Responses to this post...

1. ALAN,

   What? No mention of the CBO report that indicates the current public option proposal would cause an INCREASE in insurance premiums nation-wide?

   No mention of the WH pulling the latest stimulus “jobs created or saved” numbers outta their arses?

   No mention of the cost – per car – of the cash-for-clunkers program?

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 1:56 am

   JaredfromTexas: “What? No mention of the CBO report that indicates the current public option proposal would cause an INCREASE in insurance premiums nation-wide?”

   Jared, do you mean THIS:

   Preliminary Analysis of the Affordable Health Care for America Act As Introduced in the House of Representatives on October 29

   “CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have just issued a preliminary analysis of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, as introduced on October 29, 2009. Among other things, H.R. 3962 would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an income tax surcharge on high-income individuals; and make various other changes to the federal tax code, Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs.

   “According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

   “The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion to their total cost.

   “Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion over that period.

   “By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 36 million, leaving about 18 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under H.R. 3962, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 96 percent. Roughly 21 million people would purchase their own coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and there would be roughly 15 million more enrollees in Medicaid than the total number projected for Medicaid and CHIP combined under current law. (Under the bill, CHIP would no longer exist in 2019.) Relative to currently projected levels, the number of people purchasing individual coverage outside of the exchanges would decrease by about 6 million, and the number obtaining coverage through employers would increase by about 6 million.

   “Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10 year budget projection period (2010 through 2019 currently), many Members have requested CBO analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. However, a detailed year-by-year projection, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great. Among other factors, a wide range of changes could occur—in people’s health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care (such as advances in medical research, technological developments, and changes in physicians’ practice patterns)—that are likely to be significant but are very difficult to predict, both under current law and under any proposal.

   “All told, H.R. 3962 would reduce the federal deficit by $9 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate. After that, the added revenues and cost savings are projected to grow slightly more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansions. In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansions would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater. Consequently, CBO expects that the legislation would slightly reduce federal budget deficits in that decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP. The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10 year budget estimates, and the effects of the bill could fall outside of that range.

   “Those longer-term projections assume that the provisions of H.R. 3962 are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the ’sustainable growth rate’ mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress. The bill would put into effect (or leave in effect) a number of procedures that might be difficult to maintain over a long period of time. It would leave in place the 21 percent reduction in the payment rates for physicians currently scheduled for 2010. At the same time, the bill includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care). Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades, despite a growing number of Medicare beneficiaries as the baby-boom generation retires. Based on the same extrapolation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the bill would increase by roughly 4 percent per year, on average, during the next two decades—compared with a 7 percent average growth rate (excluding the effect of establishing Part D) during the past two decades.”

   http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=403

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 6:11 am

   JaredfromTexas: “the current public option proposal would cause an INCREASE in insurance premiums nation-wide”

   Jared, the CBO report states that “HR 3962 would…set up insurance ‘exchanges’ through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid..”

   However, the CBO report states that Hr 3962 WOULD have “..an income tax surcharge on high-income individuals..”, and such individuals with high incomes could be found throughout the nation, no doubt. But, that DOESN’T MEAN that most everbody will see a rise in their premiums, which is what you apparently want us to think. BTW, Jared, it is under the present system that people see a continuing rise in their premiums. Have you forgotten that?

   G’Night, Jared
   LibpatriotfromArizona

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 8:33 pm

   LIB,

   it is under the present system that people see a continuing rise in their premiums

   No, I haven’t forgotten that at all. Have YOU forgotten this whole health care overhaul’s inception was based entirely on keeping costs down? No such luck with that one…and yet you libs keep pushing for it. Report after report from the CBO indicates the current proposals would ADD to the deficit…and that’s only in the first 10 years! Nevermind the tax increases necessary to fund this whole thing…did you forget about that? How many rich people do you think there are in the US, LIB?

   The CBO issued a report regarding the Baucus bill that states this bill would increase premiums.

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 9:37 pm

   JfT: “Have YOU forgotten this whole health care overhaul’s inception was based entirely on KEEPING COSTS DOWN? No such luck with that one…”
   [emphasis mine]

   Jared, the CBO report on the house bill that I posted above along with the link, contained these passages:

   “According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period.”

   “Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion over that period.”

   ” Among other factors, a wide range of changes could occur—in people’s health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care (such as advances in medical research, technological developments, and changes in physicians’ practice patterns)—that are likely to be significant but are very difficult to predict, both under current law and under any proposal.”
   [But they'd be likely to cut costs further, now wouldn't they, Jared?]

   “All told, H.R. 3962 would reduce the federal deficit by $9 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate. After that, the added revenues and cost savings are projected to grow slightly more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansions. In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansions would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater.”

   “It would leave in place the 21 percent reduction in the payment rates for physicians currently scheduled for 2010. At the same time, the bill includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care).”

   And all of those things, Jared, will keep costs down, contrary to your implication in your first question in the post immediately above this one. How could you have missed THOSE parts of the CBO report? Your reading comprehension skills aren’t really very high, are they? Sorry, Jared, but this website doesn’t allow us to explain things to you in big pretty pictures with easily-followed diagrams in bright entertaining colors so your mind can focus on the information being communicated to you. You are instead required to discipline yourself to read carefully and thoroughly the information that is given to you in a posted reply.

   JfT: “Report after report from the CBO indicates the current proposals would ADD to the deficit…”
   THIS one didn’t, Jared!

   JfT: “How many rich people do you think there are in the US, LIB?”
   Only elitist conservatives feel such pity for the wealthiest, most priveledged Americans that they cry about them having to pay more taxes, when the wealthiest have every other advantage in society. And, with people getting more preventative care, it avoids a lot of more expensive treatments that would occur later on if the preventative medicine were not applied, leaving a stronger, healthier workforce that can continue to work for more years and thus pay more in taxes to the Treasury, further reducing the deficit. Logical, isn’t it?

   “The CBO issued a report regarding the Baucus bill that states this bill would increase premiums.”
   Then please, Jared, kindly provide the link to that, and I’ll analyze it tomorrow, and work on a reply to it after that. I’ve got a party to go to soon, so I’m going to reply to your post below, and I’m out of here for the night.
   HAVE YOURSELF A HAPPY HALLOWEEN, JfT!

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   Lib,

   net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period

   That’s funny because this bill…whatever it ends up being…isn’t scheduled to start until 2013. Oh, and what happens AFTER 2019?

   receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions

   What’s the cut-off for “high-income”? And what are these “other provisions”?

   But they’d be likely to cut costs further

   Nowhere in this statement was there implication of cost savings. All I saw was “changes would occur” in R&D, etc…and that these “changes” would be “difficult to predict”. How were you able to get cost savings out of that???

   In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansions would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater

   Ah…here’s the AFTER 2019 statement…a big bunch of speculation is all. And of course, entirely dependent on the revenues generated through what? That’s right…taxes.

   It would leave in place the 21 percent reduction in the payment rates for physicians currently scheduled for 2010

   Yes…this is the cure-all for health care, isn’t it? Let’s pay our doctor’s less…but give them more patients…that’ll work out peachy.

   In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation

   Another weird statement…so, let’s pay our doctor’s at a rate that is LESS than the inflation rate. WOW!

   all of those things, Jared, will keep costs down…THIS one didn’t, Jared!

   Apparently, THIS one is one of the very few that would…and we’ve already seen how they plan to accomplish this: higher taxes, “other provisions” and paying doctors less. Sounds like a winner, doesn’t it?

   Your reading comprehension skills aren’t really very high, are they?

   They’re sure as he11 are a lot better than your “I believe what they tell me” skills. Did you even bother to “read” what you were copying and pasting? Do you actually believe THIS is a good thing???

   You are instead required to discipline yourself to read carefully and thoroughly the information that is given to you

   Now THIS statement is rich! YOU telling me to read carefully while copying and pasting??? What a joke!

   Only elitist conservatives feel such pity for the wealthiest, most priveledged Americans

   So…no answer to the question…just more liberal sound-bite regurgitation. What was it you were saying about thinking and comprehending for yourself, again? I don’t begrudge ANYONE for working hard and becoming successful…unfortunately, you libs seem to think that one person’s success should be shared by all.

   when the wealthiest have every other advantage in society.

   Because the wealthiest have EARNED every other advantage in society. I know…that concept is lost on you bleeding heart libs.

   provide the link

   The link is on the CBO homepage.

   EricG Reply:
   November 1st, 2009 at 6:06 pm

   No such luck with that one…and yet you libs keep pushing for it.

   You decided a long time ago you would never support anything a Democrat does.

   So you are useless to the nation and to all politics as you lie about everything to do with Obama and all those who you sadly view as you “enemy” (liberals).

   The CBO has made many estimates, some of them actually are well done and others are selective number-picking.

   –

   I lost my interest a long time ago with convincing conservatives on facts.

