdown squarely where it belongs, on Republicans. Their favorability is at 24% and in freefall. What will happen when they surrender unconditionally? The midterm elections should be interesting. In the meantime, remember they locked you out of the Refuge. Keep voting against your best interests, seems to be working great so far.


And Osama's approval is at 37%. He's an impotent president. Nobody likes or respects him. He spoke in CNBC and what he said would usually tank the market. Didn't move. Not even liberal Wall Street respects that guy. So keep shoving your head farther up his and pelosi's ass. Seems to be working so far.


----------



## huntingbuddy

Before Obama became president he stated "Raising of the debt ceiling is a sign of leadership failure!" Do you agree with this statement or was what he said wrong?


----------



## massmanute

If the Tea Party gets its way then in the end they will sell all Federal property.

Then we can all visit the Zion's National Budweiser Theme Park, and pay whatever the new owner wants to charge to enter the park at whatever hours are convenient to the new owner.... I'm just sayin'.


----------



## paddler

Marty, the President's approval rating is being affected by the shutdown, as is everyone involved. Just ask the Republicans, who sit at 24%, or the Tea Party at 21%. But there is no way Obama can compromise with the zealots, as doing so would set a terrible precedent. We cannot govern stumbling from one manufactured crisis to the next, or bend to the extortions of a minority. The solution is for the Republicans to get their act together and stand up to the Tea Party. If the Republicans want to change the ACA, they can do it through the usual legislative means. The Tea Party needs to go away, and I think more people are coming to understand that. Their ranks include most of the birthers, racists, and those generally out of touch with reality, so they won't be missed. 

Again, who shut down the government? Who did you vote for? Will you again? Very simple questions. Are you capable of learning from your mistakes, or is your ignorance truly impervious to reality and reason?


----------



## massmanute

huntingbuddy said:


> Bush Last year
> 2008-$459 billion (That was the highest it ever was during his presidency)
> 
> Obama
> 2009-$1413 billion
> 2010-$1294 billion
> 2011-$1299 billion
> 2012-$1100 billion
> 2013-$759 billion (which isn't over yet)
> 
> So to say Obama is reducing the deficit is a half truth. He is reducing the deficit he created! If you notice in that little graph you posted the graph climbs steeply between 2008 and 2009l. The same time that Obama took office. Nice try paddler, you're almost as good as Barry at twisting the facts.


Huntingbuddy's table is correct, except for one small but important detail. The 2009 budget is the last year of the Bush Budget, not an Obama budget. In 2009 we had the largest deficit in history, in terms current dollars. The general trend since then has been for shrinking deficits.

Also, don't forget, when Bush took office there was a considerable budget surplus, and when he left office we had the largest deficit in history.


----------



## massmanute

Let us, hypothetically speaking, put the shoe on the other foot.

Suppose the House of Representatives had a Democratic majority, and the Senate and Presidency were Republican. Now, suppose that a law had passed, was signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court which raised the tax on capital gains to be the same as the tax on regular income. Further suppose that the House refused to fund the government unless the department responsible for administering the law (treasury) was defunded.

Who would be primarily responsible for shutting down the government in that scenario?


----------



## martymcfly73

I did not and will not vote for a Demi. Ever. As far as your "zealots" look in the mirror. I know of more racist Demi's than tea partiers. Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, chris matthews, maddow, anyone on MSNBC. just to name a few. So Osama's approval rating isn't accurate? But the GOP's is? That's weak even for you.


----------



## Afishnado

D*nm them Republicans for wanting to use common sense and not raise the debt ceiling even more. But I thought the national debt was going down? Must be "fuzzy math" again.


----------



## massmanute

Afishnado said:


> D*nm them Republicans for wanting to use common sense and not raise the debt ceiling even more. But I thought the national debt was going down? Must be "fuzzy math" again.


Afishnado, I am afraid you are confused about terminology. The debt is not the same thing as the deficit. The deficit is going down. The debt is going up.


----------



## paddler

martymcfly73 said:


> I did not and will not vote for a Demi. Ever. As far as your "zealots" look in the mirror. I know of more racist Demi's than tea partiers. Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, chris matthews, maddow, anyone on MSNBC. just to name a few. So Osama's approval rating isn't accurate? But the GOP's is? That's weak even for you.


If you will not vote for a Democrat, ever, then you're voting against your best interests and will continue to do so. You are responsible for putting those in office who shut down the government and closed the Refuge. That's fine, but please, just take ownership. Not a big deal. Just don't complain when your actions come back to bite you.


----------



## Afishnado

massmanute said:


> Afishnado, I am afraid you are confused about terminology. The debt is not the same thing as the deficit. The deficit is going down. The debt is going up.


LOL, and there lies the problem.


----------



## huntingbuddy

massmanute said:


> Let us, hypothetically speaking, put the shoe on the other foot.
> 
> Suppose the House of Representatives had a Democratic majority, and the Senate and Presidency were Republican. Now, suppose that a law had passed, was signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court which raised the tax on capital gains to be the same as the tax on regular income. Further suppose that the House refused to fund the government unless the department responsible for administering the law (treasury) was defunded.
> 
> Who would be primarily responsible for shutting down the government in that scenario?


I would want the law that raised capital gains gone, no matter what. I don't care which party does it. It would need to be done. Whichever party does it has more balls than the other party. Many are complaining that ACA is law and has passed the supreme court blah blah blah just deal with it. And we should stop trying to stop it and be ok with it. I know a law that has been law for over 200 years and is part of the constitution yet liberals attack it every chance they get. That law is the 2nd amendment, maybe you guys should stop attacking that every freaking chance you get, when you aren't trying to slide in ACA under the table!

Fact of the matter is ACA is a bad law, and we all know it. Just because it is law, doesn't mean it is written in stone. The prohibition was amended to the constitution and yet we saw how bad an idea that was after it fully came to fruition. The point is the Federal Govt is not supposed to be in the healthcare business! Period!

Their job is to secure the border/protect the country and ensure interstate commerce, that is it!


----------



## Afishnado

*Deficit*: an excess of expenditure or liabilities over income or assets in a given period.
*Deficit spending*: government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation.
*Debt*: something owed, typically money, that is owed or due.

Now I know how hard it must be correlate the two, but when one raises so does the other.


----------



## massmanute

deleted by author.


----------



## massmanute

huntingbuddy said:


> I would want the law that raised capital gains gone, no matter what. I don't care which party does it. It would need to be done. Whichever party does it has more balls than the other party. Many are complaining that ACA is law and has passed the supreme court blah blah blah just deal with it. And we should stop trying to stop it and be ok with it. I know a law that has been law for over 200 years and is part of the constitution yet liberals attack it every chance they get. That law is the 2nd amendment, maybe you guys should stop attacking that every freaking chance you get, when you aren't trying to slide in ACA under the table!
> 
> Fact of the matter is ACA is a bad law, and we all know it. Just because it is law, doesn't mean it is written in stone. The prohibition was amended to the constitution and yet we saw how bad an idea that was after it fully came to fruition. The point is the Federal Govt is not supposed to be in the healthcare business! Period!
> 
> Their job is to secure the border/protect the country and ensure interstate commerce, that is it!


Interesting comment, but how about addressing the question I asked, not the question you wish I had asked? Under the scenario I described, which side would bear primary responsibility for shutting down the government?


----------



## massmanute

Afishnado said:


> *Deficit*: an excess of expenditure or liabilities over income or assets in a given period.
> *Deficit spending*: government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation.
> *Debt*: something owed, typically money, that is owed or due.
> 
> Now I know how hard it must be correlate the two, but when one raises so does the other.


Let's do a little fifth grade arithmetic. I will use small numbers, so it is easier to understand.

Suppose the debt was $1000 two years ago, and the deficit was $100. At the end of that year the debt is $1100.

The following year the deficit is $75. At the end of that year the debt is $1175.

In the last year the deficit has gone down by $25, and the debt has gone up by $75.

That is what has been happening in the federal budget. The deficit has gone down since the all-time high, which happened in the last year of the Bush budget, but the debt continues to go up.


----------



## king eider

massmanute said:


> Let's do a little fifth grade arithmetic. I will use small numbers, so it is easier to understand.
> 
> Suppose the debt was $1000 two years ago, and the deficit was $100. At the end of that year the debt is $1100.
> 
> The following year the deficit is $75. At the end of that year the debt is $1175.
> 
> In the last year the deficit has gone down by $25, and the debt has gone up by $75.
> 
> That is what has been happening in the federal budget. The deficit has gone down since the all-time high, which happened in the last year of the Bush budget, but the debt continues to go up.


Hahaha! Don't forget that when interest rates start rising our interest payments on said debt go through the roof!!!! Debt and deficit spending are far beyond sustainability. Argueing that one is coming down and the other is going up is like arguing if a speeding train is going to stop while your a few yards down the tracks. What I love is how barry tripled down on a bush stimulus all the while blaming bush. Keynesian economics at its finest. Keep spending money and when your out, print more to spend it like a drunk sailor. Clearly we are drunk as a nation on spending. Our solution to being drunk.... Alcohol!! Drink away! An ecomomy built on funny money is how I see it!


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> Hahaha! Don't forget that when interest rates start rising our interest payments on said debt go through the roof!!!! Debt and deficit spending are far beyond sustainability. Argueing that one is coming down and the other is going up is like arguing if a speeding train is going to stop while your a few yards down the tracks. What I love is how barry tripled down on a bush stimulus all the while blaming bush. Keynesian economics at its finest. Keep spending money and when your out, print more to spend it like a drunk sailor. Clearly we are drunk as a nation on spending. Our solution to being drunk.... Alcohol!! Drink away! An ecomomy built on funny money is how I see it!


I purposely omitted discussing interest in order to stay within the comprehension of some folks. However, interest does not really change the concept I was presenting, which is that the deficit can go down while the debt is going up. Interest is just one of many outlays from the budget.

I agree, however, that the debt and interest on the debt represents a serious threat to our long-term financial situation.

On a related issue, I find it very funny that the conservatives have suddenly found religion about the deficit. Where were they when Regan and Bush and Bush were running up record deficits and multiplying the debt several fold? Oh, yes, they were the ones in office who were running up those numbers.

Here's the thing. It is always the party out of power that complains about the deficit and the party in power who wants to continue borrowing. This is the case with very few exceptions, regardless of which party is in power.

Here's a little quiz. Under which presidents in the last half century were there budget surpluses?


----------



## Afishnado

What the really scary thing is that in 2007 the nation debt was at 64.1 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). By 2011 it had exploded to 103 percent of the GDP, and by around 2015 it's expected to reach 105 percent of the GDP. 

Something has to give, or we're going to be heading for a crash of biblical proportions. 

On a side note, I just seen a monster mule deer. I wished I had a deer tag this year.


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> If you will not vote for a Democrat, ever, then you're voting against your best interests and will continue to do so. You are responsible for putting those in office who shut down the government and closed the Refuge. That's fine, but please, just take ownership. Not a big deal. Just don't complain when your actions come back to bite you.


Oh lord, I saved this statement for when his head pops out of his ass, (you should too);

wait what am I saying?? It doesn't matter what a liberal said previously, you only have to watch the videos of Obama speeches past to see how much they flip flop when the winds change.


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> If you will not vote for a Democrat, ever, then you're voting against your best interests and will continue to do so. You are responsible for putting those in office who shut down the government and closed the Refuge. That's fine, but please, just take ownership. Not a big deal. Just don't complain when your actions come back to bite you.


I don't give a rats ass if the refuge is closed all year.


----------



## paddler

massmanute said:


> I purposely omitted discussing interest in order to stay within the comprehension of some folks. However, interest does not really change the concept I was presenting, which is that the deficit can go down while the debt is going up. Interest is just one of many outlays from the budget.
> 
> I agree, however, that the debt and interest on the debt represents a serious threat to our long-term financial situation.
> 
> On a related issue, I find it very funny that the conservatives have suddenly found religion about the deficit. Where were they when Regan and Bush and Bush were running up record deficits and multiplying the debt several fold? Oh, yes, they were the ones in office who were running up those numbers.
> 
> Here's the thing. It is always the party out of power that complains about the deficit and the party in power who wants to continue borrowing. This is the case with very few exceptions, regardless of which party is in power.
> 
> Here's a little quiz. Under which presidents in the last half century were there budget surpluses?


Point well taken. Deficits have soared under Republicans and shrunk under Democrats. Looks like you have a good understanding of things, unlike so many here. Folks here like to ignore reality and blame the country's ills on Obama. This thread is about the Refuge being closed and if you'll get a ticket if you go around the gates. The Republicans shut down the government in an attempt, at least initially, to defund the ACA. That was a futile attempt to accomplish through extortion policy changes they didn't have the votes for. They closed the Refuge with their BS games. Yet guys here will never, ever vote for a Democrat.

Jimmy suckled at the government teat his entire career, yet now wants small government and lower taxes. Weird.

Our current debt is what happens when you give tax breaks to the rich, and start two wars without a plan to fund them or an exit strategy. Obama has done everything possible to pick up the pieces. That's why he got reelected, and that's why we should be sending Democrats to Washington instead of D-bags like Mike Lee.


----------



## Whiskey Hound

martymcfly73 said:


> I don't give a rats ass if the refuge is closed all year.


Amen. Its kind of a stinger but its a small price to pay in the long run.

Lets not forget, this is a 20% shutdown of the gooberment and both sides are responsible for the dysfunction in Washington. If we ever want this crap to stop we need to quit voting for incumbents and get the CAREER politicians out of office. It was never intended to be a career position by the founders.

These guys have spent so long in Washington they have forgotten what the real world even looks like. When was the last time one of these jerk wads tried living on a budget of any kind. They spend more money getting elected than most of us will make in a year if not twenty years, or our entire lives.

I suggest a simple proposal that could solve at least part of that problem. Congressmen and Senators are paid the AVERAGE SALARY of the people they represent and not a dime more. If your constituents make an average 40k a year, you get paid 40k a year to represent them. Two paid trips to Washington a year on the tax payer bill and the rest is on them.

Thats all I have to say about that.


----------



## massmanute

paddler213 said:


> ...that's why we should be sending Democrats to Washington instead of D-bags like Mike Lee.


Speaking of Mike Lee, He's all for financial responsibility when it comes to someone else, especially the government, but he is not so concerned about it when it comes to his own personal financial responsibility.

For example, for all you Mike Lee supporters, have you studied his real estate and mortgage transactions?


----------



## Afishnado

paddler213 said:


> Jimmy suckled at the government teat his entire career, yet now wants small government and lower taxes. Weird.


I'm still suckling the government teat and loving it! I may be forced to retire though because of an on the job injury, and then I'll suckle some more.
Both Dems and Republicans are to blame for this shutdown, that point cannot be argued.


----------



## Afishnado

Oh and I'm using my super cool government issued electronic device while I'm 9 miles into the wilderness area.


----------



## massmanute

Afishnado said:


> I'm still suckling the government teat and loving it! I may be forced to retire though because of an on the job injury, and then I'll suckle some more.
> Both Dems and Republicans are to blame for this shutdown, that point cannot be argued.


To the extent that both are to blame, the blame is not shared equally. The Tea Party Republicans are mostly responsible for the shutdown. They are the ones who threatened to shut down the government (and succeeded on doing it) unless there was a change in the status quo.

