Canton

Canton, OH

#22662 Dec 5, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
you are stupid beyond belief.
not once did I mention my wealth...not once, but I did tell you about payroll. Several of my employees have earned more than me at current from my business. And yes without their help there would be no business. However they did not risk everything, and sign personal loans to meet payroll. They did not liquidate everything to fund the starving new business. My wife having a good job provided me a safety blanket to roll the dice, and I did. Now the fruit tree is getting much riper due to lack of debt, and the commissions received moving towards positive for 3rd consecutive year.
what you call over compensation for obvious insecurities is funny.
If you already don't earn 75K proven by 1099 or W-2, your resume never made it to my desk. It is a job requirement.
If you are not currently earning that income in a sales position, then you have no value here.
That reality is as factual as they ever come.
Wow. Judging by your posts here, if you did have this great boss man power that you dream of on a daily basis, all of your employees would think you are yet another idiot who got life handed to them. You know, like every owner of the company's lazy and inept son I have ever met. Next time you are talking to one of your "employees", know that they think you are a douche bag.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#22664 Dec 5, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
But I didn't need them to understand how the system works. My grocery store accepts EBT cards. Some pull two carts: one for the items they can pay with food stamps, and the other cart for the things they pay for with cash such as Pepsi or other sodas, dog food, cat food, cat litter, wine, cigarettes. These people don't even have shame enough to get their food stamps items and then return to the store for those other things.
Why should they make two trips? And why would it make you feel better? So you could pretend that they weren't spending money on those other items?
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#22665 Dec 5, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
My quarterly payments most likely exceed your annual income. Probably the state payment does.
I gave more to charity in November than you earned in November I guarantee it.
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
not once did I mention my wealth...not once, but I did tell you about payroll.
I read several days worth of messages right now, and your first quote sure sounds to me like you are referring to your wealth. Which is fine, but without any way to verify your statements, most readers are going to assume you are exaggerating your wealth.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22666 Dec 5, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should they make two trips? And why would it make you feel better? So you could pretend that they weren't spending money on those other items?
I would feel totally ashamed that I would be buying non-necissities with cash and the onlooking taxpayers could see they were paying for my food. Kind of like somebody borrowing two thousand dollars from you because they were in a pinch, and then you found out they took a vacation in Florida so they could attend Disneyland.

Whether they make one trip or ten doesn't affect me, just pointing out how shameless these freeloaders are.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22667 Dec 5, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the assistance programs need reformed to crack down on abuse, but it doesn't change the fact that they are necessary programs in a civilized society. Take a look at the extremes of lavish lifestyles you see with the wealthiest of Americans, flaunted across the television like it was the air we breath. Money to the point that it becomes abstract. How can you cry about some poor person buying pop with foodstamps when the facts tell us that the gap between the rich and poor is growing exponentially. I would hardly call the performance of these "job creators" as being exponential.
The problem is that when somebody gets wealthy or wealthier, it doesn't mean somebody else got poorer.

Let me ask: if we took half of the liquid assets away from people making over a million dollars, how would that help you or one poor person?

I think watching wealthy people on television is inspirational. What's wrong with that? Just about the only time you see somebody in need on television is when they are asking for money for those people.

Necessary social programs should be run by private entities or at the very most, the state. The federal government should not be in charge of things like food stamps, medical care, retirement accounts. The federal government should concentrate on federal matters, not personal ones. Those federal matters are listed in the US Constitution.

Nearly every time the government tries to meddle in private industry, it gets worse. That's why the fraud can't get cleaned up. For one, government workers love the fraud. It guarantees them work and politicians votes. But look at where we are with Social Security today. We are now paying out more than we are taking in. Like SS, Medicare is going broke. Medicaid is the largest expenditure of many states, and need I remind you of what Fanny and Freddy are when it comes to the housing market and the collapse? Commie Care???

The federal government can be good at a few things, but not everything. That's why the founders limited what they should be getting involved in.
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#22668 Dec 5, 2013
With patriotic mouthpieces like Reality, XXX, and UdBT representing us online, it's really no wonder that our trailer park dwelling, cross burning country club fundie circlejerk is hemorrhaging worse than a hemophiliac in a razorblade factory...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22669 Dec 5, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many more cars on the roads these days. I'm not sure that your mother's mother and her horse and buggy are a good example for this modern day issue. Not that your "jump off a bridge" for health coverage comment wasn't rational. The real question is, who fits the bill in our current health care system when one of those people who "choose" to not have health insurance has a heart attack and is rushed to the emergency room? Taxpayers, that's who. Also, where are all these people who are choosing not to have health insurance? I think you are confusing them with people who can't afford health care coverage. Many seniors have to put off getting needed medication until they can afford it. I saw this first hand and was always helping out my 95 year old Grandmother. What about those who don't have family to help them? I know of families where they have to work at an underpaid job, just so they can have health insurance for their kids. Before you go on your "lazy...deserved it...free loader" trip, the person I am talking about served in the military.
As we've discussed before, there are plenty of other ways to help people with no coverage without the federal government taking control over the entire thing. Some young and healthy people see no need to purchase health insurance if they don't get it from work. Those are the people OBummer was counting on. But it's not happening. Others like my sister who works at the Cleveland Clinic has no insurance coverage either. Her healthcare is supplied directly by her employer.