   They don’t listen until I wear my GOP pins and lie to their face about my beliefs.

   Emotion is all I have left to deal with:

   Conservatives are un-Christian greedy sexual perverts who care only for their bank accounts and could give a damn about the needy and their fellows.

   (Fox has set the standard my fellow liberals. The “truth” always has quotes on it and “facts” are not important.)

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   November 1st, 2009 at 8:05 pm

   Little ERIC,

   You decided a long time ago you would never support anything a Democrat does.

   Wrong…yet again. At least you’re comfortable being the resident idiot.

   So you are useless to the nation and to all politics as you lie about everything to do with Obama and all those who you sadly view as you “enemy” (liberals).

   I’ve never called any liberals my “enemy”…YOU however are great at calling the kettle black, aren’t you, little one?

   The CBO has made many estimates, some of them actually are well done and others are selective number-picking.

   I’m not saying they haven’t. Try to keep up, will ya, little ERIC?

   I lost my interest a long time ago with convincing conservatives on facts.

   That’s probably because you don’t deal in facts, little ERIC. You deal in hate, bigotry and idiocy.

   Conservatives are un-Christian greedy sexual perverts who care only for their bank accounts and could give a damn about the needy and their fellows.

   That’s an interesting statement to make considering the majority of donations to charitable organizations come from…wait for it…conservatives. What were you saying about “facts”, little ERIC?

   What a crybaby…

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 pm

   JAREDFROMTEXAS: “That’s funny because this bill…whatever it ends up being…isn’t scheduled to start until 2013. Oh, and what happens AFTER 2019? ”

   The CBO, as a matter of normal procedure, does not usually attempt to predict beyond a 10-year window, though in special situations it will attempt simple predictions of a non-quantitative increase or decrease probability in costs, just as stated in the CBO letter to Sen. Kent Conrad on June 16th, 2009 (beginning of fifth paragraph):
   “CBO does not provide formal cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget window because the uncertainties are simply too great. However, in evaluating proposals to reform health care, the agency will endeavor to offer a qualitative indication of whether they would be more likely to increase or decrease the budget deficit over the long term.” [Note the wording here is very similar to the parallel part in the CBO analysis of HR 3962--the Houses's Health Care Reform bill--that I've already posted.]
   cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10311/06-16-ConradLetter.htm
   And, scrolling down your post that this post replies to, I see you’ve already found the AFTER 2009 statement, so I’ll pick your second question up there in a moment.
   ==============

   Jared: “What’s the cut-off for ‘high-income’? And what are these ‘other provisions’?

   Yearly income per individual > $500,000 (my definition, which may not be the definition in the final bill sent to the President, of course, and there may be graduated levels of tax rates to pay for this), and this can and should be adjusted for inflation.

   “Other provisions” involves shielding doctors from having to practice so much defensive medicine as a precaution against lawsuits by capping their damage awards. “Other provisions” involves improved medical recordkeeping electronically to prevent misapplication of diagnoses and misunderstanding prescription instructions, further reducing the possibility of tragedy that removes somebody from the taxpaying workforce and reducing the possibility of lawsuits.
   “Other provisions” involves shielding doctors from having to practice so much defensive medicine as a precaution against lawsuits by capping their damage awards. “Other provisions” involves improved medical recordkeeping electronically to prevent misapplication of diagnoses and misunderstanding prescription instructions (some of which can result from the simple problem that most people can’t read a doctor’s handwriting; or that records are kept, organized and stored in different ways at different hospitals and offices, increasing the liklihood of valuable patient information and disease case history information getting lost), further reducing the possibility of tragedy that removes somebody from the taxpaying workforce, and further reducing the possibility of lawsuits.
   “Other provisions” involves shielding doctors from having to practice so much defensive medicine as a precaution against lawsuits by capping their damage awards. “Other provisions” involves improved medical recordkeeping electronically to prevent misapplication of diagnoses and misunderstanding prescription instructions, further reducing the possibility of tragedy that removes somebody from the taxpaying workforce and reducing the possibility of lawsuits.
   >>>>>>>>>>>

   But they’d be likely to cut costs further
   Jared: “Nowhere in this statement was there implication of cost savings. All I saw was ‘changes would occur’ in R&D, etc…and that these ‘changes’ would be ‘difficult to predict’. How were you able to get cost savings out of that???”

   From the CBO analysis report on HR 3962:
   “… substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an income tax surcharge on high-income individuals; and make various other changes to the federal tax code, Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs.
   “According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period.”
   “… those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers.
   “Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion over that period.
   “All told, H.R. 3962 would reduce the federal deficit by $9 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate.
   “It would leave in place the 21 percent reduction in the payment rates for physicians currently scheduled for 2010. At the same time, the bill includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation.
   “Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades, despite a growing number of Medicare beneficiaries as the baby-boom generation retires.
   “Based on the same extrapolation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the bill would increase by roughly 4 percent per year, on average, during the next two decades—compared with a 7 percent average growth rate (excluding the effect of establishing Part D) during the past two decades.”
   All of these CBO passages concern cost savings in HR3962, JfT.
   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
   JaredfromTexas: "What was it you were saying about thinking and comprehending for yourself, again?"

   Why don't you scroll up for yourself and look again, if your memory of what I said about that is so short-term, Jared? My statement about that will still be there.
   _____________

   JfT: "I don’t begrudge ANYONE for working hard and becoming successful…unfortunately, you libs seem to think that one person’s success should be shared by all."

   You mean, you conservatives lack the backbone to demand that the wealthy elite serve their country properly through paying more taxes as %age of income to the country whose system has served them well.
   Joe Biden has it absolutely right when he says that paying taxes is patriotic, and that when we ask the wealthy to pay a greater share of their money in taxes, it's because it's time for them to be more patriotic.
   Why shouldn't the richer Americans have to pay a higher percentage of their money in taxes than poorer Americans, Jared? This country's system helped them have the opportunity to be rich or get rich, and therefore they owe this country more! It would be selfish and unpatriotic of them to not want to keep our country well-funded for the sake of our general welfare (and health care should be a part of that), and our future generations. And, anytime we have been at war from Lincoln until the W. administration, we have had taxes raised to pay for the war (at least taxes raised on the wealthy, as Lincoln did). It's the concept of shared sacrifice, of those to whom much have been granted, much more will be expected, and it's VERY patriotic! And, yes, shared sacrifice may mean the working class has to pitch in some more as well, but should never have to pitch in as much in taxable income as the wealthy should.
   It just requires political leaders who believe we're all riding on the same boat, rather than modern-day Republicans who seem to care only for the folks in the yachts.

   “““““““
   when the wealthiest have every other advantage in society.
   Jared: "Because the wealthiest have EARNED every other advantage in society. I know…that concept is lost on you bleeding heart libs."

   People can also come by or increase their wealth by inheritance, by circumventing laws, by exploitation of labor here and abroad, by lobbying for more rules to be made or bent in their favor, by lawsuits, and by luck. It isn't necessarily the case that they EARNED it through working both hard & smart. There are MANY people who have worked as smart as possible and as hard as possible who haven't succeeded; the conservative maxim that they'll always succeed to the contrary.
   And I would like to point out that the rich (of any political stripe) do not necessarily have to use their extra Republican-granted dough to create productive jobs here in America. Rich people can just as easily spend their tax-break money to go on foreign vacations, invest in companies based in or relocating on foreign soil, hire more lobbyists to corrupt our system further to gain themselves more power, and to outsource foreign-made parts for their factories, etc. Which doesn't really tend to help the American working class at all! (I know that richer Americans aren't necessarily evil– some of them are Democrats, after all! It's just that I don't accept the Republican portrait of them as being ONLY selfless job-creating saints. And I think it's naive of working-class conservatives to think that the wealthy elite will automatically look out for the best interests of Americans in general if only more $$$ is thrown their way.)
   I know…these concepts are lost on you elite-worshipping cons.
   ==============
   provide the link
   Jared: "The link is on the CBO homepage."

   On the CBO homepage, I found this link of a CBO letter to Sen. Max Baucus, dated October 7, 2009:
   cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10642/SFC_Subsidies_Penalties_10-09.pdf

   The first page lists premium CAPS (not increases) relative to income, and lists cost-sharing subsidies relative to household income.
   The second page lists penalties applied to people, based on their income, presumably for failing to get insurance.
   Neither of these suggests that most of us in the nation will see our premiums go up, Jared.

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm

   Jared, to Eric: “That’s an interesting statement to make considering the majority of donations to charitable organizations come from…wait for it…conservatives.”

   This is but anecdotal, but I’ve known a lot of liberals who donate time, money, and effort to charitable causes, to help people, to empower people, to help our environment, and to fight for justice for others. Perhaps these studies claiming that conservatives do more charitable giving fail to take into account that conservatives report charitble giving more often as a way to be seen & approved of, and as a way to get out of paying some portion of their taxes…ya think???
   :-)

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   November 5th, 2009 at 1:16 am

   LIB,

   The CBO, as a matter of normal procedure, does not usually attempt to predict beyond a 10-year window

   So, we can expect any such predictions that attempt to forsee any “cost savings” past 2019 to be moot. gotcha.