Why do you suppose Boehner won't put a clean bill up for vote in the house? It's because a clean bill would likely pass, which is just what he and the Tea Party Republicans don't want.


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> Jimmy suckled at the government teat his entire career, yet now wants small government and lower taxes. Weird.


Suckled??? Weird???

What was your chicken **** ass doing all the times I was over in the sandbox or elsewhere.??? Oh I know, setting back home telling everyone how to live, hunt and spend your money. I don't need any civic lectures from the likes of you buddy, but you would do well to learn a few from me. I didn't get rich and I and my family **** sure paid a bitter price for my service. Just like everyone else that serves.

Just remember , it's folks like me that put it all on the line that gives you the freedom to spout your nonsense. You better hope the day never comes when folks like me don't step up and answer the call. Cause folks like you will be the first to feel the pain of it.


----------



## paddler

Mojo1 said:


> Suckled??? Weird???
> 
> What was your chicken **** ass doing all the times I was over in the sandbox or elsewhere.??? Oh I know, setting back home telling everyone how to live, hunt and spend your money. I don't need any civic lectures from the likes of you buddy, but you would do well to learn a few from me. I didn't get rich and I and my family **** sure paid a bitter price for my service. Just like everyone else that serves.
> 
> Just remember , it's folks like me that put it all on the line that gives you the freedom to spout your nonsense. You better hope the day never comes when folks like me don't step up and answer the call. Cause folks like you will be the first to feel the pain of it.


You made your career choices, Jimmy, so quite whining. You performed a service and were paid for it. You worked for the government, accepted tax dollars for your time, and yet speak against taxes and the government. That's weird. Actually, a portion of my income also comes from the government in the form of payments from Medicare and Medicaid. The difference between you and I is that I'm not intellectually dishonest by criticizing government spending while accepting government dollars. You are, however, and you continue to suckle every time you cash a retirement check.


----------



## Afishnado

paddler213 said:


> You made your career choices, Jimmy,, so quite whining. You performed a service and were paid for it. You worked for the government, accepted tax dollars for your time, and yet speak against taxes and the government. That's weird. Actually, a portion of my income also comes from the government in the form of payments from Medicare and Medicaid. The difference between you and I is that I'm not intellectually dishonest by criticizing government spending while accepting government dollars. You are, however, and you continue to suckle every time you cash a retirement check.


Huh?


----------



## Afishnado

and I'm Jimmy, not Mojo1, whom I'm going to invite to go waterfowl hunting with me right next to the closed refuge.


----------



## paddler

You're Jimmy, too? I'm under the impression that Mojo1 is Jimmy. Isn't that so, Jimmy?

Keep in mind that I value our government employees and the services they provide. And I have no problem paying them their wages and benefits. It's just inconsistent in my mind to hear them rail against taxes and government spending. If they feel strongly about it, they could always refuse their paychecks, or find another job.


----------



## paddler

massmanute said:


> Speaking of Mike Lee, He's all for financial responsibility when it comes to someone else, especially the government, but he is not so concerned about it when it comes to his own personal financial responsibility.
> 
> For example, for all you Mike Lee supporters, have you studied his real estate and mortgage transactions?


Yep, I read about that. Stuck the bank, and thus the taxpayers, with $250K with his short sale? Hopefully he can join Carl Wimmer in the ministry. Maybe take Chaffetz, Bishop, Stewart, Matheson and Hatch with him.


----------



## Mojo1

John, you know one of these days someone is gonna knock your pompous ass right off your high horse. 

Now am I whining!!! Don't think so, your in a delusion dream. I never whine about my service but I will set low life's like you straight about it when you attempt to disrespect my service with the stupid bs you are spewing. 

And just where is it written that you can't work at the government and know that responsible spending and government size is a good thing for all citizens??? And lord help us all a person actually stand up for it with your vote??? It must have been in the " dummies guide to being a proper democrat" hence why I missed it!!!


----------



## martymcfly73

massmanute said:


> Speaking of Mike Lee, He's all for financial responsibility when it comes to someone else, especially the government, but he is not so concerned about it when it comes to his own personal financial responsibility.
> 
> For example, for all you Mike Lee supporters, have you studied his real estate and mortgage transactions?


Nope, don't care. He can do what he wants with his own money.


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> You made your career choices, Jimmy, so quite whining. You performed a service and were paid for it. You worked for the government, accepted tax dollars for your time, and yet speak against taxes and the government. That's weird. Actually, a portion of my income also comes from the government in the form of payments from Medicare and Medicaid. The difference between you and I is that I'm not intellectually dishonest by criticizing government spending while accepting government dollars. You are, however, and you continue to suckle every time you cash a retirement check.


Wow paddler if I didn't think you were the biggest pile of dog crap on here I do now. Any bets we hear of paddler sucking a little too hard on the govt teat in the next few years. So paddler why don't you refuse to accept payments from these entities?


----------



## huntingbuddy

Here is a good article that sums up who shut down the govt. http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/10/shut-government/


----------



## paddler

huntingbuddy said:


> Here is a good article that sums up who shut down the govt. http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/10/shut-government/


Sweet link. Do you really believe that crap? Once again, invincible stupidity.

Harry Reid said today the Republicans aren't doing the Democrats a favor by opening the government and extending the debt ceiling. Precisely. They're acting like a three-year-old in a grocery store, demanding a candy bar before they'll get up off the floor. It's time we left these idiots behind.

Jimmy, you sure are a sensitive little girl. Always with empty threats of violence, dishing it out but crying when somebody gives it back. Funny.

Should have my canoe back together soon. Sure hope those extortionists open the refuge before I go to Canada.


----------



## huntingbuddy

Yes Thomas Sowell one of the foremost economists in the country, yep I am sure he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is the thought process I see going on in your head. (I will never know for sure because I just can't bring myself down to your level) "I will take your well thought out and very logical argument and throw it out the window, stick to my argument based on no facts and all emotion. That about sums it up doesn't it paddler. By the way yes I believe what he writes, he has a brilliant mind. 

Your argument that democrats are fiscally responsible is hogwash. The city of Detroit has been run by democrats for 40 years and now it is bankrupt! The state of California has also been primarily run by democrats also going bankrupt. The state of Utah primarily run by republicans has one of the best economies in the US. 

You can stick to your emotional fact-less arguments all you want but that doesn't make them any truer! Every time I have asked you for facts or sources, or bring my own facts you switch to some other topic. You have no facts, just emotion! Keep yelling and screaming like a crazy man. I could care less if the refuge is closed all season. If it helps keep the govt small I am all for it. In fact I would love to see private organizations like DU, Delta Waterfowl and various other waterfowl conservation organizations band together and buy it. Then we don't have to worry about those turds in washington screwing up our hunting. The same goes for all other national parks and federal land. 

Paddler you decry capitalism and say we need socialism or perhaps even communism. Gee I sure wish there was a country that had tried communism so we could see how well it worked! We don't really have capitalism right now, it is very watered down and neutered. If people would give it a chance than a lot of us regular guys could live very well and there would be very few in poverty. 

You have sunk to a new low however disrespecting a member who has served in the armed forces. Working your ass off fight for this country is a whole lot different than receiving medicaid and medicare (which you probably don't deserve!) Sucking the teet is getting something for nothing, not working and fighting for American lives here and abroad. 

Mojo thank you for your service and sacrifice. I appreciate it! And any others who served our country, both here and abroad!


----------



## massmanute

martymcfly73 said:


> Nope, don't care. He can do what he wants with his own money.


It just goes to show you how little some folks care about the character of the people they vote for. As long as a candidate has an R of the candidate on the ballot listing some folks would vote for a ring tailed lemur.


----------



## king eider

massmanute said:


> It just goes to show you how little some folks care about the character of the people they vote for. As long as a candidate has an R of the candidate on the ballot listing some folks would vote for a ring tailed lemur.


thats a two way street! you make it sound as if that only happens with a republican. thats funny!!!


----------



## massmanute

Not that many of you care about the facts, but the fact is that in the last half century there have only been two presidents that had even one year of a budget without a deficit, Johnson and Clinton, both Democrats, and during that same time period only one had a net surplus over their years in office, namely Clinton.

Reagan is often held up by conservatives as someone who was fiscally responsible, but during his administration the national debt (yes, I said "debt") nearly tripled. For those of you who would blame the Reagan deficits on the irresponsible Democrats in Congress, you need a history lesson. If you look at the record (as I have) you will learn that taken over the eight years of the Reagan administration, Congress budgeted LESS money than Reagan asked for.

Of course, I haven't seen much evidence that most of you are interested in the facts, preferring instead to be spoon fed the pablum dished out by far right wing talk show hosts and politicians rather than learning the facts and thinking for yourself.


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> thats a two way street! you make it sound as if that only happens with a republican. thats funny!!!


It happens with Democrats too (e.g. Marion Barry, former Mayor of Washington DC), but in Utah it happens to be more of a problem with Republicans, partly because there are so few Democratic office holders in the state.


----------



## paddler

massmanute said:


> It just goes to show you how little some folks care about the character of the people they vote for. As long as a candidate has an R of the candidate on the ballot listing some folks would vote for a ring tailed lemur.


Precisely. I think a ring tailed lemur would do a better job than Lee. At least it wouldn't be deliberately destructive.

Oh, don't forget President Carter. He ran budget surpluses and reduced the debt during his time in office. Have you read his "White House Diary"?


----------



## king eider

Its all subjective massmanute. Clinton enjoyed a robust economy, Reagan took over from Carter. no need to explain the carter years. just as barry took over from GWB. which is to blame for all the ill in the world right? Facts are facts and i dare say we are all looking at them through our own prism. if what you said was true then Democrats would landslide every election. but sadly that is not the case. defict spending and national debt are and evil twin when the economy is in a slump. but then there is reality to those so called facts that tend to cloud them up to the ever so twisting nature of politics.

here is a pretty good documentary on the spending of our blessed leaders(sarcasm!). its not very kind to any leader or political party. they both have sailed us down the river. but if you want keep blaming the GOP. your just being ignorant. carry on with your drivel...


----------



## martymcfly73

massmanute said:


> It just goes to show you how little some folks care about the character of the people they vote for. As long as a candidate has an R of the candidate on the ballot listing some folks would vote for a ring tailed lemur.


The same could be said about the D. Look at Obama he's not even a citizen. Clinton an adulterer. Anthony wiener a pervert, anyone from Illinois they are all crooks including Osama. Jesse Jackson jr thief, Biden complete nut job. Gietner tax cheat, spitzer pornographer, Hillary liar, want me to keep going?


----------



## paddler

martymcfly73 said:


> The same could be said about the D. *Look at Obama he's not even a citizen*. Clinton an adulterer. Anthony wiener a pervert, anyone from Illinois they are all crooks including Osama. Jesse Jackson jr thief, Biden complete nut job. Gietner tax cheat, spitzer pornographer, Hillary liar, want me to keep going?


A birther? Right here in Utah? Sorry, Marty, or whomever you are. You are too stupid for words. Please stop posting, you have nothing to add here.


----------



## massmanute

martymcfly73 said:


> The same could be said about the D. Look at Obama he's not even a citizen. Clinton an adulterer. Anthony wiener a pervert, anyone from Illinois they are all crooks including Osama. Jesse Jackson jr thief, Biden complete nut job. Gietner tax cheat, spitzer pornographer, Hillary liar, want me to keep going?


Actually, Spitzer would be better characterized as a John than a pornographer.


----------



## massmanute

martymcfly73 said:


> ... Look at Obama he's not even a citizen...


Actually, Obama has a better claim to US citizenship than Ted Cruz. Both have produced official birth certificates. Obama was born on US soil to an American mother and a non-American father. Cruz was born on Foreign soil to an American mother and a non-American father.

Obama Wins, 2 points to 1.


----------



## massmanute

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting tired of this discussion.


----------



## Mojo1

Good old John is as greasy as a pig dipped in ****, always dodging any issue or fact brought up that doesn't support his leanings, whether the topic be politics, mud motors, etc.

When he does not want to address them, he just attempts to demean you. Some people just have no shame.

I'm see waiting to hear your reasoning behind why a person can't work for the government and still be an advocate for responsible spending and smaller government???


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting tired of this discussion.


Well when paddler is evolved, more often than not he has that affect on them.


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> Actually, Obama has a better claim to US citizenship than Ted Cruz. Both have produced official birth certificates. Obama was born on US soil to an American mother and a non-American father. Cruz was born on Foreign soil to an American mother and a non-American father.
> 
> Obama Wins, 2 points to 1.


Wrong!! Within the framework of Constitution they both have an equal claim to citizenship, there no mine is better than yours. That being said

I'm not much of a Cruz fan myself. Generally I could give a **** less where they were born, I base my vote on if I think they can actually do a good job in office, sadly there are not that many good prospects out there for voters.


----------



## jpolson

The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican. Vote Libertarian. AKA...the "Leave me alone to live my life party."

http://www.libertarian-party.org/


----------



## pelican

So this man driving an old ford pickup stops into a candy shop and in his pocket....his right pocket he's got a big green frog and its peepin out at everyone. It croaks and a little girl laughs....croaks again and two boys start burping, mimicking the green frog....croaks again and guess what.....nothing....this has as much to do with duck hunting as the last handful of pages do. You boys have been waiting since mid-january to hunt.....go hunt!!!


----------



## martymcfly73

pelican said:


> So this man driving an old ford pickup stops into a candy shop and in his pocket....his right pocket he's got a big green frog and its peepin out at everyone. It croaks and a little girl laughs....croaks again and two boys start burping, mimicking the green frog....croaks again and guess what.....nothing....this has as much to do with duck hunting as the last handful of pages do. You boys have been waiting since mid-january to hunt.....go hunt!!!


Most of us have been. Paddler is just a giant douche and fun to mess with. Keep cashing those govt checks paddler. You're nothing more than a glorified welfare recipient. Taking advantage of the sick and elderly.


----------



## paddler

Mojo1 said:


> Good old John is as greasy as a pig dipped in ****, always dodging any issue or fact brought up that doesn't support his leanings, whether the topic be politics, mud motors, etc.
> 
> When he does not want to address them, he just attempts to demean you. Some people just have no shame.
> 
> I'm see waiting to hear your reasoning behind why a person can't work for the government and still be an advocate for responsible spending and smaller government???


Nothing at all inconsistent with it, Jimmy. Which part of government spending would you cut? Your retirement benefits? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military, FEMA, DEA, EPA, FAA, Department of Agriculture, Education, Transportation, etc? I think there is general agreement that efficiency can be improved, that waste and abuse can and should be addressed. I vote we take away your retirement benefits first.

The real question is whether the government should be held hostage by a small faction of the Tea Party over any one of those expenditures. Or over the ACA, or the debt limit. You understand that the debt limit is just agreeing to pay the bills Congress authorized and we have already incurred, and isn't about future spending, right? Is hostage taking our new form of government? Do you support that? That's why the Refuge is closed.

Marty, this discussion has been illuminating. You have shown yourself to be a Birther, ie, out of touch with reality. Thus, any of your posts regarding politics are invalid. Thank you.


----------



## huntingbuddy

Here are a few politicians who are against raising the debt limit.

"We can't just give a blank check over and over and over again." Nancy Pelosi

"The request sounds like a drunk going to an AA meeting, saying just give me one more drink." Charles Rangel

"Most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing." Harry Reid

"America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. American's deserve better." Barack Obama

I agree with Obama on that last comment. The only thing I agree with him on.


