United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Has caused them to rethink quitting on the healthcare bill. Apparently a procedural vote next week.

I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hoping they pass it just to make ip look like a dope with his new signature........

Here's some leadership for you........

HokieHam wrote:Has caused them to rethink quitting on the healthcare bill. Apparently a procedural vote next week.

I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hoping they pass it just to make ip look like a dope with his new signature........

Here's some leadership for you........

Got it.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

HokieHam wrote:Has caused them to rethink quitting on the healthcare bill. Apparently a procedural vote next week.

I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hoping they pass it just to make ip look like a dope with his new signature........

Here's some leadership for you........

Got it.

Obummercare is not sustainble, if the dems had maybe read it before they voted for it they may have figured that out. It is hilarious watching the complete analysis of the new healthcare proposals but nobody even read Obummercare before they voted for it

And all that spot on CBO analysis of Obummercare, lets not forget that...... and everyone would be covered...oops

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

HokieHam wrote:Has caused them to rethink quitting on the healthcare bill. Apparently a procedural vote next week.

I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hoping they pass it just to make ip look like a dope with his new signature........

Here's some leadership for you........

Got it.

Obummercare is not sustainble, if the dems had maybe read it before they voted for it they may have figured that out. It is hilarious watching the complete analysis of the new healthcare proposals but nobody even read Obummercare before they voted for it

And all that spot on CBO analysis of Obummercare, lets not forget that...... and everyone would be covered...oops

From their internal analysis in 2010 they knew it was unsustainable. That was okay because they wanted single payer national healthcare, but couldn't get/didn't have support for it at that time. But like a good dealer they got the low income/low info/low social segment of society hooked, and once hooked they knew they couldn't give it up.

Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

Attila T Hun wrote:Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

I don't pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Attila T Hun wrote:Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

I don't pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a macro perspective, you're still a net drain (with some very rare exceptions) as you're childless. You're relying on other peoples' children to pay for your entitlements.

So yeah, you're looking for freebies.

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Attila T Hun wrote:Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

I don't pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a macro perspective, you're still a net drain (with some very rare exceptions) as you're childless. You're relying on other peoples' children to pay for your entitlements.

So yeah, you're looking for freebies.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Attila T Hun wrote:Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

I don't pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a macro perspective, you're still a net drain (with some very rare exceptions) as you're childless. You're relying on other peoples' children to pay for your entitlements.

So yeah, you're looking for freebies.

Lawyers pay a higher ratio of taxes-to-services-received than most other professions (for the simple fact that they don't receive need-based services and their salaries result in higher tax revenue). If a lawyer is receiving more value in services than the taxes they pay, it means that other professions are receiving still greater value in the services they receive compared to the taxes they pay.

Having children plays no role in the calculation unless you assume that future budgets won't be run as deficits (and thus that one's children will receive less services per taxes paid, thus 'making up' for their parents' receiving more per taxes paid).

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Attila T Hun wrote:Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

I don't pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a macro perspective, you're still a net drain (with some very rare exceptions) as you're childless. You're relying on other peoples' children to pay for your entitlements.

So yeah, you're looking for freebies.

Lawyers pay a higher ratio of taxes-to-services-received than most other professions (for the simple fact that they don't receive need-based services and their salaries result in higher tax revenue). If a lawyer is receiving more value in services than the taxes they pay, it means that other professions are receiving still greater value in the services they receive compared to the taxes they pay.

Having children plays no role in the calculation unless you assume that future budgets won't be run as deficits (and thus that one's children will receive less services per taxes paid, thus 'making up' for their parents' receiving more per taxes paid).

Haaaahaaaaahaaaa.......... *breathe* ....hahahahaha....oh boy. You think?

You realize this is a thread about creating a massive new entitlement, right?

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Attila T Hun wrote:Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

I don't pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a macro perspective, you're still a net drain (with some very rare exceptions) as you're childless. You're relying on other peoples' children to pay for your entitlements.

So yeah, you're looking for freebies.

Lawyers pay a higher ratio of taxes-to-services-received than most other professions (for the simple fact that they don't receive need-based services and their salaries result in higher tax revenue). If a lawyer is receiving more value in services than the taxes they pay, it means that other professions are receiving still greater value in the services they receive compared to the taxes they pay.

Having children plays no role in the calculation unless you assume that future budgets won't be run as deficits (and thus that one's children will receive less services per taxes paid, thus 'making up' for their parents' receiving more per taxes paid).

When SSA started, the ratio of payers to payees was ~16:1. Now, it's ~3:1. Having children increases the ratio. Not having children decreases the ratio.

HokieJoe wrote:

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Attila T Hun wrote:Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

I don't pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a macro perspective, you're still a net drain (with some very rare exceptions) as you're childless. You're relying on other peoples' children to pay for your entitlements.

So yeah, you're looking for freebies.

Lawyers pay a higher ratio of taxes-to-services-received than most other professions (for the simple fact that they don't receive need-based services and their salaries result in higher tax revenue). If a lawyer is receiving more value in services than the taxes they pay, it means that other professions are receiving still greater value in the services they receive compared to the taxes they pay.

Having children plays no role in the calculation unless you assume that future budgets won't be run as deficits (and thus that one's children will receive less services per taxes paid, thus 'making up' for their parents' receiving more per taxes paid).

When SSA started, the ratio of payers to payees was ~16:1. Now, it's ~3:1. Having children increases the ratio. Not having children decreases the ratio.

Yep. IP votes for a welfare state, but he's planning on everyone else's children to pay for it.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieJoe wrote:

VisorBoy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Attila T Hun wrote:Leftys like IP don't care about the people or health care...They just care about freebies that other folk pay for.

I don't pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a macro perspective, you're still a net drain (with some very rare exceptions) as you're childless. You're relying on other peoples' children to pay for your entitlements.

So yeah, you're looking for freebies.

Lawyers pay a higher ratio of taxes-to-services-received than most other professions (for the simple fact that they don't receive need-based services and their salaries result in higher tax revenue). If a lawyer is receiving more value in services than the taxes they pay, it means that other professions are receiving still greater value in the services they receive compared to the taxes they pay.

Having children plays no role in the calculation unless you assume that future budgets won't be run as deficits (and thus that one's children will receive less services per taxes paid, thus 'making up' for their parents' receiving more per taxes paid).

When SSA started, the ratio of payers to payees was ~16:1. Now, it's ~3:1. Having children increases the ratio. Not having children decreases the ratio.

Yep. IP votes for a welfare state, but he's planning on everyone else's children to pay for it.

Just your kids.

The inverse of this, of course, is that children increase the burden of the state (education, police, etc)

RiverguyVT wrote:The inverse of this, of course, is that children increase the burden of the state (education, police, etc)

Only if they aren't productive, i.e. born into poverty

RiverguyVT wrote:The inverse of this, of course, is that children increase the burden of the state (education, police, etc)

OTOH, they'll likely be net contributors. Why else would Europe be importing so many migrants?

(I don't know why I thought of this clip)