   *more copying and pasting*

   Yearly income per individual > $500,000

   Okay, I’ve found it. The gov’t’s benchmark for “high income” is $250K/individual, $500K/family. I think you’d agree that $250K in NY city is a hell of a lot less money than in San Antonio – yes?

   there may be graduated levels of tax rates to pay for this), and this can and should be adjusted for inflation.

   So, the more someone makes, the more they’ll pay in taxes…let’s just keep milking the “rich”…what’s the worst that could happen???

   AND adjusted for inflation? You do realize that incomes aren’t going to rise at the same rate as inflation, right? What happens then, LIB?

   *more copying and pasting*

   substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services

   So, they’re going to NOT pay Medicare as much…that’s comforting…

   impose an income tax surcharge on high-income individuals

   Yes…let’s tax the same people who already pay upwards of 90% of all taxes – that’s a win-win. (sarcasm)

   make various other changes to the federal tax code, Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs

   What are these “changes”? Nobody knows…

   *more copying and pasting*

   demand that the wealthy elite serve their country properly through paying more taxes as %age of income to the country whose system has served them well.

   Yes…that’s a fancy way of saying: “You’ve become successful…now pay for it!”

   it’s because it’s time for them to be more patriotic.

   So, now you libs are going to arbitrarily assign levels of “patriotism” based on income and taxes? Real nice. Makes me proud…

   Why shouldn’t the richer Americans have to pay a higher percentage of their money in taxes than poorer Americans, Jared?

   Because, increasing the tax burden on the people who already pay 90% of the tax revenue will absolutely stifle desire to become successful. Why would I “want” to become successful if I knew the gov’t was going to take 70% of my income, LIB? The left-wing tax ideas are extremely short-sighted and doesn’t take into account ANY possible outcomes. What happens if the rich decide they want to be like several prominent Democrats and just not pay their taxes, LIB? What then?

   This country’s system helped them have the opportunity to be rich or get rich, and therefore they owe this country more!

   That’s the greatness of the USA, LIB. Where conservatives see these great opportunities as a foundation of the American dream…you libs see these great opportunities as revenue streams. I wonder which is more inspiring?

   It would be selfish and unpatriotic of them to not want to keep our country well-funded for the sake of our general welfare

   That’s probably why they already pay so much…wouldn’t you say?

   of those to whom much have been granted, much more will be expected

   So, what will you “expect” from those Americans who have been “granted” medicaid, welfare, etc? They haven’t done anything to earn those gov’t programs…and yet, have been “granted” those services? What do you “expect” from them?

   rather than modern-day Republicans who seem to care only for the folks in the yachts.

   I’m getting a bit sick of this left-wing soundbite. If you can prove to me the majority of the rich in this country are “conservative”, then this argument would fly…HOWEVER, I’d argue an equal number of Libs benefitted from the tax cuts. Wait…didn’t we hear them say they wanted to pay more taxes? No? That’s right. So, you can take this lazy argument and send it right back up your arse.

   do not necessarily have to use their extra Republican-granted dough

   This just shows how ignorant you are on this subject. How many Dems voted to pass these tax cuts that you abhore so mightily, LIB? That’s right…sucks, doesn’t it?

   Neither of these suggests that most of us in the nation will see our premiums go up

   YOu’ll have to do a bit more than reading the first couple of lines, LIB. Try again.

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   November 5th, 2009 at 1:19 am

   LIB,

   Anecdotal as it may be…you can opine all day about the intent of conservative vs. liberal charitable donations…but you’d be talking outta your arse. Good luck with that one…

   conservatives report charitble giving more often as a way get out of paying some portion of their taxes

   HAHAHAHAHAHA…truly pathetic…instead of being content with the donations, you have to try to opine as to the intent. Great job…

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   November 5th, 2009 at 11:35 pm

   JAREDFROMTEXAS,
   “So, we can expect any such predictions that attempt to forsee any “cost savings” past 2019 to be moot. gotcha.”

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your poor reading comprehension skills are once again, apparent, Jared: “..though in special situations it will attempt simple predictions of a non-quantitative increase or decrease probability in costs..”, and “In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansions would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater”.

   So, Jared, while the CBO doesn’t attach numbers to savings (that what’s “non-quantitative” means in case you haven’t been able to figure that out), they were confident enough to predict net savings after 2019 rather than net losses. That hardly fits the definition of “moot”, but I guess you don’t understand the meaning of THAT word either. You “got” NOTHING.
   —————-
   Jared: “*more copying and pasting*”

   That’s because you don’t comprehend the information quoted from the sources when I give them to you the FIRST time, Jared, so I have to keep posting them multiple times, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! More evidence that you’re not the intellectual you like to think you are. And if I didn’t keep showing you the passages in answer to your questions, you’d hypocritically gripe about no sources being posted and that it was all “pulled outta my arse”, now wouldn’t you?
   —————
   Jared: “Okay, I’ve found it. The gov’t’s benchmark for “high income” is $250K/individual, $500K/family. I think you’d agree that $250K in NY city is a hell of a lot less money than in San Antonio – yes?”

   SOURCE, Jared? You say you found it, but you don’t post any source…pulled that number outta your arse, did you?? And why should we index the tax code so that it’s adjusted to the respective cost-of-living rates for every single city, suburburb, and village in America, assuming that such rates could be accurately calculated, and such accountants could be compensated for such calculations from the Treasury? LOL, you think the federal tax code is complicated NOW…what if you saw what it looked like if the code was adjustable for all locations? People in New York City have many more opportunities/choices for vocation than people in San Antonio, wouldn’t you agree? It’s best to have one figure nationally that denotes changes in tax brackets.
   ————-
   Jared: “So, the more someone makes, the more they’ll pay in taxes…let’s just keep milking the ‘rich’…what’s the worst that could happen???”

   Smaller businesses will be able to compete more effectively with bigger businesses, there will be more funding for education, the environment clean-up, retooling to greener energy, more rich people can be busted for tax dodging, we will be able to better afford tax breaks for the middle class and poor and for smaller businesses, more road repair and bridgework we could better maintain our national parks and monuments, we could better pay down our debts to foreign countries than if we let the rich keep being able to use these idiotic Bush-era tax cuts…..terrible, TERRIBLE consequences, aren’t they?!?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
   ————–
   Jared: “AND adjusted for inflation? You do realize that incomes aren’t going to rise at the same rate as inflation, right? What happens then, LIB?”

   Does it HAVE to be a 1:1 correspondence between higher-bracket tax rates and the rate of inflation, Jared? You just assumed it would be, didn’t you? And have you forgotten that tax increases can have a direct affect on slowing inflation, and that interest rates adjustments can also be used to tighten the money supply? Looks like you need to take Econ 101…
   ————
   Jared: “*more copying and pasting*”

   That’s because you need to have the same things explained to you over and over again, Jarry-boy; and because of your laughably pathetic reading comprehension skills, repetition is necessary.
   ———-
   Jared: “So, they’re going to NOT pay Medicare as much…that’s comforting…”

   Once AGAIN, your sloppy reading ability is evident, Jared, so once AGAIN, I have to cut-and-paste passages from the CBO report that you have overlooked:
   “For example, the ’sustainable growth rate’ mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration..”
   “…in expectation of ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care). Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades, despite a growing number of Medicare beneficiaries as the baby-boom generation retires”
   It is necessary to figure in the increase in number of people that enroll in Medicare as the Baby Boom generation continues to retire, and it’s comforting to know that such mechanisms will be in place to control costs or increase payments as needed. On the other hand, it’s not so comforting knowing that anything I show you will sail right over your head, and that it’s going to ignite more crybaby whining from you about “more cutting and pasting”.
   ————–
   little Jared: “Yes…let’s tax the same people who already pay upwards of 90% of all taxes – that’s a win-win. (sarcasm)”

   Yes, it worked so poorly and nearly ruined our economy in the Eisenhower 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was 88% (sarcasm). And, most rich people pay little or nothing in payroll taxes (the main income-related tax in this country), unlike the middle class, so your 90% figure is hogwash, Mr. Blowhard.
   ————-
   Jared: “What are these ‘changes’? Nobody knows…”

   Time for you to get your lazy a## to reading HR3962, so nobody else has to keep cutting and pasting the passages you can’t understand…AFTER you train yourself to not be such a sloppy reader.
   ————–
   Jared: “Yes…that’s a fancy way of saying: ‘You’ve become successful…now pay for it!’”