----------



## huntingbuddy

paddler213 said:


> Which part of government spending would you cut? Your retirement benefits? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military, FEMA, DEA, EPA, FAA, Department of Agriculture, Education, Transportation, etc?


I will tell you what I would cut:

Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
FEMA
EPA
FAA
Department of Education

and probably Agriculture too!

Fact of the matter is the govt shouldn't be in the medical industry, private charities do a much better job of providing for those who can't pay.

Retirement should be your own responsibility not the govt.

Well FEMA is self explanatory they are just a huge waste of money. They can't do anything right to save anybodies life.

EPA well over 90% of the agency has been deemed non essential during the shutdown, so that is pretty obvious even the govt doesn't think it is needed.

I believe the airline industry can self regulate itself. If you don't have a safe airline people won't fly it, simple enough.

It's not the federal govt's job to be in education that is state govt.


----------



## paddler

There you go, Jimmy. You're on your own for your golden years. Good thing I've been saving up.


----------



## Mojo1

:grin: it's not like losing that check is gonna be a deal breaker for me, I'm setting in a pretty good position as it is. Your not the only one who can long term plan. In fact I'm semi-retired now, I work around the farm/ranch, get to set my own hours and schedule and I get to take the dogs with me every day plus I can sneak out to do a little hunting most any day.

I crunched the numbers myself, *they can shut it all down, whole government, retirement checks, all of it*, ill be okay. I'm not afraid to work to survive but there are **** sure a lot of true sucklers would can't afford for that to happen, I'm betting you can't for long If truth be told.

I know my statement of shut it all down horrifies you and all the other deadbeats, but you fail to r*emember the words of Kennedy, "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."*

While it true I won't be happy, I've sacrificed for this country before and I have the guts to due it again, which is more than I can say for the likes of dependent. That's the part folks like you don't understand. And that's why our country's finances are in such a **** mess.

It's been an hour, I have to get to tracking the deer I shot a little ago, I don't have any more time to waste on you, peace out, enjoy the government you voted for!!!


----------



## paddler

Mojo1 said:


> :grin: it's not like losing that check is gonna be a deal breaker for me, I'm setting in a pretty good position as it is. Your not the only one who can long term plan. In fact I'm semi-retired now, I work around the farm/ranch, get to set my own hours and schedule and I get to take the dogs with me every day plus I can sneak out to do a little hunting most any day.
> 
> I crunched the numbers myself, *they can shut it all down, whole government, retirement checks, all of it*, ill be okay. I'm not afraid to work to survive but there are **** sure a lot of true sucklers would can't afford for that to happen, I'm betting you can't for long If truth be told.
> 
> I know my statement of shut it all down horrifies you and all the other deadbeats, but you fail to r*emember the words of Kennedy, "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."*
> 
> While it true I won't be happy, I've sacrificed for this country before and I have the guts to due it again, which is more than I can say for the likes of dependent. That's the part folks like you don't understand. And that's why our country's finances are in such a **** mess.
> 
> It's been an hour, I have to get to tracking the deer I shot a little ago, I don't have any more time to waste on you, peace out, enjoy the government you voted for!!!


Don't worry about me, Jimmy, I'm very fortunate and well ahead of schedule.

I didn't vote for the D-bags who shut down the government, but I'm betting you did.


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> Don't worry about me, Jimmy, I'm very fortunate and well ahead of schedule.
> 
> I didn't vote for the D-bags who shut down the government, but I'm betting you did.


D=dbag=paddler. How's making a living scamming grandma out of her SS?


----------



## massmanute

Bye.


----------



## martymcfly73

massmanute said:


> Bye.


You too??


----------



## Longgun

paddler213 said:


> Which part of government spending would you cut?


how about we start with foreign aid, it corrupts governments and rarely reaches the poor. it is high time for the paternalistic West to step away and allow the developing world to solve its own **** problems. Then lets start chipping away at the retirement bennys of our United States Congress. After that start examining ways to tax the 47% among us that dont pay chit into the system, they make money, tax SOMETHING from it from hell sakes. Further still, the problem lies with the people who continually elect those who promise them more government programs, and never ask where the $$$ is going to come from. They don't care as long as it is from someone else's pocket. *Dem or Rep*. The only thing that changes is the particular special interest group de jour. The core problem is a bipartisan issue. Dishonest money. Regardless of party, people should be insisting that the government issue debt free money.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

*high jacked post.*


----------



## massmanute

Longgun said:


> how about we start with foreign aid, it corrupts governments and rarely reaches the poor. it is high time for the paternalistic West to step away and allow the developing world to solve its own **** problems. Then lets start chipping away at the retirement bennys of our United States Congress. After that start examining ways to tax the 47% among us that dont pay chit into the system, they make money, tax SOMETHING from it from hell sakes. Further still, the problem lies with the people who continually elect those who promise them more government programs, and never ask where the $$$ is going to come from. They don't care as long as it is from someone else's pocket. *Dem or Rep*. The only thing that changes is the particular special interest group de jour. The core problem is a bipartisan issue. Dishonest money. Regardless of party, people should be insisting that the government issue debt free money.


Maybe you should learn the facts first, and then make recommendations. For example, your "fact" that 47% of the population pays no Federal taxes is actually not a fact at all.

As for cutting foreign aid, sure you could do that if you want, but you need to understand that it would be primarily a symbolic gesture. Since foreign aid only amounts to about 1.4% of the budget, cutting it to zero would hardly make a noticeable difference to the budget.

If you want to balance the budget the best place to look is where the big money is, namely Social Security, Defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, you could cut any one of those programs to zero, and it still would not balance the budget.

Plus, in the case of Social Security, if you cut that to zero you would also have to do away with the Social Security tax, so you wouldn't actually accomplish very much in the way of balancing the budget.

That leaves Defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. But wait! If you cut Medicare you would also need to eliminate the Medicare tax, so although you would make a step toward balancing the budget, it would actually be a much smaller small step than you might suppose.

So, we are down to Defense and Medicaid. I imagine you would like to zero out medicaid, so let's assume you do that. Unfortunately, you still would not balance the budget, so you are either going to have to go after Defense or other some of the smaller-dollar parts of the budget. But wait! A lot of defense-related spending is tucked into other budgets rather than "Defense", such as veterans benefits, homeland security, much of intelligence spending, interest on the debt arising from unfunded wars, and so forth. No matter how you slice it you are probably going to have to reduce at least some defense-related spending.

All I am trying to do here is to bring a little reality into the discussion. Some won't like it, but as for myself, I prefer to work on a knowledge base of fact rather than myth.


----------



## king eider

massmanute said:


> Maybe you should learn the facts first, and then make recommendations. For example, your "fact" that 47% of the population pays no Federal taxes is actually not a fact at all.


darn pesky truth is hard to accept! 47% Of households pay NO federal income tax. Even found a liberal CNN article about it.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/

The math doesn't add up! That is the problem with the US budget problem! No matter how you manipulate it the US has spent its way to hell and back. Our fiscal problems are dire and if our elected leaders don't show some leadership on this then we are in the hurt locker for it big time! I tend to take these people who are elected by the words they speak. So far I see NO leadership on this. Simply kicking the can down the road for an even bigger problem. You can now add the disastrous ACA to your list of entitlements!!! That law is a MESS! Jon you were full of crap buying into the belief that millions signed up on the first day. It's ugly, real ugly!! But the Dems own in and now we have to pay for it. But we were out of money along time ago.... The math doesn't work!


----------



## Longgun

massmanute said:


> Maybe you should learn the facts first, and then make recommendations. For example, your "fact" that 47% of the population pays no Federal taxes is actually not a fact at all.
> 
> As for cutting foreign aid, sure you could do that if you want, but you need to understand that it would be primarily a symbolic gesture. Since foreign aid only amounts to about 1.4% of the budget, cutting it to zero would hardly make a noticeable difference to the budget.
> 
> If you want to balance the budget the best place to look is where the big money is, namely Social Security, Defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, you could cut any one of those programs to zero, and it still would not balance the budget.
> 
> Plus, in the case of Social Security, if you cut that to zero you would also have to do away with the Social Security tax, so you wouldn't actually accomplish very much in the way of balancing the budget.
> 
> That leaves Defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. But wait! If you cut Medicare you would also need to eliminate the Medicare tax, so although you would make a step toward balancing the budget, it would actually be a much smaller small step than you might suppose.
> 
> So, we are down to Defense and Medicaid. I imagine you would like to zero out medicaid, so let's assume you do that. Unfortunately, you still would not balance the budget, so you are either going to have to go after Defense or other some of the smaller-dollar parts of the budget. But wait! A lot of defense-related spending is tucked into other budgets rather than "Defense", such as veterans benefits, homeland security, much of intelligence spending, interest on the debt arising from unfunded wars, and so forth. No matter how you slice it you are probably going to have to reduce at least some defense-related spending.
> 
> All I am trying to do here is to bring a little reality into the discussion. Some won't like it, but as for myself, I prefer to work on a knowledge base of fact rather than myth.


Whoa hold on... Middleton has a mini-me? :shock:

As for your reality's, lets look at a couple things:

*Unemployment rate in December 2008:* 7.3 percent 
*Unemployment rate in December 2012: *7.8 percent

*Number of people in poverty in 2009:* 43.6 million 
*Number of people in poverty in 2011:* 46.2 million

Debt at the time Barry promised to cut it in half in his first term if elected:* $10.6 trillion* 
Debt now after more promises of Hope/Change: 
*More than $16.4 trillion and counting*

Dear massuamte, Its simple.... The national debt is cumulative amount our federal government has spent in excess of the revenue it has collected. This is done by the federal government issuing debt securities (bonds, notes, and bills) which are sold to investors. These securities are issued by the Federal Financing Bank and are known as public debt. This is done by the federal government issuing debt securities (bonds, notes, and bills) which are sold to investors. These securities are issued by the Federal Financing Bank and are known as public debt. The spend happy federal government has devoted most of it's energy to pleasing all those in the private and public sector, in addition to different voting blocks, that have been lining up with their hands out. The mindset of many people in the country seems to be that of "buy me more stuff and I'll vote for you". Just as coddling your kids in a search for popularity can run up your visa bill, congress and the various administrations have sought to please this block of voters and that by basically bribing them for their votes with entitlement programs and special projects, and in so doing, have blown up the national debt. You have a valid point in that yanking the F/A wouldnt make a dent in our bill, BUT we gotta start SOMEWHERE! The largest contributors to the debt, by far, are HHS, SSA, DOD, and Interest on the debt itself. Not to crystal ball this issue, but add to that the impending and compounding costs/penalties/redistribution of the ACA in the coming years, rising unemployment, higher fuel prices, international trade laws that should be flamed, and more pandering to the wage takers rather than the wage earners and the future looks...

If this ACA/Obamacare is such a special thing, then why did congress opt out?


----------



## Longgun

*From Kingeiders link.*

*47% will pay no federal income tax*

*An increasing number of households end up owing nothing in major federal taxes, but the situation may not be sustainable over the long run.*

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: October 3, 2009: 2:58 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.
In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.
The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.
The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000. 
As you move up the income scale the percentages drop. 
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.
Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.
"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.
President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less. 
One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.
As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.
Why the tax-free matter
The question of who pays and who doesn't is not a trivial matter. But Washington policymakers are not dealing with it in an explicit way.
And that's a problem, given the country's fiscal outlook.
If asked to vote up or down on whether they are comfortable with such a large group of voters contributing no federal income tax or payroll tax revenue, the majority may well decide it is appropriate given the means of the households involved. Or they may decide that it's not.
Either way, that decision should inform the debate about the many costly policies and deficit-reduction strategies that lawmakers will be grappling with for years to come.
"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."
Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.


----------



## Longgun

dkhntrdstn said:


> *high jacked post.*


pretty much, playing with trolls is fun! I figure that if he's kept busy over here, the rest of y'all can have a good time with other things w/o his politico rambelings creeping into everything.


----------



## massmanute

So, it appears that some of you think that income taxes are the only Federal taxes. Go back to Civics 101 and learn the facts, or better yet look at your W2 form. Do you see anything listed there besides income tax? Yes? I thought so. In addition, there are a lot of different taxes not listed on the W2 form.

The fact is, less than half of the funding from the Federal government comes from the individual income tax. Where do you think the rest of the funding comes from?

And speaking of Federal taxes, I think it would be great if guys like Romney paid as high of a percentage of their income in Federal income and payroll tax as I do, but unfortunately for me I don't get nearly the same preferential tax treatment as them, so tell me who is the tax freeloader?

And don't forget state and local taxes either. They tend to hit the less wealthy harder than they hit the wealthy.


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> So, it appears that some of you think that income taxes are the only Federal taxes. Go back to Civics 101 and learn the facts, or better yet look at your W2 form. Do you see anything listed there besides income tax? Yes? I thought so. In addition, there are a lot of different taxes not listed on the W2 form.
> 
> The fact is, less than half of the funding from the Federal government comes from the individual income tax. Where do you think the rest of the funding comes from?
> 
> And speaking of Federal taxes, I think it would be great if guys like Romney paid as high of a percentage of their income in Federal income and payroll tax as I do, but unfortunately for me I don't get nearly the same preferential tax treatment as them, so tell me who is the tax freeloader?
> 
> And don't forget state and local taxes either. They tend to hit the less wealthy harder than they hit the wealthy.


Then I guess we can count on your support for a flat across the board income tax with no deductions for everyone???


----------



## king eider

massmanute said:


> So, it appears that some of you think that income taxes are the only Federal taxes. Go back to Civics 101 and learn the facts, or better yet look at your W2 form. Do you see anything listed there besides income tax? Yes? I thought so. In addition, there are a lot of different taxes not listed on the W2 form.
> 
> The fact is, less than half of the funding from the Federal government comes from the individual income tax. Where do you think the rest of the funding comes from?
> 
> And speaking of Federal taxes, I think it would be great if guys like Romney paid as high of a percentage of their income in Federal income and payroll tax as I do, but unfortunately for me I don't get nearly the same preferential tax treatment as them, so tell me who is the tax freeloader?
> 
> And don't forget state and local taxes either. They tend to hit the less wealthy harder than they hit the wealthy.


Nice spin! So they guy who pays a couple million in tax $$ is a freeloader? That's really how you look at this? I'm speechless!!! Owning my own business I'm very aware of the taxes paid. I don't have the blind ignorance of them automatically taken out. Something I wish wasn't done. I wish all folks had to pay there own quarterly taxes!


----------



## JuniorPre 360

*Lesson # 1:*

U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National Debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent Budget cuts: 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budge:

Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts so far: $385
_Got it?&#8230;. OK now&#8230;_
*Lesson # 2*
Here's another way of looking at the Debt Ceiling:
Let's say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood&#8230; and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do?
Raise the ceiling or remove the ****?


----------



## Longgun

massmanute said:


> So, it appears that some of you think that income taxes are the only Federal taxes. Go back to Civics 101 and learn the facts, or better yet look at your W2 form. Do you see anything listed there besides income tax? Yes? I thought so. In addition, there are a lot of different taxes not listed on the W2 form.
> 
> The fact is, less than half of the funding from the Federal government comes from the individual income tax. Where do you think the rest of the funding comes from?
> 
> And speaking of Federal taxes, I think it would be great if guys like Romney paid as high of a percentage of their income in Federal income and payroll tax as I do, but unfortunately for me I don't get nearly the same preferential tax treatment as them, so tell me who is the tax freeloader?
> 
> And don't forget state and local taxes either. They tend to hit the less wealthy harder than they hit the wealthy.


for the love of god... ostrich meet sand dune.

freeloader??? by that remark you surely mean Moochelle...

Mojo asked, flat tax.... what say you to it Paddler, et al'.


----------



## paddler

It looks like the government will reopen. McConnell is giving his cave-in speech now, continuing to badmouth the ACA. Looks like we'll be able to hunt the Refuge soon. Please note that this circus caused unnecessary damage to our country. Hopefully the Tea Party will be further marginalized, and moderate Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together to grow the economy and pay down our debt.

The take home message is that the Tea Party is the home of the right wing whackos, birthers, evolution and climate change deniers and hostage takers. So long as they lead the Republican party around by the nose, a vote for a Republican is a vote for extremist views and tactics. Hopefully, a civil war will occur within the Republican party so they can become part of the solution instead of a destructive influence.


----------



## JuniorPre 360

Doesn't it have to pass the house now?


----------



## Longgun

Paddler,

Oh good yer back... so whats your opinion on a Flat Tax?


and now that the federal government has, or soon will be returned to its full strength... what do you think is next on Barry's list? Immigration reform/full amnesty thereby building a fullerfreeloader D voting base?


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> to badmouth the ACA. Looks like we'll be able to hunt the Refuge soon. Please note that this circus caused unnecessary damage to our country. Hopefully the Tea Party will be further marginalized, and moderate Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together to grow the economy and pay down our debt.
> 
> The take home message is that the Tea Party is the home of the right wing whackos, birthers, evolution and climate change deniers and hostage takers. So long as they lead the Republican party around by the nose, a vote for a Republican is a vote for extremist views and tactics. Hopefully, a civil war will occur within the Republican party so they can become part of the solution instead of a destructive influence.


Aw, there's still one little hump to clear called the House, which is not a gimme. IMO, I think it's not happening.

as much as you tout how them to the home of the right wing whackos, birthers, evolution and climate change deniers and hostage takers, you do understand that their constituents sent them to DC to do just what they are doing, right??? They didn't campaign on a different platform, they were always for this path. 
do you really think their constituents are gonna vote them out now, not gonna happen because that segment of the population if fed up with the runaway government spending and liberal leanings.

They are only going to grow stronger in the years to come.


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer

paddler213 said:


> It looks like the government will reopen. McConnell is giving his cave-in speech now, continuing to badmouth the ACA. Looks like we'll be able to hunt the Refuge soon. Please note that this circus caused unnecessary damage to our country. Hopefully the Tea Party will be further marginalized, and moderate Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together to grow the economy and pay down our debt.
> 
> The take home message is that the Tea Party is the home of the right wing whackos, birthers, evolution and climate change deniers and hostage takers. So long as they lead the Republican party around by the nose, a vote for a Republican is a vote for extremist views and tactics. Hopefully, a civil war will occur within the Republican party so they can become part of the solution instead of a destructive influence.


Oh please. -O\\__- Enough with your failed rhetoric.


----------



## paddler

Longgun said:


> Paddler,
> 
> Oh good yer back... so whats your opinion on a Flat Tax?
> 
> and now that the federal government has, or soon will be returned to its full strength... what do you think is next on Barry's list? Immigration reform/full amnesty thereby building a fullerfreeloader D voting base?


It will pass the House. Boehner will call for a vote and it will pass easily, with Democratic support.

The idea of a flat tax is appealing, but is a bit simplistic. A progressive income tax is better. As has been pointed out, income tax is only one of the taxes we pay. For lower income earners, a flat tax and the total tax burden would reduce discretionary income to a much greater degree than for high income earners. I pay more in income tax than most here earn in a year, and have no problem with that. I don't even hire a slick accountant, we use Turbo Tax. I have benefited mightily from our our American system of capitalism, and would like others to have the opportunities I have enjoyed. It chaps my hide that people like Romney pay 13% or 14%, when I pay 25%-30%. Even though I pay at least my share, I enjoy many luxuries others never will.

Yes, immigration reform is next.

Jimmy, I have no doubt the Tea Tards will persist in their extremism. They got shellacked in the last election, and didn't learn a thing. There is no reason the think these slow learners will learn from this debacle. Hopefully, moderate Republicans will.


----------



## martymcfly73

Greenhead_Slayer said:


> Oh please. -O\\__- Enough with your failed rhetoric.


^^^^yes this


----------



## Longgun

paddler213 said:


> It will pass the House. Boehner will call for a vote and it will pass easily, with Democratic support.
> 
> The idea of a flat tax is appealing, but is a bit simplistic. Con's to being simple would be? (honestly speaking though, a smaller IRS/FED is not a bad thing) A progressive income tax is better. Explain As has been pointed out, income tax is only one of the taxes we pay. Correct, one of too **** many. For lower income earners, a flat tax and the total tax burden would reduce discretionary income to a much greater degree than for high income earners. I pay more in income tax than most here earn in a year, and have no problem with that. I don't even hire a slick accountant, we use Turbo Tax. I have benefited mightily from our our American system of capitalism, and would like others to have the opportunities I have enjoyed. It chaps my hide that people like Romney pay 13% or 14%, when I pay 25%-30%. Even though I pay at least my share, I enjoy many luxuries others never will.
> 
> Yes, immigration reform is next. Other than to grow the D voter base, why?
> 
> Jimmy, I have no doubt the Tea Tards will persist in their _extremism_. They got _shellacked_ in the last election, and didn't learn a thing. There is no reason the think these slow learners will learn from this debacle. Hopefully, moderate Republicans will.


Extremism? Shellacked? Really?

_Cheating_: I suppose its how one stacks the cards:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/obamas-army-of-illegal-election-workers/

*Obama's Army of Illegal Election Workers*

November 5, 2012 By Matthew Vadum

Democrats have enlisted thousands of young illegal immigrants to drag their supporters to the polls on Election Day tomorrow.
These get-out-the-vote workers may or may not be breaking the law by helping with voter mobilization. Because the workers are already unlawfully present in the United States, presumably all employment they engage in -including electioneering- already violates laws against unauthorized employment.

It's not like their patron, President Obama, would do anything about it anyway. This past summer Obama swept aside federal law in order to pander to this growing constituency. In a move more imperial than presidential, Obama bypassed Congress and partially implemented the so-called proposed DREAM Act which would have offered a path to U.S. citizenship for youthful illegals who served in the armed forces or attended college. Up to 1.4 million illegal aliens could benefit from the move.
Using undocumented aliens as election workers is a new low for the activist Left.
"For people who aren't supposed to be in the country in the first place to be deployed for partisan advantage is the last straw," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that favors limits on immigration levels.
"'The strategic deployment' of illegal immigrants who benefit from the Obama administration program is a 'corruption of the political process,'" he said.
And there can be little doubt that some of the Obama supporters these election workers cajole into voting booths will themselves be illegal immigrants ineligible to vote in the national election. Lax, and in some cases non-existent ID requirements, at the state level will allow people to vote who have no legal right to vote.
In the battleground state of Nevada, Culinary Workers Union Local 226 is strong-arming union members who are bona fide U.S. permanent residents into unlawfully casting ballots. (Permanent residents, or green card holders, are allowed to reside and work in the U.S. permanently but are not allowed to vote unless they become naturalized as U.S. citizens.) The union is affiliated with the UNITE HERE labor federation.
Union members who have a shaky grasp of the English language told Glenn Cook of the _Las Vegas Review-Journal_ that they were tricked into signing voter registration forms and are now being pressured to vote. President Obama and Democrats are counting on the unions in Nevada to help get them across the finish line tomorrow.
"One of the immigrants was visited at home by a Culinary representative and said the operative made threats of deportation if no ballot was cast," Cook writes. He notes that in Nevada no proof of citizenship is required in order to register to vote or to vote. "One would establish identity and one would establish residence," Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said. "Just like every other voter in Nevada, they will not be asked to prove citizenship."

In the swing states of Colorado, Florida, and Ohio, the young illegal aliens doing the voter-mobilization work are "often referred to as Dreamers after the failed DREAM Act legislation that would have offered them a path to citizenship." They are knocking on doors, working in telephone banks, and asking students on college campuses to vote, the _Wall Street Journal_ reports. They are also active in solid-blue California and in Republican-dominated Texas.
The illegal campaign workers are targeting Latinos, a fast-growing demographic that President Obama has urged to "punish" its "enemies." Obama is reportedly running ahead among Latino voters so the efforts of the so-called Dreamers could help down-ticket candidates in congressional and state races.
One of the leading groups exploiting the free labor of undocumented workers is the Colorado Immigrants Rights Coalition (CIRC). Illegal campaign workers "are winning the hearts and minds of Coloradans through their efforts," said CIRC executive director Julien Ross.
CIRC pushed the Obama administration to enact a policy, now called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that lets those under the age of 31 who arrived in this country by age 16 and have lived here for the last five years to seek a renewable two-year reprieve from deportation and a work permit.
CIRC has some unsavory friends. It is a "partner" with the far-left Center for Community Change (CCC) and the National Day Laborers Organizing Network (NDLON).
CCC is headed by Deepak Bhargava, who worked for a decade at ACORN. CCC sponsored a December 2007 forum for thousands of community organizers from across America. Bhargava introduced speaker Barack Obama at the event and said America was "a society that is still deeply structured by racism and sexism." He elicited a pledge from Obama that if elected the president in 2008 he would invite CCC and other Saul Alinsky-inspired community organizing groups to "help [the new administration] shape the agenda."
NDLON's mission is to interfere with the enforcement of immigration laws and its "strategy is to make legal everything about the illegal immigrant _except _his immigration status." The group pressures local governments to set up day laborer centers and works with labor unions to unionize day laborers.
Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez from Brazil thinks illegal aliens getting involved in electoral politics is a great idea.
"We can't vote but we can get people to vote who support our issues. It's our way to participate in this democracy," said Sousa-Rodriguez, who is supervising a get-out-the-vote drive in Florida and Ohio that is co-sponsored by United We Dream, a national undocumented youth network.
United We Dream's stated mission is to create "meaningful alliances with other national immigrant and education rights organizations and making sure there is a voice for immigrant youth in these organizations."
One of the group's more high profile board members is Josh Bernstein. Bernstein is "director of immigration" at the radical labor union SEIU. (Who knew labor unions had directors of immigration?) Back in the 1980s he was director of Californians for a Fair Share, a group created to fight welfare cuts.
Take a guess which political party will benefit from all this unpaid labor performed by Bernstein's illegal election workers and all the other illegal election workers mentioned in this article.

~

*meaning of the above indicated "Swept aside".*

*http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/obamas-gift-to-illegal-aliens/*

*Obama's Pre-Election Gift to Illegal Aliens*

June 18, 2012 By Matthew Vadum

The federal law requires that everyone applying for government benefits be given an opportunity to register to vote. Government workers processing claims for public benefits are prohibited from even asking applicants if they are U.S. citizens. Some illegals registered this way ended up voting.
Obama's decree will give work permits to young undocumented aliens who can demonstrate they have been in the U.S. for at least five years, lack a criminal record, graduated from a U.S. high school, earned a GED, or served in the military.

"These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they're friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper."
The new policy is intended to help young people who are "talented, driven and patriotic," Obama said.
Obama's statement assumes a lot.
Only a leftist could say with a straight face that breaking the law by being in the U.S. without authorization, possibly engaging in identity fraud, and evading the police were "patriotic" acts.
As former INS official Michael Cutler wonders, "How could anyone know how talented, driven and patriotic millions of illegal aliens are whose true identities, backgrounds and affiliations are unknown and unknowable?"
It needs to be pointed out that many left-leaning lifelong American citizens don't feel any particular loyalty to the United States. It stands to reason that someone who has been living in any country for a mere five years doesn't necessarily feel loyalty to that country.
And according to studies, Mexican immigrants -legal and otherwise- who are likely to benefit disproportionately from the new amnesty, don't easily blend into American society. Often they (and their children) self-identify as "Mexican" or "Mexican-American" into the fourth generation.
Now that the traditional American melting pot has been largely supplanted by multiculturalism and racial separatism pushed by race-baiting leftist groups such as National Council of La Raza, MEChA, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and state-level groups like the Hugo Chavez-funded CASA de Maryland, it is especially difficult to assume that those who will benefit from the amnesty are Americans in their hearts and minds, to use Obama's phrase.

Many won't want to assimilate at all.
And that's just fine by the man in the Oval Office who wants to "fundamentally transform" America.


----------



## Longgun

paddler213 said:


> I pay more in income tax than most here earn in a year,


So as a cardio-surgeon/doctor, you would be one to explain the ACA in total clairity to the rest of us correct?


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> It's game over, ACA is here to stay. Nothing the Republicans can do will stop it. In New York alone, 7.5 million people went to websites today to access medical insurance between 8:00 am and mid-afternoon. Turns out health insurance is popular. The Republicans are trying to deny 30 million Americans health care. Good luck with that. They will soon find themselves alone, angry old white guys, twisting in the wind. This will end badly for them. Hopefully Democrats will regain control of the House in 2014.


Ohh No! the numbers are coming in and they dont look to good Jon. Even the administration is really quiet about this one. Here you go on your belief that everyone would flock to this.



> The review was released by Kantar US Insights, based on the findings of the Millward Brown Digital research firm. It showed 9.47 million unique visitors to the federal site during the first week, including 3.72 million who tried to register, 1 million successfully registering and 36,000 who completed enrollment.





> The state reported Friday that its website has had 217,091 unique visitors, 25,781 verified accounts created and 1,121 enrollees.


This is perhaps a sign of the debacle that is called the ACA! What an embarrassment for the plan that was touted as "cheap as a phone bill!" but it is the law and its here to stay. until we throw the bums out who reside in Washington!


----------



## paddler

Longgun said:


> So as a cardio-surgeon/doctor, you would be one to explain the ACA in total clairity to the rest of us correct?


If you don't understand it, why do you oppose it?


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> If you don't understand it, why do you oppose it?


So you understand it?


----------



## paddler

Just explain to me exactly what you don't like about it and I'll explain why it makes sense. I'll talk real slow.

Looks like the Senate passed the bill 81-19. I think the margin will be big in the House, too. I hope the voters remember this fiasco in 2014. Hopefully, the self-inflicted GSW to the chest sustained by the Tea Party will be fatal.


----------



## Mojo1

All the voters will remember is who just gave them a free handout so they could vote, how do u think we ended up with a second term of our current leader???


----------



## 1BandMan

Mojo1 said:


> All the voters will remember is who just gave them a free handout so they could vote, how do u think we ended up with a second term of our current leader???


Problem is that your part of that 47% class too Mojo, that is unless you make a pretty good chunk of change vs. your family size and do not claim an EIC.


----------



## king eider

1BandMan said:


> Problem is that your part of that 47% class too Mojo, that is unless you make a pretty good chunk of change vs. your family size.


Incorrect! Read up on the progressive tax code.


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> Just explain to me exactly what you don't like about it and I'll explain why it makes sense. I'll talk real slow.