   Your response is just a coded way of saying that you’re too chicken-livered to demand more of the fat leeches who exploited others to get where they’re at. But, conservative politics is just coward’s politics. Too much of a sissy to demand the wealthiest pay a higher rate of taxes for the benefit of all America, aren’t you, little Jared?
   ————–
   Sissy Jared: “So, now you libs are going to arbitrarily assign levels of ‘patriotism’ based on income and taxes? Real nice. Makes me proud…”

   Paying your taxes unbegrudgingly is but ONE sign of patriotism , Jared. Patriotism in any thoughtful form with respect to the country’s future rather than a concern for personal selfishness is nice, to be sure. You personally have nothing to be proud of in this matter, Jared, since you’ve already demonstrated that you’re too cowardly to stand up to the rich for a progressive system of taxation. You just want to keep smooching on rich people’s arses, hoping that will make you one of them, someday, Chicken Little.
   ————–
   JfT: “Because, increasing the tax burden on the people who already pay 90% of the tax revenue will absolutely stifle desire to become successful. Why would I ‘want’ to become successful if I knew the gov’t was going to take 70% of my income, LIB?”
   Desire to keep having more and more money, with no upward limit to the greed, is harmful to society as a whole, Jared, and leads to endless scheming, exploitation, waste of resources (and NOBODY wastes things like rich people waste things), pollution, injustice, subversion of the will of the majority, even the ability to hire henchmen to carry out crimes, and then buy up the best lawyers to get you off the hook. Once again, Jared, you’re making the sissy’s argument that the most economically poiowerful should be allowed to be as avaricious as they feel like, and the good of the country as a whole be d*mned–because you haven’t got the stomach to demand there be tax policy to deter unlimited greed. It’s a stance for justice that you’re just too scared to take!
   And, success in life is more than just how many beans you have to count, or haven’t you figured that out yet?
   ———-
   Jared: “The left-wing tax ideas are extremely short-sighted and doesn’t take into account ANY possible outcomes.”

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! No, Jared, it’s the right-wing tax ideas, of “giving the rich more will automatically spur the rich to create jobs for everybody else”, that is extremely short-sighted. You just can’t stand to look at things outside of your fairy-tale world of Reaganomics. You’re TOO SCARED to!
   ————–
   Jared: “What happens if the rich decide they want to be like several prominent Democrats and just not pay their taxes, LIB? What then?”

   They pay their taxes plus penalties if they get caught, regardless of their political alignment. And, if it can be proven that it was deliberate evasion of taxes (not oversights or mistaken accounting), they do jail time as well. You didn’t even know this, Jared??!?
   ———-
   Jared: “That’s the greatness of the USA, LIB. Where conservatives see these great opportunities as a foundation of the American dream…you libs see these great opportunities as revenue streams. I wonder which is more inspiring?”

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hands down, the most ignorant statement I’ve ever seen anybody post on Liberaland! The greatness of the USA has always been that so many people were able to care about causes larger than themselves, which is the very antithesis of the rewarding of selfish greed that you advocate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
   ———-
   Jared : “That’s probably why they already pay so much…wouldn’t you say?”

   Horse manure, Jared. They don’t pay nearly enough, especially with those ill-thought-out tax break of George W. Bush’s. Recovery will get even better for our country once THOSE expire.

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   November 6th, 2009 at 12:01 am

   JAREDFROMTEXAS: “I’m getting a bit sick of this left-wing soundbite.”

   Too bad, Jared, you’re not in a right-wing echo chamber, but a debating site, and it’s a fair point to make. So, you’ll just have to learn to take it like a man, and quit being a crybaby about it.
   ————–
   Jared: “HOWEVER, I’d argue an equal number of Libs benefitted from the tax cuts.”

   You’re just pulling this straight outta your arse!
   ————-
   AirheadfromTexas: “Wait…didn’t we hear them say they wanted to pay more taxes? No? That’s right. So, you can take this lazy argument and send it right back up your arse.”

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! What, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Kennedy don’t count?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You look more pathetic with each reply, Jarry-boy. So you can take your flimsy argument and shove it right back up YOUR arse. And, learn to be man enough to stand up TO the rich rather than FOR them, will you, little Jared? Your cowardly arguments that we have to keep sucking up to them with further tax cuts for them is getting REALLY corny. But, h*ll, they’re still FUNNY!!!!
   —————-
   Chicken-livered Jared: “This just shows how ignorant you are on this subject. How many Dems voted to pass these tax cuts that you abhore so mightily, LIB? That’s right…sucks, doesn’t it?”

   Not nearly enough Dems voted for it to enable the Republicans to avoid using the parliamentary procedures to enect it, the same parliamentary procedures you cons abhore so mightily at the thought of them being used in the Senate to pass health care reform. Also, you ignorantly assume Dem = liberal, and I have called you out on your laughable ignorance…sucks, doesn’t it?
   ——————–
   Jared: “You’ll have to do a bit more than reading the first couple of lines, LIB. Try again.”

   Oh, is that how YOU read sources, Jared? This completely explains your p*ss-poor reading comprehension, then!

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   November 6th, 2009 at 12:17 am

   JAREDFROMTEXAS: “HAHAHAHAHAHA…truly pathetic…instead of being content with the donations, you have to try to opine as to the intent. Great job…”

   HAHAHAHAHAHA…pathetically evasive attempt to avoid answering my point that studies that say conservatives give more to charity than liberals is based on what is reported for tax purposes. So, there’s really no reason at all to believe that conservatives are more generous than liberals, IS THERE?? Way to let my main point sail right over your head, Jared! Good job.

   XvD

   jasperjava Reply:
   November 6th, 2009 at 12:31 am

   Conservatives give more to charity because they contribute to their churches. Some denominations, like the mormons, encourage their members to tithe a tenth of their take-home pay.

   While giving to your church counts as “charity” for tax purposes, it has questionable social value compared to real charities that are dedicated to worthy causes.

   Now i know that a small portion of money given to churches actually goes to helping people, and liberals also give to causes that don’t benefit the bulk of society (like the local symphony, for example), still it’s a stretch to say that conservatives give more generously. They are often parochial and mean-spirited, even in their “charitable” activities.

   

   burqa Reply:
   November 6th, 2009 at 12:21 am

   Lib, before he can get any of this, Jared needs to catch up on basic math.

   For example, if 5 people buy a building, the cost per buyer is less than if only 2 people buy the building.
   The same is true for health care.
   If all taxpayers pay for what only some taxpayers pay for now, the costs per taxpayer go down.

   Jared, you are looking at costs in terms of the deficit because that is what the right-wing pundits are talking about.
   What they are not talking about and therefore waht you can’t address is the fact that health care costs have been rising faster than incomes for 20 years or more.
   While costs are going up in other countries, they are able to cover more people and deliver better results than us at half the cost.
   We are being cheated, man….

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 3:03 am

   JaredfromTexas: “No mention of the WH pulling the latest stimulus ‘jobs created or saved’ numbers outta their arses?”

   New York Times, October 31, 2009

   SCHOOLS ARE WHEREE STIMULUS SAVED JOBS, NEW DATA SHOWS
   By Michael Cooper and Ron Nixon