Ok, here you go. Here is what I don't like! 
I loose my freedom! 
I lose my ability to find the benefits I want! 
I loose the ability to keep my current health insurance! 
I loose the profit refund check I would get from my ins company!
My premiums will go up over 125% for a LESSER benefit plan.-Thank You!!
The government has more say in my health care.
I pay more in premium so others can pay less. -redistribution of wealth!!!
I don't like the fact that the overall cost per person spending on health care is going up because of this law, NOT down!!
I'd like an explanation as to how premiums will stay competitive with a larger sicker pool of people.
I'd like to know how taxing DME will make it more affordable.

Let's start with those. I'll wait for a clear explanation on each one so they make sense from someone who supports this nonsense. As a side note, you should know I work in the health insurance industry. So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## paddler

Well, if I'm going to address your concerns, you need to be truthful. I'm not losing any freedom, and am keeping my insurance. I don't see anything in your post that is factual. Which clauses of the ACA give you heartburn?


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> Well, if I'm going to address your concerns, you need to be truthful. I'm not losing any freedom, and am keeping my insurance. I don't see anything in your post that is factual. Which clauses of the ACA give you heartburn?


Incorrect! You DONT know the LAW!!!!!!
I can't keep my insurance past 2014 Jon!!!! You are supporting something you don't know how it works!!! My head is about to explode!!!!!

Everything I posted is factual and part of the LAW!!!!


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> Just explain to me exactly what you don't like about it and I'll explain why it makes sense. I'll talk real slow.


I'd also like to know a few more things. And please talk real slow so I don't miss anything.

Why has the administration pushed back employer mandates under the LAW?
Why has over hundreds of corporations been exempted from the law and not mine?
Why do they get out if it and my corporation doesn't?
Why do many unions get exempted from it?

I will wait for your answers? This is what dont make sense to me...


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> ...I can't keep my insurance past 2014 Jon!!!...


Dear King eider,

You say you can't keep your insurance past 2014. Please document your claim by quoting the specific section of the law that prevents you from keeping your insurance past 2014.

Please be specific. You made a specific claim, now please back it up by posting verifiable and documented fact.

If you need a copy of the law to refresh your memory please say so, and I will either find for you a link to download the law, or I will email you a copy of the law by private and confidential email.


----------



## paddler

Looks like the House vote was 285-144. The Tea Tards got crushed. That's good news for America, as this country is very moderate. Conservatives are being lied to by the Tea Party, Fox News, Heritage Action, Ted Cruz, etc. When will they wake up?


----------



## king eider

I have no freaking clue what chapter, verse, section, title it is.

Grandfathered plans is what is being ruled on. Here is a short PBS article on it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/will-your-health-plan-be-exempt-from-obamacare.html

The exchange will only work if we are all use it. Hence why most plans will terminate at the end of 2014. Don't believe me go buy a grandfathered policy from BCBS. It states before you fill out an app that the plan will terminate in jan 1, 2015,

Get a clue Obama lovers! Health insurance as you know it is a toast! It's going to cost most working folks more! Especially the young folks are the ones in sticker shock!!


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> Looks like the House vote was 285-144. The Tea Tards got crushed. That's good news for America, as this country is very moderate. Conservatives are being lied to by the Tea Party, Fox News, Heritage Action, Ted Cruz, etc. When will they wake up?


Cat got your tongue? Talk slow I'll listen...


----------



## Mojo1

1BandMan said:


> Problem is that your part of that 47% class too Mojo, that is unless you make a pretty good chunk of change vs. your family size and do not claim an EIC.


Man I must have been a hell of a lot more fortunate than I ever knew. Apparently I'm not part of the 47%, because since I started working years ago, I haven't had a single year where I didn't pay a hell lot more in than i ever got back. 
In fact in the last few years I got smart and changed my info around to make sure I stopped floating them a tax free loan. I'd sooner have to write them a check like I do every other bill, than overpay up front and have to get it back.

You want to hear something really screwed up, I know at least a dozen folks that get more back than they paid in taxes due to the EIC, how does that even begin to be fair??? And yes I'm positive of the amounts, it was out of their own mouths.

That's the problem with the whole tax code, far too many deductions, etc.


----------



## massmanute

paddler213 said:


> Looks like the House vote was 285-144. The Tea Tards got crushed. That's good news for America, as this country is very moderate. Conservatives are being lied to by the Tea Party, Fox News, Heritage Action, Ted Cruz, etc. When will they wake up?


Congress is saying, "Hey, that was fun. Let's do it all again on January 15."


----------



## Mojo1

Here's a funny story, I went to lunch to the other day with a friend at a Bar b Que. joint over in, ah let's say the less fortunate area of town. As you can imagine there was a good number of peeps in there who supported Obama. Since they had the tv tuned into CNN everyone was sounding off about the whole budget/ ACA/ debit limit ordeal. I didn't hear a single person have anything good to say about the ACA, I wonder why that is??? 

Hell I didn't even hear but a couple actually laying all the blame on the Republicans, most seemed genuinely pissed at both Congress and Obama. I guess weather they admit it or not, most folks can see thru the parties BS to the truth, despite who they end up voting for.


----------



## massmanute

Mojo1 said:


> ...You want to hear something really screwed up, I know at least a dozen folks that get more back than they paid in taxes due to the EIC, how does that even begin to be fair???


Just FYI, you might be interested to know that conservative economist Milton Friedman was the architect of the EIC in the US. It was advocated by Republican President Nixon and signed into law by Republican President Ford in 1975.


----------



## paddler

Lee, Bishop, Chaffetz, and Stewart voted "No". Let's say "No" to them next election. Maybe the Dems can take back the House and win a supermajority in the Senate. Thank you, Tea Party!


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> Congress is saying, "Hey, that was fun. Let's do it all again on January 15."


I feel the same way! set your reminds, we can do this argument again to commemorate that event.


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> I have no freaking clue what chapter, verse, section, title it is...


No truer words were ever spoken.


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> Just FYI, you might be interested to know that conservative economist Milton Friedman was the architect of the EIC in the US. It was advocated by Republican President Nixon and signed into law by Republican President Ford in 1975.


I don't care who started it, it's no longer relevant, that's part of the problem, everyone is too hung on the who did it in the first place rather than lets do something about it.


----------



## paddler

Mojo1 said:


> Here's a funny story, I went to lunch to the other day with a friend at a Bar b Que. joint over in, ah let's say the less fortunate area of town. As you can imagine there was a good number of peeps in there who supported Obama. Since they had the tv tuned into CNN everyone was sounding off about the whole budget/ ACA/ debit limit ordeal. I didn't hear a single person have anything good to say about the ACA, I wonder why that is???
> 
> Hell I didn't even hear but a couple actually laying all the blame on the Republicans, most seemed genuinely pissed at both Congress and Obama. I guess weather they admit it or not, most folks can see thru the parties BS to the truth, despite who they end up voting for.


You hang out in some funny places, Jimmy.



king eider said:


> Cat got your tongue? Talk slow I'll listen...


Which clause in the ACA don't you like? Please be specific. I can keep my same insurance, I couldn't be denied coverage if I had a preexisting condition, if I had kids under 26 years old they could stay on my insurance, and if my insurance company spent less than 85% on care they'd have to refund me the excess. Which of those don't you like?


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> You hang out in some funny places, Jimmy.
> 
> Which clause in the ACA don't you like? Please be specific. I can keep my same insurance, I couldn't be denied coverage if I had a preexisting condition, if I had kids under 26 years old they could stay on my insurance, and if my insurance company spent less than 85% on care they'd have to refund me the excess. Which of those don't you like?


Yada, yada, yada, nothing but a lure to draw a person in.

answer the most important question of them all for most folks, how much did the coverage go up????? Cause there sure isn't looking like many folks are finding much affordability in the ACA.


----------



## Kwalk3

Anybody know if there is a way to make a post hidden from the active topics? *-HELP!-* :argue: I figure this thread is about 700 miles off course already, so why not ask?


----------



## paddler

Mojo1 said:


> Yada, yada, yada, nothing but a lure to draw a person in.
> 
> answer the most important question of them all for most folks, how much did the coverage go up????? Cause there sure isn't looking like many folks are finding much affordability in the ACA.


How much did yours go up, Jimmy? I don't even know how much mine will, but I don't think much.


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> You hang out in some funny places, Jimm
> Which clause in the ACA don't you like? Please be specific. I can keep my same insurance, I couldn't be denied coverage if I had a preexisting condition, if I had kids under 26 years old they could stay on my insurance, and if my insurance company spent less than 85% on care they'd have to refund me the excess. Which of those don't you like?


incorrect!! Once again Jon you don't know the law! This is hilarious. Starting in 2015 all excess refunds will be paid to the government!! I have been specific as stated above. I'm waiting for your answer.


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> incorrect!! Once again Jon you don't know the law! This is hilarious. Starting in 2015 all excess refunds will be paid to the government!! I have been specific as stated above. I'm waiting for your answer.


Show us the law.


----------



## king eider

massmanute said:


> Show us the law.


Come to all my training classes and learn the law!!!!!! This law is freaking huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no clue is the 20 thousand pages of law and explanation/interpretation where it is. You can choose not to believe me. That's fine, but that is the LAW!!! You guys have willingly stuck your head in the sand. This is my profession. Do you think I'm going to spout lies???? Show me the law on why some corporations get exempted from the law? Your the one trying to defend it. I want to see that part of the law??


----------



## paddler

king eider said:


> Come to all my training classes and learn the law!!!!!! This law is freaking huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no clue is the 20 thousand pages of law and explanation/interpretation where it is. You can choose not to believe me. That's fine, but that is the LAW!!! You guys have willingly stuck your head in the sand. This is my profession. Do you think I'm going to spout lies???? Show me the law on why some corporations get exempted from the law? Your the one trying to defend it. I want to see that part of the law??


Exactly what is your profession? I believe my post was accurate.


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> How much did yours go up, Jimmy? I don't even know how much mine will, but I don't think much.


if you know the law so well, you know full well that tricare ( FYI for those that don't know, it's the insurance all military, active and retirees, are covered under) is an approved insurance and I don't have to purchase additional coverage from an exchange. But don't gloat over your perceived victory yet.

Now comes the bait and switch of the ACA, while I get to keep my tricare, they **** sure changed my coverage as well as the cost, I was forced into a higher cost version of tricare. why?? Because they were aligning to met provisions of Obamacare. I didn't make this up, it's what the CS told me when I called after getting a letter of notice in change of coverage.

I don't know yet exactly how much more its gonna cost me versus what I was paying before, ill have to go thru a year to know the actual amount; but its pretty clear the costs are gonna be a lot more than it cost me last year.

So It's pretty clear to me they want to force as many folks as they can into the exchanges to float the bill for everyone.


----------



## brookieguy1

huntingbuddy said:


> I will tell you what I would cut:
> 
> Medicare
> Medicaid
> Social Security
> FEMA
> EPA
> FAA
> Department of Education
> 
> and probably Agriculture too!
> 
> Fact of the matter is the govt shouldn't be in the medical industry, private charities do a much better job of providing for those who can't pay.
> 
> Retirement should be your own responsibility not the govt.
> 
> Well FEMA is self explanatory they are just a huge waste of money. They can't do anything right to save anybodies life.
> 
> EPA well over 90% of the agency has been deemed non essential during the shutdown, so that is pretty obvious even the govt doesn't think it is needed.
> 
> I believe the airline industry can self regulate itself. If you don't have a safe airline people won't fly it, simple enough.
> 
> It's not the federal govt's job to be in education that is state govt.


I agree, on everything except Social Security. Unless I get a lump-sum check for what I've put in for the last 40 years, plus interest!


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> Come to all my training classes and learn the law!!!!!! This law is freaking huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no clue is the 20 thousand pages of law and explanation/interpretation where it is. You can choose not to believe me. That's fine, but that is the LAW!!! You guys have willingly stuck your head in the sand. This is my profession. Do you think I'm going to spout lies???? Show me the law on why some corporations get exempted from the law? Your the one trying to defend it. I want to see that part of the law??


You keep lecturing us about what is in the law, but when challenged you have no clue.

Let me email you a copy of the law. You can do a word search for "2015". Then you can back up all of your unsubstantiated claims about what the law says is going to happen in 2015.

Note added after my original post: There are 121 occurrences of the characters "2015" in the affordable care law. It shouldn't take you too long to search those and find the part of the law that supports your claim about what will happen in the year 2015.


----------



## massmanute

Mojo1 said:


> ... while I get to keep my tricare, they **** sure changed my coverage as well as the cost, I was forced into a higher cost version of tricare. why?? Because they were aligning to met provisions of Obamacare...


It is true that Obamacare does require insurance to offer a certain minimum level of coverage. Do you know what provisions of your policy did not meet the legal minimums?


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> It is true that Obamacare does require insurance to offer a certain minimum level of coverage. Do you know what provisions of your policy did not meet the legal minimums?


I knew that and I asked that exact question and never could get a straight no bs answer out out of anyone I talked to.

after 21 years of dealing with that outfit, I'm usually pretty good at figuring out if I'm being fed a line of bs or what not; but in this instance those guys just plan didn't know the specifics. I talked to a supervisor too, it came down from above was the best explanation they could give me.


----------



## massmanute

Mojo1 said:


> I knew that and I asked that exact question and never could get a straight no bs answer out out of anyone I talked to.
> 
> after 21 years of dealing with that outfit, I'm usually pretty good at figuring out if I'm being fed a line of bs or what not; but in this instance those guys just plan didn't know the specifics. I talked to a supervisor too, it came down from above was the best explanation they could give me.


It sounds a little like a scam by your insurance company. I don't know if it truly is a scam, but it wouldn't be the first time an insurance company has skirted the truth.


----------



## king eider

massmanute said:


> You keep lecturing us about what is in the law, but when challenged you have no clue.


It is the law. I suggest you study up on it and learn how it will affect you and your family. i can not recite for you the section and title off hand. can i get the info for you? sure, but it will take a bit and you will have a LOAD of reading to do. are you willing to do that or are you looking to try and put me in a trap and say "Gotcha!" If your serious then i will dig it up. but i doubt that you are. your trying to gain the higher ground. if you want to fact check me then call a local insurance company. you will see they will tell you no different than i have.

still waiting for an explanation Jon??


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> Exactly what is your profession? I believe my post was accurate.


i am and insurance agent. i have a difference of professional opinion as to your post being accurate!


----------



## Mojo1

I've been looking at both my old coverage and my new coverage and so far the only changes I can see are the premiums and co pays/ cost shares. They cover the same exact things but most of the costs went up.

Guess that would fall under the *"affordable" * part of the mandate.:shock:


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> It sounds a little like a scam by your insurance company. I don't know if it truly is a scam, but it wouldn't be the first time an insurance company has skirted the truth.


If its a scam then its being perpetrated by the government, it's their contract.


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> It is the law. I suggest you study up on it and learn how it will affect you and your family. i can not recite for you the section and title off hand. can i get the info for you? sure, but it will take a bit and you will have a LOAD of reading to do. are you willing to do that or are you looking to try and put me in a trap and say "Gotcha!" If your serious then i will dig it up. but i doubt that you are. your trying to gain the higher ground. if you want to fact check me then call a local insurance company. you will see they will tell you no different than i have.
> 
> still waiting for an explanation Jon??


Dear King eider, you keep making wild claims about what is in the law. It is therefore up to you to prove your claims. So far you have utterly failed to make even a nominal attempt to back up your claims with any real research on what the law actually says.

It's pretty clear that you are just shooting your mouth off without a clue about what is actually in the law.