   “On Friday, the Obama administration released the most detailed information yet on the jobs created by the stimulus. Of the 640,239 jobs recipients claimed to have created or saved so far, officials said, more than half — 325,000 — were in education. Most were teachers’ jobs that states said were saved when stimulus money averted a need for layoffs.
   “Although the stimulus was initially sold in large part as a public works program, only about 80,000 of the jobs that were claimed Friday were in construction.
   “Of course, counting jobs that were saved can be a squishier proposition than counting jobs that were created. Teachers have been laid off in some areas — and budget officials say that there would have been more layoffs without the stimulus money — but it is difficult to say with certainty how many teachers would have been laid off without that money.
   “Indiana, for example, reported saving or creating 13,232 education jobs with its stimulus money, but Cris Johnston, the director of the government efficiency division of the state budget office, said that it was difficult to say whether the state would have actually lost those jobs without the money.
   “‘We can’t make the statement that they were created or retained,’ Mr. Johnston said. Indiana, he said had followed federal guidelines in reporting how many full-time jobs were paid for with the stimulus money, which also paid for education supplies and other expenses. And while New York City officials have said the stimulus helped them save thousands of teaching jobs, it would have been politically difficult for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to actually lay off that many teachers while running for re-election.
   “Hard hats could surpass teachers next year, as more construction projects get under way. In Florida, for instance, one of the biggest infrastructure projects is its plan to build the Indian Street Bridge in Martin County. But with a big, complex project like that, it takes a while before construction can start. That project, which will cost more than $72 million, claims to have saved or created just one job so far.
   “An analysis by The New York Times of the grants and contracts in the stimulus showed that as of the end of September, only 7 percent of the work had been completed and 9 percent was more than half done, while 46 percent was less than half done and 38 percent had not begun.
   “The jobs announced Friday were created by about $159 billion in grants, loans and contracts made available to the states. About $37 billion of that amount has been paid out so far.
   “The Obama administration said the jobs were evidence that the stimulus was on track to save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.
   “Officials did not count jobs that were indirectly created by the $84 billion pumped into the economy through tax cuts so far, or from the billions of dollars’ worth of unemployment benefits and aid to states for Medicaid. If those were included, the administration estimated, the tally of jobs saved or created would rise to more than 1 million.
   “‘There is strong and mounting evidence that the recovery act is putting people back to work,’ Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said at a news conference in Washington.
   “The figures should be taken with a grain of salt, though. They come from reports submitted by more than 130,000 recipients of contracts, grants and loans that were published on the government’s Web site, http://www.recovery.gov. But officials expect there to be errors; the first reports of federal contracts earlier this month contained some filings that overstated or understated jobs.
   “The jobs reports came a day after new figures showed the economy grew by 3.5 percent during the last quarter, ending the longest economic contraction since World War II. But while many economists credited the stimulus with spurring some of that growth, many in Washington have raised doubts about the stimulus program’s effectiveness at creating jobs.
   “Republicans have cited the high unemployment figure, at 9.8 percent, as proof of the failure of the stimulus, which they voted overwhelmingly opposed. Democrats said that the recession was more severe than most economists predicted and credited the stimulus with helping avert a second Great Depression.
   “The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, questioned what had happened to the many private-sector jobs that the administration had promised to create.
   “‘While Washington keeps spending and piling more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren,’ he said in a statement Friday, ‘out-of-work families keep asking, “where are the jobs?” ‘
   “Sensitive to such criticisms, the Obama administration invited a marquee Republican to the White House to praise the stimulus: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, whose state has faced perhaps the most severe budget crisis in the nation.
   “‘Some of our colleagues are saying that it hasn’t done much, or was a waste of money,’ Mr. Schwarzenegger said, sharing the stage with Mr. Biden. ‘Well, I would dispute that.’
   “He said the stimulus had created or saved more than 100,000 jobs in California, the most in the nation, more than half of which — 62,000 — were the jobs of teachers, professors and school administrators. Mr. Schwarzenegger noted that some people have questioned whether those teachers would actually have been laid off without the stimulus. ‘No, those teachers would have been gone, if it wouldn’t have been for the federal stimulus money,’ he said.
   “Michigan, whose unemployment rate of 15.3 percent was the highest in the nation, reported creating or saving 22,514 jobs, the ninth most in the nation. But Rhode Island, whose 13 percent unemployment rate made it the third highest in the nation, ranked near the bottom with 2,012 jobs.”

   http://nytimes.com/200910/31/us/31stimulus.html?_r=1

   Jared, while this report admits to some uncertainly as to how jobs created or saved could be counted, and the reporters even admit that the numbers may be higher, your assertion that the WH pulled numbers “outta their arses” (based on NO data) appears to be FALSE.
   Did Fox “News” inspire this claim from you, Jared?

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 3:45 am

   LIBPatriot.

   Nice try, my friend…but no dice. These numbers pushed to us via the WH are…as the WH itself admits…not based on any concrete evidence and are ultimately “uncountable”. The question becomes: how can the WH push this whole “jobs saved or created” soundbite without providing actual data? Where are your questions for Biden’s report? Hmmm?

   your assertion that the WH pulled numbers “outta their arses” (based on NO data) appears to be FALSE.

   Wait…hehe…let me get this straight…You quote the reporters as saying their numbers cannot be verified…and then you ask me for data that indicates the WH is pulling these numbers outta their arses? What gives, LIB? Having an off night?

   Did Fox “News” inspire this claim from you, Jared?

   yawn…typical liberal retort. Nothing to add to the discussion. Someone isn’t lock-step with the WH and all of a sudden, they’re “inspired” by FOX. Next time try to think for yourself, LIB…you may realize that you’ve been drinking the kool-aid this whole time.

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 5:59 am

   Jared: “not based on any concrete evidence and are ultimately ‘uncountable’. The question becomes: how can the WH push this whole ‘jobs saved or created’ soundbite without providing actual data”

   Jared, “Indiana, for example, reported saving or creating 13,232 education jobs with its stimulus money, but Cris Johnston, the director of the government efficiency division of the state budget office, said that it was difficult to say whether the state would have actually lost those jobs without the money”
   Nevertheless, Jared, it’s DATA that INDIANA (and all the other states), not the WH, provided, so that alone makes the supposition of your question to Alan, that the WHITE HOUSE pulled numbers out of its arse, an unfounded supposition. Apparently you missed that. Also, Johnston acknowledges that he “had followed federal guidelines in reporting how many full-time jobs were paid for with the stimulus money”. Guidelines which yielded WHAT, Jared? Why, DATA, of course! (Jared, data IS concrete evidence, just in case you’ve never realized that. And if you say “the White House admits…not based on concrete evidence”, the burden is on YOU, not me to produce the source of them saying that exact admission.) And so how can numbers BASED ON DATA be characterized as NUMBERS THE WH PULLED OUT OF THEIR ARSES? It’s only the jobs that have been SAVED rather than CREATED that are harder to calculate precisely, because such jobs can have work hours cut rather than become outright eliminated in response to shrinking budgets…are you able to follow that, Jared?
   And estimations of jobs saved are not numbers pulled out of nowhere, or as you so charmingly put it, “out of their arses”, but based upon an assumption that in response to a state budget loss of X amount of dollars jobs are either:
   a)left intact with no working hours/week lost,
   or else
   b)eliminated entirely.
   And, with at least some of these states, they have in past practice chosen to save jobs by cutting hours/job rather than adopt a “either eliminate a job or leave it as a full-time paying job” in response to falling state revenues.
   So, THAT’S WHY it’s hard to have a precise figure on jobs saved, not because “the WH pulled numbers out of their arses”. Further, notice these numbers were provided BY THE STATES TO THE WHITE HOUSE, not just made up by the White House out of thin air, based on nothing, as you seem to be implying.

   JfT: “Where are your questions for Biden’s report? Hmmm?”

   “‘There is strong and mounting evidence that the recovery act is putting people back to work,’ Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said at a news conference in Washington.”
   That remark by Biden looks valid, Jared, when you consider that “strong and mounting evidence” is not as solid as “absolute and irrefutable proof”. “Strong and mounting evidence” in this context means that it’s looking more likely “that the recovery act is putting people back to work”. At present, that statement of Biden’s cannot be proven false by anybody, certainly not by you. So, Jared, why should I question that there’s strong and mounting evidence in light of the states’ reporting? Hmmm?

   JfT: “Nothing to add to the discussion.”
   I’ve added far more words, lines, points, sentences, and paragraphs to this discussion than YOU have tonight, Jared, even before making this particular post. What, were you not able to see that for yourself? Having an off night?

   JfT: “Someone isn’t lock-step with the WH and all of a sudden, they’re “inspired” by FOX.”
   Not because you’re not in lock-step with the White House, Jared, but because of all the network news sites I scanned on this issue, only Fox tried to make it seem like the White House was making up numbers completely out of thin air. Other networks were honest enough to report that the numbers were provided by the states to the White House, and that there was only some uncertainty, some educated guesswork, about the jobs saved. So, that’s why I ASKED you if Fox “News” was your inspiration (I didn’t STATE that Fox was your inspiration).

   “…you may realize that you’ve been drinking the kool-aid this whole time.”
   yawn…typical Jared retort. And you completely avoided answering my question as to whether you got the idea that the White House “pulled the latest stimulus numbers..outta their arses” from FOX, didn’t you?

   And, if you were trying to prove that the stimulus is a failure, the failure has been yours. “Officials did not count jobs that were indirectly created by the $84 billion pumped into the economy through tax cuts so far, or from the billions of dollars’ worth of unemployment benefits and aid to states for Medicaid.” So it may, even now when only a fraction of the stimulus money has been spent, be better than reported.

   Nice try, Jared, on your part to paint the White House as outright liars and the stimulus as an utter failure.

   ….Well, actually, it was a pretty weak try on your part. But, better luck next time!

   jasperjava Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 6:54 am

   … and with that, Lib Patriot nailed Jared’s sorry ass to the wall. Job well done.

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 8:24 pm

   JASPER,

   Now that you’re done kissing Lib’s arse…let’s look at the “DATA” that he’s using:

   But before we do…let’s get the two of you to dust off that part of your brain where common sense lies and actually use it for this dicussion.

   Let’s start with this one:

   the burden is on YOU, not me to produce the source of them saying that exact admission.)

   Our esteemed and well-spoken VP, Joe Biden stated that 1M jobs have been “saved or created”…HOWEVER, this number takes into account “indirect” jobs that CANNOT be verified (per your own admission, LIB…these jobs are guesswork).

   Robert Gibbs when asked how this 1M were “counted”: Well, I think through a combination of the indirect jobs as well as the percentage of the act that has not — that is not measured through this report

   So, Gibbs admits this 1M jobs “saved or created” report consists of some random number that was “not measured through this report”. Meaning…the WH “guessed” at the total number of jobs “saved or created” based entirely on indirect job numbers that cannot be measured.

   Here’s another quote from Gibbs regarding the 1M jobs: Well, again, there’s about 47 percent of the total number is examined by law in this report. This report –again, required by the statute — measures direct jobs from these — from projects. It does not count money that goes from tax cuts, money that would go from other — or go to recipients through other safety networks.

   Meaning the “indirect jobs” that the WH has counted as part of this 1M jobs report was not measured.

   How’s THAT for “data” LIB?

   It’s only the jobs that have been SAVED rather than CREATED that are harder to calculate precisely</b.

   Exactly, LIB…are YOU able to follow that?

   that the recovery act is putting people back to work”.

   How could you possibly argue the recovery act is “putting people back to work” when the amount of people who have lost their jobs is greater than the amount of people who have gained jobs? Even your liberal spin can’t make sense of this one. As far as the numbers go…more than 3.5M jobs have been lost since the Stimulus…only 1M have been created (according to the WH’s fuzzy math) – that is HARDLY INDICATIVE of “putting people back to work”. The numbers just don’t support this statement.

   I’ve added far more words, lines, points, sentences, and paragraphs to this discussion

   Correction…you’ve copied and pasted someone else’s words, lines, points, sentences, and paragraphs. Just more evidence of your willingness to nod in agreement with your party leaders.

   only Fox tried to make it seem like the White House was making up numbers completely out of thin air

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…what? Robert Gibbs doesn’t count anymore? HASHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…nice try.

   I got my “the WH pulled the numbers outta their arses” deduction from Robert Gibbs…and not from FOX News. Too bad for you.

   Nice try, Jared, on your part to paint the White House as outright liars and the stimulus as an utter failure.

   How can you possibly say that the stimulus…which was pitched to the American people as a “job saver” is working when we have a 9.8% national unemployment rate…and a net loss of 2.5M jobs? You mentioned that I said the stimulus is a failure – I never said that, by the way – but let’s see your proof the stimulus IS working then.

   better luck next time!

   HAHAHAHAHAHA…spoken like a true “nod my head in unison with Obama” liberal. Let’s just look at the numbers the WH gives us and believe them…let’s not question the methods or anything.

   good luck with that.

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 10:13 pm

   Jared: “Robert Gibbs when asked how this 1M were “counted”: Well, I think through a combination of the indirect jobs as well as the percentage of the act that has not — that is not measured through this report

   “So, Gibbs admits this 1M jobs ’saved or created’ report consists of some random number that was “not measured through this report”. Meaning…the WH “guessed” at the total number of jobs “saved or created” based entirely on indirect job numbers that cannot be measured.”
   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No, Jared, it means the numbers are an underestimation, because they don’t count jobs saved that were reduced in atatus form full-time to part-time rather than outright eliminated by the states, and also:
   ““Officials did not count jobs that were indirectly created by the $84 billion pumped into the economy through tax cuts so far, or from the billions of dollars’ worth of unemployment benefits and aid to states for Medicaid.”
   So these numbers of jobs were a modest count, rather than an inflated count. Aren’t you able to understand that?

   “Correction…you’ve copied and pasted someone else’s words, lines, points, sentences, and paragraphs. Just more evidence of your willingness to nod in agreement with your party leaders.”
   Correction, I’ve made more of it in my own words, not counting the quotes, than anything you’ve said. Are you not able to see that, Jared? Just more evidence of your inability to count paragraphs and your willingness to knee-jerk against any numbers that come from anybody in the Democratic party.

   “I got my “the WH pulled the numbers outta their arses” deduction from Robert Gibbs…and not from FOX News.”
   Where’s your link for that, then?

   “How can you possibly say that the stimulus…which was pitched to the American people as a “job saver” is working when we have a 9.8% national unemployment rate…and a net loss of 2.5M jobs?”
   Jared, are your arithmetic skills so poor that you don’t comprehend that negative 2.5 million is a SMALLER number than negative 3.5 million?
   And, “An analysis by The New York Times of the grants and contracts in the stimulus showed that as of the end of September, only 7 percent of the work had been completed and 9 percent was more than half done, while 46 percent was less than half done and 38 percent had not begun.
   “The jobs announced Friday were created by about $159 billion in grants, loans and contracts made available to the states. About $37 billion of that amount has been paid out so far.”
   So, there’s more fruits to still be reaped in terms of jobs, too.

   ” You mentioned that I said the stimulus is a failure – I never said that..”
   You were implying it, and we both know it.

   ” – but let’s see your proof the stimulus IS working then..”
   You just saw it with the quoted Times article, you can check state websites, and you’re going to see it some more in the months to come.

   “HAHAHAHAHAHA…spoken like a true “nod my head in unison with Obama” liberal”
   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Spoken like a true “refuse to carefully read any information a liberal provides me, and pretend I don’t understand it because I just don’t wish to” conservative. And Robert Gibbs works in the White House, does he not? And you have already admitted that he is your inspiration for your “numbers pulled outta their arses” comment.
   Everybody reading here can just scroll up and see you say it again, you know. (Too bad for you.)

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 10:56 pm

   LIB,

   it means the numbers are an underestimation

   Not even close…Gibbs said this 1M number (quoting) consists of measurable jobs as well as the percentage of the act that that is not measured through this report.

   You were saying something about “reading” and “understanding” earlier…how’s that working out for you?

   So these numbers of jobs were a modest count, rather than an inflated count.

   You sure are trying…but not very hard. See the above quote from Gibbs.

   your willingness to knee-jerk against any numbers that come from anybody in the Democratic party.

   So…let me get this straight…YOU are willing to arbitrarily copy and paste these numbers from the Dems…but when I raise legitimate questions about them, it’s a knee-jerk reaction? Come back down and visit us here on earth, won’t ya?

   Where’s your link for that, then?

   I’ve already given you his quote. “reading” and “understanding”…remember???

   negative 2.5 million is a SMALLER number than negative 3.5 million?

   Which would make 2.5M LESS THAN 3.5M. meaning there have been more jobs LOST than created. Let’s start you out with 1+1=2, and then we’ll get to bigger numbers once you’re comfortable.

   So, there’s more fruits to still be reaped in terms of jobs, too.

   Perhaps…but we’re using the current numbers. Go ahead and use hypothetical new jobs if you want…I prefer to deal in reality.

   You were implying it, and we both know it.

   No, I wasn’t.

   And Robert Gibbs works in the White House, does he not? And you have already admitted that he is your inspiration for your “numbers pulled outta their arses” comment.

   Yes…good for you! Gibbs DOES work in the WH. Yes…I used quotes from a person who works in the WH to suggest that the WH is passing bogus numbers. How silly of me.

   Everybody reading here can just scroll up and see you say it again, you know.

   and how is that a bad thing? Gibbs confirms what I said…WH is making up numbers.

   Gibbs stated the 1M jobs “saved or created” comes from direct jobs as required to be counted by the study PLUS “indirect” jobs that are “NOT MEASURED” by this study.

   “too bad for you”

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   November 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 pm

   JAREDFROMTEXAS: “Not even close…Gibbs said this 1M number (quoting) consists of measurable jobs as well as the percentage of the act that that is not measured through this report. You were saying something about ‘reading’ and ‘understanding’ earlier…how’s that working out for you?”

   Pretty well, Jared, thanks for your concern.
   In the earlier report on stimulus results, BUSINESSES reporting their figures to the White House on stimulus money spent WERE THE ONES THAT MADE THE NUMERICAL ERRORS.
   From the article entitled, Stimulus Watch: White House promises release of better jobs data; defends earlier report, By Brett J. Blackledge and Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press writers, October 29,2009, the following quotes:
   “Some recipients of stimulus money used the cash to give existing employees pay raises, but each reported saving dozens of jobs with the money, including one Florida day care that claimed 129 jobs saved.
   “– A Texas contractor whose business kept 22 employees to handle stimulus contracts saw its job count inflated to 88 because the same workers were counted four times.
   “– The water department in Palm Beach County, Fla., hired 57 meter readers, customer service representatives and other positions to handle two water projects. But their total job count was incorrectly doubled to 114.
   “Those errors were included in an early progress report on the stimulus released two weeks ago that featured numerous mistakes, including a Colorado business’ claim that its stimulus contract created more than 4,200 jobs. TeleTech Government Solutions actually hired 4,231 temporary workers for its stimulus project, but most of them worked for five weeks or less and the others no more than five months, company president Mariano Tan said.
   “The short-term positions should have been reported as 635 full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs under the government’s method of calculating stimulus work, Tan said.
   “The AP’s review sampled some of the contract data reported on the government’s Web site, recovery.gov, that serves as the official accounting of stimulus data. The review focused on the most obvious cases of jobs wrongly tied to the stimulus because of record duplications or misinterpretations of how the jobs should be counted. In some cases, businesses reported short-term projects with large job counts, which appeared inaccurate in the records. The AP contacted businesses to discuss their jobs reports and confirmed the errors.
   “Some businesses actually undercounted jobs funded with stimulus money, the AP’s review shows, because they reported only new jobs created, not existing jobs saved. But by far the most reporting errors were found in the number of jobs credited to the stimulus.
   “Gibbs said that early data couldn’t be reviewed as carefully as new data will be. ‘Three days after the data was received, it was required to be put on the Web site,’ he said.
   “The Colorado business’ job count, along with many others, has been corrected, Gibbs said, and will be updated in Friday’s report.
   “‘We disputed, as the AP disputed, the report that came in that calculated a number of jobs but didn’t accurately account, the way we account for, a full-time, yearlong employee as being a job,’ Gibbs said.”
   http://finance.yahoo.com/news/STIMULUS-WATCH-Stimulus-jobs-apf-3446575538.html?x=0
   And, as we’ve already discussed, the state agencies have underreported jobs saved to the White House. This hardly translates to a deliberate dishonesty on the part of the White House on this matter; nor does it mean the numbers released in the stimulus report of a few weeks ago (before Friday’s corrected report) were based on numbers completely dreamed up out of the heads of White House officials (”pulled outta their arses”, as you put it).
   This quote that you attribute to Robert Gibbs is one that I have yet to find after several searches; did you pull it outta your arse, Jared?
   —————–