----------



## king eider

massmanute said:


> Dear King eider, you keep making wild claims about what is in the law. It is therefore up to you to prove your claims. So far you have utterly failed to make even a nominal attempt to back up your claims with any real research on what the law actually says.
> 
> It's pretty clear that you are just shooting your mouth off without a clue about what is actually in the law.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wild claims eh? call your insurance carrier and ask them. they will tell you i speak no lie! Its pretty clear i know far more about the law than you. come up for a visit. ill empower you!!!


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> wild claims eh? call your insurance carrier and ask them. they will tell you i speak no lie! Its pretty clear i know far more about the law than you. come up for a visit. ill empower you!!!


Actually, you speak nonsense. Show us the law. I can email you a copy if you don't have one.


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> It's pretty clear that you are just shooting your mouth off without a clue about what is actually in the law.


Now you doing it too.

Not to be a dick, but he is actually an insurance agent and a pretty stand up guy to boot, and he's good pretty good street cerd around the water fowling community, so I will take him at his word.

If you know he's wrong then post up the reference to bust his balls, if you can?


----------



## king eider

your in luck! I found it!!!! get busy reading and pound sand!!!
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

let me know what you have learned. I have had more training on this law then you can shake a stick at. but you want section, title, and paragraph. I dont have time for that!!! nor do i care to find it for you. keep living in ignorance. it seems to work quite well for you!!!

another resource for you as well. read away laddy!
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/


----------



## massmanute

Mojo1 said:


> Now you doing it too.
> 
> Not to be a dick, but he is actually an insurance agent and a pretty stand up guy to boot, and he's good pretty good street cerd around the water fowling community, so I will take him at his word.
> 
> If you know he's wrong then post up the reference to bust his balls


He cannot back up his claims by showing us what is in the law. Furthermore, he even refuses to make an attempt. In my book that sort of nonsense is quite the opposite of being a "stand up guy." I doubt if has even looked at the law.


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> your in luck! I found it!!!! get busy reading and pound sand!!!
> http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
> 
> let me know what you have learned. I have had more training on this law then you can shake a stick at. but you want section, title, and paragraph. I dont have time for that!!! nor do i care to find it for you. keep living in ignorance. it seems to work quite well for you!!!


I don't need a copy of the law. I already have one, and have had it for months. You are the one claiming to lecture us about what the law says, so quote the specific passage in law and prove it if you can. If you can't do that you are only blowing hot air.


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> He cannot back up his claims by showing us what is in the law. Furthermore, he even refuses to make an attempt. In my book that sort of nonsense is quite the opposite of being a "stand up guy." I doubt if has even looked at the law.


I don't know you from jack and I betting most of the other regulars don't either but we know him. You might be a stand up guy or you could be another brainwashed democrat

And for the record if all I did was work with insurance all day, I sure as hell wouldn't waste my free time looking up references for someone that claims to have the law on his computer. Seems to me if you had them to disprove his claims you would already slung them up for all to see.

Stop whining about the references or prove him wrong. It's put or shut time!


----------



## king eider

NAH ill wait for Jon to give me his explanation nice and slow of the law pertaining to the questions i asked.

from BCBS website about any current plan you purchase:


> However, it's important to note that if you choose one of our current plans, it will not renew on your annual renewal date as it usually would. Instead, a contract extension will be issued that will allow you to remain on the plan until 12/31/2014, after which time you will be automatically moved to the new, compliant Regence Individual Direct Bronze HSA plan.


but i dont know what im talking about....Sheeze....

pehaps a page out of Mojo1's book:
PROVE ME WRONG!!!! Mr Expert!!!!


----------



## massmanute

Mojo1 said:


> I don't know you from jack and I betting most of the other regulars don't either but we know him. You might be a stand up guy or you could be another brainwashed democrat
> 
> And for the record if all I did was work with insurance all day, I sure as hell wouldn't waste my free time looking up references for someone that claims to have the law on his computer. Seems to me if you had them to disprove his claims you would already slung them up for all to see.
> 
> Stop whining about the references or prove him wrong. It's put or shut time!


You say prove him wrong. Would you like me to quote the wording of all 121 references to the year 2015 given in the law and post them in this thread?


----------



## Mojo1

massmanute said:


> You say prove him wrong. Would you like me to quote the wording of all 121 references to the year 2015 given in the law and post them in this thread?


Knock your self out!!! Maybe we can set a record for the longest thread!!:mrgreen:


----------



## hamernhonkers

I have no desire to read the last few pages but here is the direct impact on me and my family as we just finished our open enrollment. 

My premiums rose 22% for 2014 and on top of that my family of five has to pay $8.04 per person a month to fund the ACA. (40 and change a month for my family)

This equates to over $2000 more this year I have to pay for insurance through my work. 

This takes away a lot from me and my family and is a huge loss in disposable income that I could be spending back into the economy which the government would tax and would help create jobs for fellow americans. 

Please explain to me how this benefits anyone paddler? Its just made life for me and my little family much more difficult. My wife may now have to go from being a home mom raising my kids to a working mom to help us survive.


----------



## massmanute

King eider. Now we are making a little progress. You quote something from the Blue Cross Blue Shield website:

"However, it's important to note that if you choose one of our current plans, it will not renew on your annual renewal date as it usually would. Instead, a contract extension will be issued that will allow you to remain on the plan until 12/31/2014, after which time you will be automatically moved to the new, compliant Regence Individual Direct Bronze HSA plan."

Would you mind posting the link, so I can read the quote in context. (The quote or key parts of the quote do not show up in my google search.)

The first thing to note is that this quote is not from a company, not the law. It from a company. It is just stating a company policy, a policy that may or may not be dictated by the law. The quote itself does not actually say whether the changes are dictated by the law or not.

The second thing to note is that it does not actually state the reason why you (or your client) will be moved into a new plan.

The quote does say that the new plan will be "compliant", presumably meaning compliant with the ACA law.

This quote does not actually state that the old plan failed compliance, but if we assume that it was not compliant then this could be a reason for moving you (or your client) into the new plan. We just can't tell from the quote itself.

If the old plan was not compliant, then what was the reason for lack of compliance? Did the old plan fail to meet the coverage minimums dictated by the law? If so, what standards did it fail to meet? (By the way, I am not asking you to answer all these questions. The questions somewhat are rhetorical, but actual answers would be illuminating if you have them.)

Taking on the question of grandfathering of plans, did the old plan fail to qualify for the grandfathering provisions in the law? If so then why did it fail to qualify? Was it because they made substantial changes to the plan? In some cases that would cause a plan to fail to qualify for grandfathering. Another is that, even though grandfathered plans do not need to meet all the provisions that new plans meet, there are still some minimum standards required in the law. Perhaps the old plan fails to meet even those relatively weak standards.

There is also the very real possibility that the company simply does not want to continue the old policy and will therefore be moving clients to a new policy. There is nothing in the quote that contradicts that possibility. The part of the quote that mentions "compliance" could be nothing more than an acknowledgment that the new plan is compliant. I think this scenario is somewhat less likely, but as mentioned, there is nothing in the quote that contradicts this scenario.

The most likely scenario is that the old plan simply failed the compliance test, so they are making a new plan and moving clients to the new plan.

The next question is this: Does the new plan cover everything covered by the old plan, plus whatever additional coverage is required by the ACA? If so, then clients are not losing any coverage, but only gaining, so what's the complaint? If there is a reduction in coverage then why did the company decide to reduce the coverage. (By the way, for sake of this discussion I include caps and deductibles under the term "coverage". I don't know if this terminology conforms to industry standards, but including it under "coverage" makes the discussion easier.)

The bottom line is that the law may or may not have dictated the changes mentioned in the quote, but if it did mandate the changes it was likely because the old plan did not meet the mandatory minimums required by the law.


----------



## massmanute

hamernhonkers said:


> I have no desire to read the last few pages but here is the direct impact on me and my family as we just finished our open enrollment.
> 
> My premiums rose 22% for 2014 and on top of that my family of five has to pay $8.04 per person a month to fund the ACA. (40 and change a month for my family)
> 
> This equates to over $2000 more this year I have to pay for insurance through my work.
> 
> This takes away a lot from me and my family and is a huge loss in disposable income that I could be spending back into the economy which the government would tax and would help create jobs for fellow americans.
> 
> Please explain to me how this benefits anyone paddler? Its just made life for me and my little family much more difficult. My wife may now have to go from being a home mom raising my kids to a working mom to help us survive.


My health insurance cost did not go up by a noticeable amount. Maybe my insurance company is better than yours. I don't know. My coverage is pretty good... certainly not the best in the world by pretty good.


----------



## massmanute

Mojo1 said:


> Knock your self out!!! Maybe we can set a record for the longest thread!!:mrgreen:


Let me take it a small bite at a time.

Here are the first five occurrences of "2015," given with at least a little context. Feel free for any of you to jump in when we come to the one that proves King eider's point, and we can look at that section in more detail.

Sec. 10203. Extension of funding for CHIP through fiscal year 2015 and 
other CHIP-related provisions ....................................................................

Sec. 10203. Extension of funding for CHIP through fiscal year 2015 and other CHIP-related provisions.

d remittance advice, respectively. 
''(B) HEALTH CLAIMS OR EQUIVALENT ENCOUNTER IN-
FORMATION, ENROLLMENT AND DISENROLLMENT IN A 
HEALTH PLAN, HEALTH PLAN PREMIUM PAYMENTS, HEALTH 
CLAIMS ATTACHMENTS, REFERRAL CERTIFICATION AND AU-
THORIZATION.-Not later than December 31, 2015, a health 
plan shall file a statement with the Secretary, in such 
form as the Secretary may require, certifying that the data 
and information systems for such plan are in compliance 
with any applicable standards and associated operating 
rules for health claims or equivalent encounter informa-
tion, enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan, health 
plan premium payments, health claims attachments, and 
referral certification and authorization, respectively. A 
health plan shall provide the same level of documentation 
to certify compliance with such transactions as is required 
to certify compliance with the transactions specified in 
subparagraph (A).

(B) 2015 AND LATER.-In the case of any plan year be-
ginning in a calendar year after 2014, the limitation under 
this paragraph shall-
(i) in the case of self-only coverage, be equal to the 
dollar amount under subparagraph (A) for self-only 
coverage for plan years beginning in 2014, increased 
by an amount equal to the product of that amount and 
the premium adjustment percentage under paragraph 
(4) for the calendar year; and ...

(B) LIMITATION.-No grant shall be awarded under 
this subsection after January 1, 2015.

It will take me a while to get through all 121 occurrences, maybe even a few weeks, because I also have other things I need to do, but I will do my best to move the process along.


----------



## Hoopermat

Would you all go to some political web site and quit this bull ****. Nobody wants to read this crap and if they did they would look some where that is not a hunting site.


----------



## massmanute

Hoopermat said:


> Would you all go to some political web site and quit this bull ****. Nobody wants to read this crap and if they did they would look some where that is not a hunting site.


Just don't read this thread. Problem solved.


----------



## massmanute

By the way, this whole business about "2015" got started when King eider claimed that he can't keep his insurance past 2014. He was unable to quote the law on that, but he did eventually (It was like pulling teeth) quote a passage from Blue Cross Blue Shield. However, that passage did not say that coverage was going to be dropped. It said that participants in certain plans would be automatically enrolled in a plan that is compliant with the law by a certain date. Therefore, he will have insurance in 2015 from the same company.


----------



## paddler

king eider said:


> NAH ill wait for Jon to give me his explanation nice and slow of the law pertaining to the questions i asked.
> 
> from BCBS website about any current plan you purchase:
> but i dont know what im talking about....Sheeze....
> 
> pehaps a page out of Mojo1's book:
> PROVE ME WRONG!!!! Mr Expert!!!!


So, you either don't understand what is going to happen or you're deliberately distorting it. Read: Lie. Looks to me your coverage will remain about the same. Read the link once again. Slowly. If you cannot understand what your insurance company is telling you about your own policy, you'd best change jobs, because you suck at your present one.


----------



## ajwildcat

Dammnit I thought this was a thread about Duck Hunting. Guess I'll go look elsewhere, also with the shutdown over i wouldn't think you would have to go around any gates any more.


----------



## Longgun

paddler213 said:


> you'd best change jobs, because you suck at your present one.












Paddler, the mirror wants you to take your last reflection back... In reference to you bedside manner vs reality.


----------



## dubob

I have read that arguing with a liberal is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. You make a great move and the pigeon just bounces its head, knocks over a few pieces, craps on the board, declares himself the winner, and flies away. Paddler fits the role of the pigeon to a "T". But carry on one and all; the comedy of it all is very uplifting at this point in our political history.-BaHa!-


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> , you'd best change jobs, because you suck at your present one.


thanks for the insult Jon. your a real classy guy.


----------



## paddler

hamernhonkers said:


> I have no desire to read the last few pages but here is the direct impact on me and my family as we just finished our open enrollment.
> 
> My premiums rose 22% for 2014 and on top of that my family of five has to pay $8.04 per person a month to fund the ACA. (40 and change a month for my family)
> 
> This equates to over $2000 more this year I have to pay for insurance through my work.
> 
> This takes away a lot from me and my family and is a huge loss in disposable income that I could be spending back into the economy which the government would tax and would help create jobs for fellow americans.
> 
> Please explain to me how this benefits anyone paddler? Its just made life for me and my little family much more difficult. My wife may now have to go from being a home mom raising my kids to a working mom to help us survive.


Here's the thing. Let's say your insurance went up an even $2000 for the year. Of that, about $480/year is due to the ACA. The balance, or $1500, represents 22% of your annual premiums. So, you're saying that you currently pay $568/month for insurance, or $6818/year. Next year, your insurance will cost $8818/year, of which $480, or roughly 5.4%, is due to the ACA. It's not the ACA that will force your wife back to work, but the other 95%.

Finally, there is the real probability that your insurance premiums will continue to increase, making the ACA surcharge a smaller proportion each year. My hope is that the ACA will reverse that trend. It's important in these discussions to be accurate and honest.


----------



## martymcfly73

king eider said:


> thanks for the insult Jon. your a real classy guy.


Paddler's gotta be a proctologist. I just wonder who removes his head from his own ass. Maybe he's just that good.


----------



## paddler

king eider said:


> thanks for the insult Jon. your a real classy guy.


Hey, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. It's clear that your statement was false, that you indeed will be able to continue with BCBS with very similar coverage into and beyond 2015. That means you either didn't understand the changes or your statement was a deliberate lie. Neither choice makes you look good.

Oh, and it's "you're", as in the contraction of "you are". "Your" is a possessive pronoun. You're welcome.


----------



## Hoopermat

Do you know what they call the med student that almost fails but just scrapes by with a D-





Doctor


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> Here's the thing. Let's say your insurance went up an even $2000 for the year. Of that, about $480/year is due to the ACA. The balance, or $1500, represents 22% of your annual premiums. So, you're saying that you currently pay $568/month for insurance, or $6818/year. Next year, your insurance will cost $8818/year, of which $480, or roughly 5.4%, is due to the ACA. It's not the ACA that will force your wife back to work, but the other 95%.
> 
> Finally, there is the real probability that your insurance premiums will continue to increase, making the ACA surcharge a smaller proportion each year. *My hope is that the ACA will reverse that trend*. It's important in these discussions to be accurate and honest.


There is far more that goes into the premiums then just that fee associated from the ACA. the law has a far more reaching effect than just the fee. The math doesnt add up Jon. when you open the doors to insurance with no underwriting it changes the game. it will make it far more costly! everyone's cost to participate will increase. then those paying more to cover the subsidy so those who can pay less cost us more. thats the truth! but you can take a crap in one hand and wish in the other. then tell me which one gets filled first. the ACA will not reverse the trend. in all the models i have seen it doesnt happen!!!! the goal of the ACA is to bring about single payor. I have heard that from the lips of a few CEO's of very large insurance companies. ohh there i go again i must be lying!!!!


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> Hey, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. It's clear that your statement was false, that you indeed will be able to continue with BCBS with very similar coverage into and beyond 2015. That means you either didn't understand the changes or your statement was a deliberate lie. Neither choice makes you look good.
> 
> Oh, and it's "you're", as in the contraction of "you are". "Your" is a possessive pronoun. You're welcome.


my current policy isnt with blue cross Jon!

my point is you may not be able to continue the plan that you NOW have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you will be converted/forced into the exchange!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THATS how it works! they need as many people into the exchange to even give it a change of working. its called "adverse selection"!!

So when Obama came out and said if you have insurance and you like your plan you can keep it. THAT is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is not the case with many health insurance plans.


----------



## Longgun

paddler213 said:


> Here's the thing. Let's say your insurance went up an even $2000 for the year. Of that, about $480/year is due to the ACA. The balance, or $1500, represents 22% of your annual premiums. So, you're saying that you currently pay $568/month for insurance, or $6818/year. Next year, your insurance will cost $8818/year, of which $480, or roughly 5.4%, is due to the ACA. It's not the ACA that will force your wife back to work, but the other 95%.
> 
> Finally, there is the real probability that your insurance premiums will continue to increase, making the ACA surcharge a smaller proportion each year. My hope is that the ACA will reverse that trend. It's important in these discussions to be accurate and honest.


dr,

imsurehesthrilledaboutthecompoundingpremiumsdraggingherbacktoworkandawayfromtheirchildernthuscostingmoreforchildcarefortehsakeofbeingfiscalofthat95%justwhatexactlydoesitentail?


----------



## paddler

king eider said:


> my current policy isnt with blue cross Jon!
> 
> my point is you may not be able to continue the plan that you NOW have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you will be converted/forced into the exchange!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THATS how it works! they need as many people into the exchange to even give it a change of working. its called "adverse selection"!!


So, you're saying I won't be able to continue with Select Health? Please explain, as that's not my understanding. Sure glad you're not my agent.

If you disallow insurance companies being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, the individual mandate is necessary. Remember that ACA is patterned after "Romneycare", which seems to be working very well in Massachusetts.

You remember Massachusetts, that's Romney's home state, which he lost in the election. Of course, Paul Ryan lost his home state of Wisconsin, too. Telling when the people who know you best can't stand you.


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> So, you're saying I won't be able to continue with Select Health? Please explain, as that's not my understanding. Sure glad you're not my agent.
> 
> If you disallow insurance companies being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, the individual mandate is necessary. Remember that ACA is patterned after "Romneycare", which seems to be working very well in Massachusetts.
> 
> You remember Massachusetts, that's Romney's home state, which he lost in the election. Of course, Paul Ryan lost his home state of Wisconsin, too. Telling when the people who know you best can't stand you.


I don't care about Romney or what the ACA is patterned after. Leave the politics out of this.

Some plans will continue. Most large group plans wont be affected as to being converted into the exchange Read the grandfather section of the law. another insult again Jon. You just can't resist can ya! Loser...


----------



## hamernhonkers

paddler213 said:


> Here's the thing. Let's say your insurance went up an even $2000 for the year. Of that, about $480/year is due to the ACA. The balance, or $1500, represents 22% of your annual premiums. So, you're saying that you currently pay $568/month for insurance, or $6818/year. Next year, your insurance will cost $8818/year, of which $480, or roughly 5.4%, is due to the ACA. It's not the ACA that will force your wife back to work, but the other 95%.
> 
> Finally, there is the real probability that your insurance premiums will continue to increase, making the ACA surcharge a smaller proportion each year. My hope is that the ACA will reverse that trend. It's important in these discussions to be accurate and honest.


Paddler the problem is we have been averaging a 5 - 8 % increase the last 10 years. Why the huge jump this year?

What changes in 2014 that is so different then the prior 10 years?


----------



## paddler

king eider said:


> I don't care about Romney or what the ACA is patterned after. Leave the politics out of this.
> 
> Some plans will continue. Most large group plans wont be affected as to being converted into the exchange Read the grandfather section of the law. another insult again Jon. You just can't resist can ya! Loser...


Please be accurate, you otherwise open yourself to criticism.

I checked with my plan. My premiums for the Select Care Plus plan in 2014 will be $101 every two weeks, which includes dental. There is no increase attributable to the ACA.

Your assertions are incorrect. Are you lying or just misinformed? Remind me again what you do for a living?


----------



## Longgun

paddler213 said:


> Here's the thing. Let's say your insurance went up an even $2000 for the year. Of that, about $480/year is due to the ACA. The balance, or $1500, represents 22% of your annual premiums. So, you're saying that you currently pay $568/month for insurance, or $6818/year. Next year, your insurance will cost $8818/year, of which $480, or roughly 5.4%, is due to the ACA. It's not the ACA that will force your wife back to work, but the other 95%.
> 
> Finally, there is the real *probability that your insurance premiums will continue to increase*, making the ACA surcharge a smaller proportion each year. My hope is that the ACA will reverse that trend. It's important in these discussions to be accurate and honest.


there's that hope word again...

Actually Jon, you're right about the compounding premiums, akin to progressive taxes. A key component of conversion to a Socialist economy stressed by Marx (chapter two, Communist Manifesto) and reinforced by Alinski (Obama's prototype) is "Progressive income taxes." Obama pretends to have a Melville-like obsession with raising taxes on "the rich" even though the top 1 percent of earners already pays 39 percent of the total income tax. However, relative to the wealth possessed by the Middle Class the rich are not even a drop in the bucket. Obama's true goal is to move wealth away from the Middle Class. Obamacare constitutes a multi-trillion dollar tax on the Middle Class.

thank you chief justice roberts.


----------



## paddler

hamernhonkers said:


> Paddler the problem is we have been averaging a 5 - 8 % increase the last 10 years. Why the huge jump this year?
> 
> What changes in 2014 that is so different then the prior 10 years?


I can't speak to your plan, I suggest you ask your insurer. Give them a call and let us know what they say. Because of ACA, however, any amount over 15% not spent directly on paitent care must be refunded. The idea is to keep administrative costs reasonable.

When I was in med school, 1978-82, we spent 7% of our GDP on healthcare. We now spend ~17%, and are headed for 20%. That's crazy, and the ACA will hopefully reduce that amount. Doing nothing, or as the Republicans refer to it, "Repeal and Replace" without ever saying what they would replace the ACA with, isn't a great option.


----------



## Longgun

Source, Forbes. lets hope they're wrong.


----------



## stuckduck

paddler213 said:


> Please be accurate, you otherwise open yourself to criticism.
> 
> I checked with my plan. My premiums for the Select Care Plus plan in 2014 will be $101 every two weeks, which includes dental. There is no increase attributable to the ACA.
> 
> Your assertions are incorrect. Are you lying or just misinformed? Remind me again what you do for a living?


Boy Jon you read right through that and didn't see it.... 


> Originally Posted by *king eider*
> _Some plans will continue. Most large group plans wont be affected as to being converted into the exchange Read the grandfather section of the law._


Your in a large group... as for me in my house hold I am not... my plan is not grandfathered in so That means I'm headed to the exchange... and not a whole lot is offered (bronze plan). Not good for me and my house hold as the cost is jumping drastically. I'm not loosing my insurance... My coverage is changing. changing by law there are winners and losers. Once the dust settles we will find out who that is. Its funny how you can be so critical of others but you wont even plug the holes in your own boat.....


----------



## stuckduck

Longgun said:


> Source, Forbes. lets hope they're wrong.


There is that word HOPE again.....


----------



## Dunkem

I retired early (62) and have been working part time until medicare kicks in. the company I work for just announced that there would be no more part time insurance benefits starting 2014,and suggested I look at Obama Care.Should be interesting-O,-


----------



## DallanC

I just lost my doctor I've had for +30 years, he is going private and wont take anyone with my newly adjusted insurance or obamacare insurance.

Barak is the worst president in the history of america... its mindblowing people still cheer what he has done.


-DallanC


----------



## Longgun

king eider said:


> I don't care about Romney or what the ACA is patterned after. Leave the politics out of this.
> 
> Some plans will continue. Most large group plans wont be affected as to being converted into the exchange Read the grandfather section of the law. another insult again Jon. You just can't resist can ya! Loser...


Quoted from an 
Independent Ägent, ACA Certified Broker response to questions such as your's KE:

*The problem with Obama's promise that you could "keep your current plan if you like it", is that many insurance companies are being forced to DISCONTINUE those plans, due to Obamacare. *

*SO, IF your plan doesn't get discontinued, you can keep it. It may or may not be compliant with the new regulations - that means, if you keep your current plan, if you CAN keep it, you might STILL have to pay the fine. *

*...........*

"Please be accurate, you otherwise open yourself to criticism."

Jon, if a certified broker doesnt even know if folks can keep their current plan how in the world can any of us?


----------



## Longgun

DallanC said:


> I just lost my doctor I've had for +30 years, he is going private and wont take anyone with my newly adjusted insurance or obamacare insurance.
> 
> Barak is the worst president in the history of america... its mindblowing people still cheer what he has done.
> 
> -DallanC


At my last appointment, my Dr of 25+ informed me he will be calling it quits come this December. Now i know why...


----------



## paddler

Longgun said:


> At my last appointment, my Dr of 25+ informed me he will be calling it quits come this December. Now i know why...


Did he say he was retiring? We all do that eventually. Did he say he's quitting and going into a different field because of the ACA? I'm not, and nobody I know is.


----------



## hamernhonkers

Dunkem said:


> I retired early (62) and have been working part time until medicare kicks in. the company I work for just announced that there would be no more part time insurance benefits starting 2014,and suggested I look at Obama Care.Should be interesting-O,-


The company I work for has around 10,000 employees with about half of those or a little more part time. We were told by our HR during our open enrolment that due to the ACA they will not be able to afford offering those team members insurance this year.

Looks like this is hitting a lot of people hard


----------



## hamernhonkers

paddler213 said:


> I can't speak to your plan, I suggest you ask your insurer. Give them a call and let us know what they say. Because of ACA, however, any amount over 15% not spent directly on paitent care must be refunded. The idea is to keep administrative costs reasonable.
> 
> When I was in med school, 1978-82, we spent 7% of our GDP on healthcare. We now spend ~17%, and are headed for 20%. That's crazy, and the ACA will hopefully reduce that amount. Doing nothing, or as the Republicans refer to it, "Repeal and Replace" without ever saying what they would replace the ACA with, isn't a great option.


When I asked I was told the additional increase was a direct result of the ACA.


----------



## Dunkem

hamernhonkers said:


> The company I work for has around 10,000 employees with about half of those or a little more part time. We were told by our HR during our open enrolment that due to the ACA they will not be able to afford offering those team members insurance this year.
> 
> Looks like this is hitting a lot of people hard


I was told the same from my company.My wife is currantly uninsurable,so Omama;-) Care will cover her,but at what cost? Through my company I was paying 700.00 a month for the 2 of us.I was working part time for the insurance,looks like now I will be working for the cost,looking at the plans I may be working a bit longer than I wanted.There goes the golden years,they just turned into a golden shower:doh:


----------



## paddler

hamernhonkers said:


> When I asked I was told the additional increase was a direct result of the ACA.


What I can't figure is why your out of pocket cost is almost $9000, while mine is $2400. My kids are grown, but your cost still sounds high. What company is your insurance through?


----------



## ajwildcat

So how is everyone's waterfowl season going so far? No ****? mine too...:mrgreen:


----------



## hamernhonkers

All of our plans are through IHC. My premiums are going form 196 bi-weekly to 255 bi-weekly with the ACA premium on top of that at 37 and change a month for my family of 5 insured with 26 pay weeks this next year. So we are up over 2 grand this year in increased cost for my family for our insurance. 

Not a good deal for us


----------



## Fowlmouth

hamernhonkers said:


> All of our plans are through IHC. My premiums are going form 196 bi-weekly to 255 bi-weekly with the ACA premium on top of that at 37 and change a month for my family of 5 insured with 26 pay weeks this next year. So we are up over 2 grand this year in increased cost for my family for our insurance.
> 
> Not a good deal for us


2 grand.....that's another Citori :shock:


----------



## Longgun

paddler213 said:


> Did he say he was retiring? We all do that eventually. Did he say he's quitting and going into a different field because of the ACA? I'm not, and nobody I know is.


he did say retiring, but if i know him like i think i know him, my thoughts of his timing of it all is spot on. Ill either have to take him fishing again and get him into some more +plus+ sized cutty's, or ask his nurse to get an honest answer...


----------



## Longgun

Fowlmouth said:


> 2 grand.....that's another Citori :shock:


listen, you're attempt at making this an easier pill to choke on isnt _quite_ working... ;-) 

im thinking with that down $2,000 ... it's 25 tanks of fuel that i could have been doing other things on...

lets see...

less spoiling the grand kid, kids (burning fuel through the wheelers just because i like hearing him/them giggle just because)
less date night with the wife
less camping
less bowfishing
... yup, so much for that quick trip to Jackson Hole for the weekend with the wife...

less this
less that...

... just so i can help insure some jobless burn-out-dink with three arterial stents after a life of fastfood and munchies, that still cant make better decisions about what they're going to have for lunch... effing great!


----------



## Longgun

here's a link to some promising looking info about obamacare, IF its factual.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm


----------



## paddler

hamernhonkers said:


> All of our plans are through IHC. My premiums are going form 196 bi-weekly to 255 bi-weekly with the ACA premium on top of that at 37 and change a month for my family of 5 insured with 26 pay weeks this next year. So we are up over 2 grand this year in increased cost for my family for our insurance.
> 
> Not a good deal for us


Let's see. Your biweekly cost is going up $96, so your annual cost will go up $1152, not $2000. I don't know why your premiums are going up and you have the ACA surcharge. Have you talked to Select Health? Are they charging you for the ACA, or is your employer tacking it on?



Longgun said:


> here's a link to some promising looking info about obamacare, IF its factual.
> 
> http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm


As I have said, it's a good law. We need to control healthcare costs, and this will help. That's a far cry form being the economy-wrecking, job-destroying disaster the Republicans have said it is. It's certainly not worth shutting down the government and defaulting on the full faith and credit of our country. Cruz said their fool's errand was a profile in courage. He's a sociopath.


----------



## hamernhonkers

Paddler check your math and mine. 255-196=59*26 checks = 1534 for my premium the 40 * 12 = 480 for the ACA part puts my total at $2014 in increased cost for insurance this next year.


----------



## massmanute

Tea party started a gunfight without checking to see if their guns were loaded. Not too smart.


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> my current policy isnt with blue cross Jon!
> 
> my point is you may not be able to continue the plan that you NOW have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you will be converted/forced into the exchange!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THATS how it works! they need as many people into the exchange to even give it a change of working. its called "adverse selection"!!
> 
> So when Obama came out and said if you have insurance and you like your plan you can keep it. THAT is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is not the case with many health insurance plans.