   Jared: “So…let me get this straight…YOU are willing to arbitrarily copy and paste these numbers from the Dems…but when I raise legitimate questions about them, it’s a knee-jerk reaction? Come back down and visit us here on earth, won’t ya?”

   I cut-and-pasted the information from a NEWSPAPER website, not a DEMOCRATIC PARTY website, after reading and comprehending the information, Jared. Oh, and your use of the adverb, “arbitrarily”, derived from the adjective, “arbitrary”, is misapplied, Jared.
   ARBITRARY: adj. 1.Determined by chance, whim, or impulse. 2. Not limited by law; despotic.
   In what way was I being chancy, whimsical, impulsive, unlawful, or despotic by posting the 10/31/09 New York Times article on the stimulus numbers, Jared?
   +++++++++++++++

   Jared: “I’ve already given you his quote. ‘reading’ and ‘understanding’…remember???”

   I understand that repeated searches on the web to find the quote you mention being attributed to Gibbs has so far yielded nothing to support your claim. And I remember that you STILL haven’t posted your source of this “Gibbs quote”.
   ***************

   Jared: “Which would make 2.5M LESS THAN 3.5M. meaning there have been more jobs LOST than created. Let’s start you out with 1+1=2, and then we’ll get to bigger numbers once you’re comfortable.”

   1+1=2. (Heh-heh.)
   Actually, arithmetically -3.5M is a smaller number than -2.5M. However, 2.5M jobs lost is still a SMALLER number of jobs lost than 3.5M jobs lost, so it’s an indication that a bleeding wound has been partially staunched, and is an indication of SOME effectiveness of the stimulus program.
   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

   Jared: “Perhaps…but we’re using the current numbers. Go ahead and use hypothetical new jobs if you want…I prefer to deal in reality.”

   Then why, in the same post to Alan in which you allege that the White House pulled numbers “outta their arses”, do you ALSO bring up CBO projections of a health care bill’s effects? Projections ALWAYS have a hypothetical element to them; you obviously prefer to cite sources containing hypotheticals WHEN IT SUITS YOU.
   &&&&&&&&&&&&&&

   Jared: “No, I wasn’t.”
   Okay, then, maybe you WEREN’T.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Jared: “Yes…good for you! Gibbs DOES work in the WH. Yes…I used quotes from a person who works in the WH to suggest that the WH is passing bogus numbers.”

   So, Jared, you WILL trust the word of somebody from the White House…when it suits you. As for me, I’ve yet to be conv1nced that Gibbs said this, or if he did , that it was not taken out of context.
   ##############

   Jared: “How silly of me.”
   AGREED, lol.
   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

   Jared: “and how is that a bad thing? Gibbs confirms what I said…WH is making up numbers. Gibbs stated the 1M jobs ’saved or created’” comes from direct jobs as required to be counted by the study PLUS ‘indirect’ jobs that are ‘NOT MEASURED’ by this study…too bad for you”

   Because you criticize me as someone who believes anything from the WH before fact checking, yet you tell me it was a statement from somebody in the White House (Gibbs) that you base your presumption of “the WH pulled these numbers outta their arses”. Which makes you look contradictory and hypocritical if the Gibbs quote is genuine and not taken out of context, and makes you look either careless or deceptive if the Gibbs quote is NOT genuine and/or taken out of context. A no-win situation for you, Jared. Too bad for you.

   LibpatriotfromArizona

   

   JaredfromTexas Reply:
   November 5th, 2009 at 1:41 am

   LIB,

   *more copying and pasting*

   This hardly translates to a deliberate dishonesty on the part of the White House on this matter

   Keep trying…but Gibbs admitted the use of numbers NOT counted as part of the study as part of the 1M. Also…the penchant of the gov’t to doll out information that hasn’t been verified in order to push a “the stimulus is working!” agenda is a bit disconcerting…”innit”?

   This quote that you attribute to Robert Gibbs is one that I have yet to find after several searches

   Look up the transcript of the press conference…you’ll find it there. No taking the quote out of context…and no rewording of his quote.
   Since you’re having a tough time doing your research:

   thepage.time.com/transcript-gibbs-october-30-2009-briefing/

   In what way was I being…

   You impulsively posted those numbers instead of waiting for verification. Hindsight is 20/20…right?

   so it’s an indication that a bleeding wound has been partially staunched

   Unbelieveable…you’re trying really hard…and I hate to burst your bubble…but you’re getting colder.

   Let me make it easier for you: 3.5M jobs LOST since the stimulus was passed. 1M jobs GAINED since the stimulus. MEANING net 2.5M jobs LOST. Meaning there are more jobs being LOST than being GAINED. Uh-oh…there goes your it’s an indication that a bleeding wound has been partially staunched, and is an indication of SOME effectiveness of the stimulus program farce.

   Posted by JaredfromTexas
   October 30th, 2009 at 9:24 pm

2. This just in; crazy minister Pat Robertson says witches have put spells on Halloween candy so kids will be lured to the dark side.
   Guess I’ll stay home tomorrow.

   jasperjava Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 6:53 am

   Aw, c’mon, What’s Hallowe’en without the Boogieman?

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm

   Heh-heh, good point!

   Posted by Boogieman
   October 30th, 2009 at 10:15 pm

3. I pulled up to an intersection once, years ago. The road I was westbound on teed into Highway 47 south of Yorkville, IL.

   I pulled up to the stop sign and looked left, preparing to make a righthand turn to the north. I was in a hurry, and with the road going my way clear of traffic, I started to coast around the corner and head north.

   Instead, I heard “STOP!!!”. Freaked out, I of course stopped.

   Two semis were running southbound on 47, side by side. One was passing the other and he must have been doing 70-100mph. I almost turned right into his path. Even so, I was driving a forward cab IH truck where the driver’s seat is almost in the front windshield and the southbound semi passed close enough to me I could have reached out and touched it as it went by except for my windshield between us.

   “Stop”. Ghosts? That’s when I started believing in “guardian angels” anyway.

   jasperjava Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 6:52 am

   Wow, that’s a freaky story. Thanks, Anonymouse.

   

   anonymouse Reply:
   October 31st, 2009 at 3:16 pm

   I looked for the intersection on Bing’s map/satellite photos.

   It wasn’t a tee intersection after all but I remember the house/farm at the corner and it’s still there south of Yorkville.

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm

   Cool story, Mouse! Apparently, you’re not alone in these experiences.

   

   jazmine Reply:
   November 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 pm

   Great story Mouse, something like that happened to me recently, with 2 deers in the headlights(in a car) I was speedy-gondolas for sure,(3am) going westbound on a country road…and all of a sudden something said to me SLOW DOWN…and there they were, two deer,close to touching my bumper, the look in their eyes, said it all, they orchestrated …it was very surreal as the three of us looked at each other, for quite some moments, I may add. I Felt, I Saw, something so overpowering, that I still carry that energy today. I can remember the rest of my journey home and feeling very euphoric(:

   I still get happy goose bumps relating this tale.

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 pm

   Looks like the magic’s still working for you, Jaz! Good deal!

   It reminds me of my mother relating that she was driving down an interstate doing 60-65 mph, when a truck passed her and got int front of her, and that truck was carrying a couch in its back bed. After that, she swears she heard a voice shouting to her, “STOP!”, and there was no one else in the pick-up truck with her, and her windows were all rolled up. She let her foot off of the gas pedal, and dropped back in her lane. Less than a minute later, the couch came flying off the back of the truck in front of her, hit the payment, and rolled down the right shoulder of the road. Had she kept following closlely behind that truck, the couch would have hit her truck, popped up, and smashed through her windshield and killed her. So, I don’t know if there are guardian angels OR WHAT, but I’m grateful to some sort of guiding force out there, for sure!

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm

   typo..”closely”

   Posted by anonymouse
   October 30th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

4. Alan,

   You need to chill out friend. That ghost story was funny period. The guy said he had to move into a smaller house because of the economy. He felt a ‘bad’ spirit in his house and when it bumped into him it was Obama in a nice suit. Big deal. You’re obsessed with this racist stuff and you seem to be finding it in places it doesn’t exist. That ghost story for example. Cj

   EricG Reply:
   November 1st, 2009 at 6:11 pm

   You are obsessed with defending racists like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh at every turn.

   Just take a good hard look at what these people say and what they are promoting.

   It’s racism. Bigotry in the minor cases.

   Big deal.

   That’s what all the racists of the U.S. said when Glenn Beck started race baiting on TV.

   And those who love this country and hate racist scum called him out on it.

   And then Racist News, or Fox News if you want, decided they would let this hate-monger go on without retraction.

   Liars and racists should be called out as such.

   Unless of course you support telling racist jokes about the president and turning the facts upside down to insult the pride of the nation.

   Posted by Cj
   October 30th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

5. Who the heck is this Richard Blaine guy?? He is really a character! LOL

   Posted by Lucieann
   October 31st, 2009 at 12:10 am

6. The collapse of home prices and Wall Street created debt triggered the economic crisis.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_financial_crisis

   Mr. Stock Market is folding up now, by the way. It started today. 700-800 SP500, here we come.

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm

   Darn, where DID I put my golden parachute..?

   Posted by anonymouse
   October 31st, 2009 at 12:30 am

7. • “Is there something strange in your neighborhood?” Actor Dan Aykroyd and his father Peter, author of A History of Ghosts: The True Story of Séances, Mediums, Ghosts and Ghostbusters sit down with Alan to discuss real-life hauntings.

   This was a great guest-interview.

   The Aykroyds obviously are well studied on this topic and it is refreshing to hear real information and not just hearsay on regards to “spirits & ghosts”.

   I like the point at which the concept of “spiritualism” was properly (for once) explained.

   Spiritualism is simply the belief that you are able to talk to spirits.

   This is why I often called myself “spiritual” and not “religious”.

   Everyone else seems to think you need to go stand in a certain building or wear a certain robe or eat a certain cracker or drink certain wine or listen to a specific preacher just to speak with the Holy Spirit.

   I don’t find this to be true in my experience at all.

   God is all around us.

   You need only have the ears to listen.

   –

   • What are witches brewing? Richard Blaine, Executive Director of the New York Center for the Strange, joins Alan to reveal the group’s annual predictions from witches across America.

   Well predictions rating at 17% accuracy don’t interest me all that much but the statement that Wiccans and Pagans are scorned to a point that they deserve their own “anti-defamation league” is beyond true.

   People (mainly evangelicals) demonize these good people for the sake of hundred year old hatred that they can’t even explain.

   Wicca and Pagan beliefs are to be valued in a society of free religious practice. The other option is to be a pack of bigots, hate, lie and defame others because you don’t like their beliefs.

   These so-called “good Christians” are the ones doing this too. They are no better than the demons they speak of.

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm

   EricG:
   “Everyone else seems to think you need to go stand in a certain building or wear a certain robe or eat a certain cracker or drink certain wine or listen to a specific preacher just to speak with the Holy Spirit.
   “I don’t find this to be true in my experience at all.
   “God is all around us.
   “You need only have the ears to listen.”

   Right ON, Eric. This is how I experience spirituality as well.

   But if they can’t trap you into a certain designated building, they can’t wave the collection plate in front of you, you know. Organized religion is just a business.

   

   GuidoVanHorn Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm

   Right ON, Eric. This is how I experience spirituality as well.

   —

   though I have serious problems with many religions, I feel sad that you have to dismiss the entire concept.

   

   flap Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 pm

   What good is a belief-system if it has no real organization or claim to truth?

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm

   Cheer up, then, Guido! I’ve read the Bible 4 times, I’ve read the Koran once, and I keep both around for reference. The Bhagavad-Gita and the Book of Mormon are on the shelf with them, and BOTH are on my reading list for next year. I believe in keeping up with what the concepts are about.
   But I feel divine presence most keenly in natural settings, mainly, or when I am helping somebody who needs it. Whem I read such books at home or within any other kind of man-made setting, it feels more like participating in a scholarly exercise.

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:03 pm

   Flap, I feel sad for you that you need organization, routine, and regimentation in order to experience that you are following truth. I guess you require a human echo-chamber surrounding you and constantly reaffirming you. Well, I don’t [cheers up again].

   

   GuidoVanHorn Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm

   keep reading…

   I guess my only message for you is to keep an open mind as you do it, flap makes a good point.

   maybe sad was the wrong word…but I can’t think of the word that would convey the proper sentiment.

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 pm

   At the moment, I’m reading a book written in 1950 (titled, “This Means Everlasting Life”), published by The Watchtower Society, explaining Jehovah’s Witness beliefs. Interesting, some of their focus is on Bible prophecy in the books of Daniel and the Revelation as very important component of preaching their beliefs. THAT is something they have in common with Seventh-day Adventists, but Witnesses interpret some of the passages from those two Bible books differently, I’m noticing (as far as what years and events they say the prophecies are referring to, I mean).

   

   burqa Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm

   Something I have found spiritually is that people will find their way and God will provide for them to the degree they seek Truth.
   Those who are not really interested will not be convinced to believe and God will be there for those who seek honestly.
   So we should be confident in that and not put on the high-pressure sales pitch because that just turns people off from whatever faith we have.

   In flap’s defense, I doubt many formal religious services are the sum total of where anyone is, spiritually. There is probably more to it and we should give people more credit and not judge them as we ourselves don’t like being judged…

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 pm

   Burqa: “So we should be confident in that and not put on the high-pressure sales pitch because that just turns people off from whatever faith we have.”
   If only the poster known around here as Trees Are People Too could have heard you say that, Burqa!
   Nearly every posted subject became turned into a subject about how we needed to be saved when he was around (though he was likable in some ways.
   But, come to think of it, Burqa, he would just have quoted Matthew 28:19,20 back at you.

   “In flap’s defense, I doubt many formal religious services are the sum total of where anyone is, spiritually. There is probably more to it and we should give people more credit and not judge them as we ourselves don’t like being judged…”
   Fair enough.
   Apologies to you, Flap, if what I said to you in the post above sounded a bit harsh to you.

   

   burqa Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm

   Thanks, Lib.
   I’m proud to be a Christian, but I think it is important to let others do as they want. One thing I learned in my faith is people are at different places along the road and you have to give them a chance to catch up rather than try to drag them along.
   Most of the time the thing to do is just love more and hold your tongue with the reproof.

   A lot of times I may have one thing down pretty good, but someone who may not be as far along as I in that area will be doing better than me in another one….

   

   GuidoVanHorn Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 pm

   amen…

   Posted by EricG
   November 1st, 2009 at 6:20 pm

8. Flap, I feel sad for you that you need organization, routine, and regimentation in order to experience that you are following truth. I guess you require a human echo-chamber surrounding you and constantly reaffirming you. Well, I don’t [cheers up again].

   —

   You’re greatly misunderstanding the reasoning behind the idea that there is a true religion.

   Lib Patriot Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm

   If I am, I’m greatly untroubled by it.

   GuidoVanHorn, I was a devout Seventh-day Adventist for much of my adolescence, and also attended Lutheran (MO Synod), Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Methodist, and Nazarene services (explanation: a lot of family and friends are church-goers). Been there, done that.
   If the reasoning is that you’re taking the chance of damnation and hellfire in the afterlife, you could be taking a chance by not joining them ALL (including Buddism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.), you know.

   

   jazmine Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 pm

   Good observation Lib. Yes, who are the chosen people?

   

   GuidoVanHorn Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 pm

   that’s for you to find out…

   Posted by GuidoVanHorn
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm

9. A lot of the squwabbling over religion would be mitigated if people read and took to heart the Virginia Statutes of Religious Freedom, upon which was based the religious freedom in the Constitution. Check this out:

   “Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”

   

   burqa Reply:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 pm

   More from the Virginia Statutes of Religious Freedom:

   “… impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time.”

   “… our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinion any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.”

   “… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinion or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities….”

   

   libpatriot Reply:
   November 4th, 2009 at 12:54 am

   Great sentiments!
   Did Tom Jefferson have a hand in writing that?

   Posted by burqa
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 pm

10. [...] On Friday’s Radio Show… (alan.com) [...]

    Posted by The 25 Best Time Management Tools & Techniques: How to Get More Done Without Driving Yourself Crazy | Time Management System
    November 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am