You're talking in circles King eider. First you say that according to the law your insurance wouldn't continue into 2015. (From the grammar of the sentence you were referring to yourself.) When pressed for justification you eventually quoted a passage, not from the law but from a Blue Cross Blue Shield website. Then when pressed on the fact that the Blue Cross Blue Shield statement did not say that your insurance would be terminated you say your insurance is not Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Maybe it would clear things up if you will share with us the announcement from Your insurance company explaining the termination of your insurance service at the end of 2014 and their justification for it.


----------



## ajwildcat

Can the Mod's move this topic to NON-Waterfowling?-O,-


----------



## king eider

massmanute said:


> You're talking in circles King eider. First you say that according to the law your insurance wouldn't continue into 2015. (From the grammar of the sentence you were referring to yourself.) When pressed for justification you eventually quoted a passage, not from the law but from a Blue Cross Blue Shield website. Then when pressed on the fact that the Blue Cross Blue Shield statement did not say that your insurance would be terminated you say your insurance is not Blue Cross Blue Shield.
> 
> Maybe it would clear things up if you will share with us the announcement from Your insurance company explaining the termination of your insurance service at the end of 2014 and their justification for it.


I know it's hard for you to keep up. The blue cross quote was an example to illustrate how the government is forcing people into the exchange. I dont have the time to dig up the wording for the actions that are happening inside the law. Nor do I care to put the time in to satisfy some guy who thinks I'm a liar. Do yourself a favor (because i dont care what you think) and call your insurance carrier. You will see I tell no lie! Health insurance is my profession. And I'm pretty good and successful at it.


----------



## king eider

hamernhonkers said:


> Paddler check your math and mine. 255-196=59*26 checks = 1534 for my premium the 40 * 12 = 480 for the ACA part puts my total at $2014 in increased cost for insurance this next year.


Ok hamer let's do some more math.
I have a houshold of 5.
I have a HDHP. Monthly premium is $332/month. $6000 deductible with 100% benefit after deductible. $12000 family deductible.
332*12=$3,984. I do contribute into an HSA account at the end of every year. That amount varies so we won't add it in. Some years is the max other years it's not. Now here is what happens when I will be required to go to the exchange as my plan will not continue.
My premium for the bronze plan (lowest plan available) will be $740/month.
$740*12=$8,880. That is a $5000 deductible with a $10000 family. 70/30 coinsurance split until the stop loss is reached. Ya tell me how excited I am about this! They call this the AFFORDABLE care act. But I'll let our two liberal Obama lovers tell you that I am lying!

You two wing nuts need a lesson in how health insurance works. You cant have a program (private or government run) that is full of unhealthy people. You have to have the healthy people in it to offset the cost of those individuals who claim. If a marketplace is created you need the law of large numbers to carry it. Hence why people are being strong armed into it. With no ability for an insurance carrier to determine the heath status of the block of business they are covering the claim loss ratio is literally in the air. It's now up to a statistical guess as to what the costs will be in two, three years. Then add to the fact that lower income earners are getting a subsidy. The subsidy is carried by higher income earners. They pay more so the dollars are shifted as a subsidy to the lower income earners. With a handful of other taxes and regulations welcome to the ACA.


----------



## paddler

hamernhonkers said:


> Paddler check your math and mine. 255-196=59*26 checks = 1534 for my premium the 40 * 12 = 480 for the ACA part puts my total at $2014 in increased cost for insurance this next year.


You're correct. I was calculating your premium as an increase of $59/month, which accounts for the difference. The question remains why you're being charged a surcharge for the ACA and I'm not. I don't know if my premiums have gone up for 2014 vs 2013, but that's not an issue.

The other question is why your premiums are $255 biweekly vs $101 for me, but that's probably because of your kids. The ACA surcharge is 6.75% of your total, which isn't something that should force your wife back to work. It's the first $6700 that will do that.


----------



## king eider

paddler213 said:


> The other question is why your premiums are $255 biweekly vs $101 for me, but that's probably because of your kids. The ACA surcharge is 6.75% of your total, which isn't something that should force your wife back to work. It's the first $6700 that will do that.


premium difference is probably because of two main reason. # of individuals on the policy and what % the employer pays of the premium.


----------



## massmanute

Mojo1 said:


> If its a scam then its being perpetrated by the government, it's their contract.


The problem could be either with the government (since it is their plan), or it could be with your plan administrator. I believe the plan administrators under Tricare are private insurance companies.

If things are bad enough you might consider taking the issue up with your Congressman. Some congressmen are responsive to help solve the problems of individual voters in their district.


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> ... Health insurance is my profession. And I'm pretty good and successful at it.



I accept your claim that you are a successful insurance salesman, or whatever it is that you do in the insurance business. You are probably a good family man as well, and a boon companion on the hunting field. However, none of that qualifies you as an expert on the law, and you have offered not a shred of evidence that you know the law when it comes to your comment about being moved off insurance at the end of 2014.

In post #150 you made a very specific claim that you will lose your insurance at the end of 2014:

"I can't keep my insurance past 2014".

In that same post #150 you also made a specific claim implying that you know the law regarding this issue:

"Everything I posted is factual and part of the LAW!!!!"

You also reinforced your claim of expertise on the law in later posts.

When challenged on what the law says you then admitted in post #155 that you don't actually know the law very well:

"I have no freaking clue what chapter, verse, section, title it is."

Then you come back in post #170 claiming training in the law:

"Come to all my training classes and learn the law!!!!!!"

While in the same post denying specific knowledge of the law:

"I have no clue is the 20 thousand pages of law and explanation/interpretation where it is."

(As side note, in all that extensive training on the law you claim to have received, you might be expected to have kept some syllabus notes from that training that bear on the topic under consideration, so even if you can't quote chapter and verse of the law itself you should at least have been able to give us a second or third hand expert opinion taken from your syllabus notes or from training literature from your company. However, that thought seems never to have crossed your mind.)

When pressed further you provide a quote from BCBS, which we find out later has nothing to do with your case because BCBS isn't even your insurance company. Furthermore, the BCBS quote doesn't even support your original contention, which is that you are losing your insurance at the end of 2014. The BCBS quote talks about automatic CONTINUATION of coverage under a compliant plan rather than termination.

Later, in post #210, you admit that you didn't actually mean a termination of coverage, but rather some kind of ill-defined non-continuation of current coverage of other people's insurance (not your own insurance plan, which was what you originally started discussing), together with a claim that the insured will be forced into the exchange:


"my point is you may not be able to continue the plan that you NOW have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you will be converted/forced into the exchange!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


This is despite the fact that that the only support you have given for your opinion was the BCBS quote, and BCBS said NOTHING about forcing people into the exchange.


Your entire discussion on this topic has consisted of nothing but unsupported assertions, misleading statements, and retractions of previous statements. Therefore, while you may be a very successful insurance salesman, there is absolutely no evidence that you are familiar with the law on this particular matter and ample evidence that you actually know very little about the law on this particular matter. You are simply winging it, all the while claiming expertise not actually evident in your posts. Anyone who would take advice on the law from an expert of this sort is a fool.


----------



## hamernhonkers

paddler213 said:


> You're correct. I was calculating your premium as an increase of $59/month, which accounts for the difference. The question remains why you're being charged a surcharge for the ACA and I'm not. I don't know if my premiums have gone up for 2014 vs 2013, but that's not an issue.
> 
> The other question is why your premiums are $255 biweekly vs $101 for me, but that's probably because of your kids. The ACA surcharge is 6.75% of your total, which isn't something that should force your wife back to work. It's the first $6700 that will do that.


The break down we were given represents the cost of the ACA per insured person. It shows the dollar figure bi weekly for 1 through 8 insured people. We were told this is charged specifically for the ACA to cover the cost of reinsurance of new people going onto insurance through the ACA tax.

Why you do not see it with your plan IDK.

Ours specifically shows our premiums based on the typical set of parameters which is employee only, employee and spouse only, employee and kids only and employee and family. Those are shown with our set premiums depending on who is insured and then on top of those we pay $8.04 per insured person a month for the ACA.

As far as costs my plan is for a 750/1500 deductible with 80/20 after deductible and OVBD. I may go to the HSA that is 2000/4000 with 100% coverage after deductible which has a lower premium but if we ended up having to pay the full deductible we would only come out 200 ahead.

I still have a couple of weeks to decide but no matter what I do I will be paying far more this year then I ever have before. It really has not made insurance any cheaper for me or my life any better:sad:


----------



## paddler

hamernhonkers said:


> The break down we were given represents the cost of the ACA per insured person. It shows the dollar figure bi weekly for 1 through 8 insured people. We were told this is charged specifically for the ACA to cover the cost of reinsurance of new people going onto insurance through the ACA tax.
> 
> Why you do not see it with your plan IDK.
> 
> Ours specifically shows our premiums based on the typical set of parameters which is employee only, employee and spouse only, employee and kids only and employee and family. Those are shown with our set premiums depending on who is insured and then on top of those we pay $8.04 per insured person a month for the ACA.
> 
> As far as costs my plan is for a 750/1500 deductible with 80/20 after deductible and OVBD. I may go to the HSA that is 2000/4000 with 100% coverage after deductible which has a lower premium but if we ended up having to pay the full deductible we would only come out 200 ahead.
> 
> I still have a couple of weeks to decide but no matter what I do I will be paying far more this year then I ever have before. It really has not made insurance any cheaper for me or my life any better:sad:


I still wonder if your employer is tacking that on or not. Intermountain isn't doing that, which implies that your employer is adding it on. Regardless, the cost attributed to the ACA is a small part of your total premiums. To put it in perspective, a cell phone data plan for my wife and I would cost $70/month, or $840/year. Most people don't think twice about that. Guess whether or not I have a data plan.


----------



## paddler

*What Have We Learned?*

Let's review what we have learned from this shutdown:

1) The ACA is the law of the land. It was passed by Congress, signed by President Obama, challenged in the courts and upheld by SCOTUS, then ratified by voters in the 2012 election. It will not be defunded, delayed, or picked apart.

2) The shutdown has been estimated to have drained $24 billion out of our economy. 800,000 government workers were furloughed, and private sector folks whose livelihoods depend on the government suffered pointlessly. We will recover, but nobody knows how long it will take or if some lives were changed permanently.

3) The shutdown was perpetrated solely by Republicans, the party of growth and business. Ironic.

4) The perpetrators of this fraud owe the above workers and America an apoplogy. They remain defiant, and Cruz went so far as to call this political charade "profiles in courage". _"Profiles in Courage" _is the title of a book by John F. Kennedy discussing courageous politicians of their day. If, after reading it, you find any similarities to Cruz, Lee, et al, let us know.

4) If our Congressional delegation had their way, the government and the Refuge would still be closed. Every one except Hatch and Matheson voted against the agreement. Actually, if the House Republicans had their way, the government would be shut down and we would have defaulted on our debt.

5) Matheson is a slimey politician and an embarrassment to Democrats. He voted for the shutdown, and also voted to change the House rules to prevent any member from bringing up the Senate resolution for a vote.

6) Moderate Republicans are cowards. They were cowed by the Tea Party into shutting down the government. The votes were in the House to prevent a shutdown, but they caved in to the radical minority. There were 198 Democratic votes to keep the government open, only 20 or so moderate Republicans had to step up. Hence, a vote for even a moderate Republican is a vote for the Tea Party.

7) Republicans sufferred because of the shutdown. Their poll numbers are at a historic low, as is the Tea Party's. Meanwhile, the ACA appoval has increased significantly.

9)The Tea Party is in no way a grass roots organization. It's funded by the Koch brothers and other billionaires, who fund Heritage Action, Club For Growth, etc. They're not interested in rank and file Tea Partiers except as pawns to further their cause of avoiding taxes and manipulating our government.

10) President Obama is our legitimate President. He really was born in Hawaii, not Kenya, and he really went to Harvard Law, and really was Edititor of the Law Review, and he really was elected by not just a majority of the Electoral College, but in the popular vote. Twice. And he really has ramped up our drone program, and Osama bin Ladin really is dead on his orders. And he really is a brilliant guy. He saw the outcome of this fiasco from the outset, and gave the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves. And, if they attempt to extort us again, he really will crush them decisively. Again.

It's highly probable that many of you will vote Republican in future elections, due to the delusional belief that the gubmint is coming for your guns. You will continue to vote for the party that closed the refuge, wants to gut the EPA and have negative impacts on the water we drink, the air we breathe and the wild places and things we cherish. Thank you and good luck.


----------



## king eider

> Your entire discussion on this topic has consisted of nothing but unsupported assertions, misleading statements, and retractions of previous statements. Therefore, while you may be a very successful insurance salesman, there is absolutely no evidence that you are familiar with the law on this particular matter and ample evidence that you actually know very little about the law on this particular matter. You are simply winging it, all the while claiming expertise not actually evident in your posts. Anyone who would take advice on the law from an expert of this sort is a fool.


look bud I didn't take the time to read all the jargon you typed in your last post. Somehow you have set yourself on this mission to have me pull the text from the law. I never professed to be an expert on it. However I do know how the law is affecting the products that I help people with. I don't come to this hunting forum to satisfy the desires of an Internet forum policeman. we can have the discussion and that's fine. But to articulately describe a very dynamic changing environment in regards to health insurance isn't worth my time. You are tajing what I have said on a few thing different than how I have wxplained them. Perhaps that's my fault. Go ahead and think what you want. I have a pretty good idea of what this law is doing to the insurance market. Far better than you do. But that isn't good enough for you! I casing have the desire nor the time to bother with you and your requests. I'll have the conversation and the discussion. But I'm not interested in the dissection of the law and it's legal interpritation. If you want to know how it's affecting the market place with its do's and donts and what you can and can't do then fine. If you think I'm in off my rocker fine. I don't care what you think. I know my profession pretty well and try to assist others with it. The ACA is going to be an interesting animal here in the next few years. The administration sure screwed up the crown jewel with the debacle the exchange is in. See ya later I'm headed hunting....


----------



## Donttreadonme

I am just here to thank you all for a very entertaining thread. I don't care which side of the isle you are on politically, this is pure entertainment.


----------



## massmanute

king eider said:


> ...See ya later I'm headed hunting....


Good luck with your hunt King eider.


----------



## Afishnado

Donttreadonme said:


> I am just here to thank you all for a very entertaining thread. I don't care which side of the isle you are on politically, this is pure entertainment.


Heck yes it's been entertaining. Stupid trying to explain stupid, can't get better than that.


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> Let's review what we have learned from this shutdown:


We once again have proven that no one makes a ladder tall enough to escape the depth of John's BS!!!

-BaHa!- -BaHa!-


----------



## martymcfly73

Mojo1 said:


> We once again have proven that no one makes a ladder tall enough to escape the depth of John's BS!!!
> 
> -BaHa!- -BaHa!-


I can't believe no one got banned. The elk threads got a few people banned. I guess it shows the hypocrisy of the site.


----------



## Afishnado

I think this interview with John Wayne pretty much sums up this whole thread:


----------



## king eider

Afishnado said:


> I think this interview with John Wayne pretty much sums up this whole thread:


Nobody can say it better than the duke! Thanks for posting that Afish!

And with that this thread is in the books!!!


----------