What you don't understand is that if.... IF it was really the concern of DumBama or any Democrat that everybody be covered, it doesn't take a 2,800 page bill to do it. It doesn't take millions of people losing their coverage that they liked either. They could have easily set up a fund for all of those people and offered it to them if they wanted help. But forcing people to buy something they don't want or can't afford is totally un-American.

About ten years ago I had a major house fire. I suspect it was a foe of one of my tenants. My house insurance didn't go up after the rebuilding. I thought I had great insurance or something. One year from the date of the fire, they canceled my insurance on all my properties.

No other insurance company would cover me. The bank was getting uneasy about me not having coverage. My insurance broker hooked me up with the State of Ohio. They had a bare bones policy that was more than reasonable. I was on it for three years before I could get better insurance from an insurance company. Now that's the way to solve a problem like that. There's no reason we can't have the same thing when it comes to health insurance.
Canton

Canton, OH

#22670 Dec 5, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
As we've discussed before, there are plenty of other ways to help people with no coverage without the federal government taking control over the entire thing. Some young and healthy people see no need to purchase health insurance if they don't get it from work. Those are the people OBummer was counting on. But it's not happening. Others like my sister who works at the Cleveland Clinic has no insurance coverage either. Her healthcare is supplied directly by her employer.
What you don't understand is that if.... IF it was really the concern of DumBama or any Democrat that everybody be covered, it doesn't take a 2,800 page bill to do it. It doesn't take millions of people losing their coverage that they liked either. They could have easily set up a fund for all of those people and offered it to them if they wanted help. But forcing people to buy something they don't want or can't afford is totally un-American.
About ten years ago I had a major house fire. I suspect it was a foe of one of my tenants. My house insurance didn't go up after the rebuilding. I thought I had great insurance or something. One year from the date of the fire, they canceled my insurance on all my properties.
No other insurance company would cover me. The bank was getting uneasy about me not having coverage. My insurance broker hooked me up with the State of Ohio. They had a bare bones policy that was more than reasonable. I was on it for three years before I could get better insurance from an insurance company. Now that's the way to solve a problem like that. There's no reason we can't have the same thing when it comes to health insurance.
So you are saying that the Conservative Republicans that originally penned the health care reform act, including and especially the guy you tried to get as president last time, should have thought it out better and not slathered it with so much bureaucracy. Got it. Also, how could you guys so easily skip over something as serious as how you portrayed Benghazi for something so trivial as the health care reform act Mitt Romney implemented in his state? It's almost as if...
Pops

Newport, KY

#22671 Dec 5, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Pops. Most of the things I say on here are to make me and my wife laugh. I certainly don't think I am teaching you guys anything, any more than you would be teaching me. Statistically, it just doesn't happen. If anything, the media on both sides has polarized the issues to the point that we all get clumped in on one extreme side or the other. A point I often like to make fun of on this forum. I can understand your views on the government making people have insurance, but it really isn't that much different than people having to have car insurance. It makes it so we are no longer paying the bill for the large amount of people who were still being treated, yet weren't paying in any form at all.
As far as Jefferson's views on the matter, he wasn't speaking from a perspective that included millions and millions of people, like our population is now.
Your pattern & history of being a pain in the butt & how you did it showed intellect, that's why I & a couple of others started calling you for trolling. It can be fun but you carried on for 1000 pages! lol Rather persistent.
Look, I don't have affordable medical/dental insurance available to me. Too small of an employer for good rates.
My teeth are bad from years of too many sodas, I am developing arthritis etc so I truly want insurance. My issue is that I don't trust the government to run a bath without a running waste. Look at Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Social Security, SNAP, the Highway Fund(s), Medicare, Medicaid etc etc.
Why can't they simply legislate that one can buy insurance across state lines, dependents are covered until 26, that people can't be denied for pre-existing conditions & a few other things that are good about the ACA WITHOUT the FEDS holding the strings?
My answer is that there is no GOOD reason.
Just splitting hairs but the diff from auto ins & health ins is that the government doesn't control one & doesn't need to control the other. The success of the 1st one is proof of that.
As far as Jefferson's times & population & today's population being millions & millions, it was & IS all proportional/comparitive. No real difference for either time period.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22672 Dec 5, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Your pattern & history of being a pain in the butt & how you did it showed intellect, that's why I & a couple of others started calling you for trolling. It can be fun but you carried on for 1000 pages! lol Rather persistent.
Look, I don't have affordable medical/dental insurance available to me. Too small of an employer for good rates.
My teeth are bad from years of too many sodas, I am developing arthritis etc so I truly want insurance.
Pops, I don't have dental coverage at work either. I buy my own dental insurance and I have terrible teeth. The good plan is a little over $300.00 per year and they have a smaller plan with a higher deductible. If interested, the company is Delta Insurance. If you have bad teeth, it's worth it because you are going to pay for it anyhow in dentist bills. Dentists are an arm and a leg today.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22673 Dec 5, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that the Conservative Republicans that originally penned the health care reform act, including and especially the guy you tried to get as president last time, should have thought it out better and not slathered it with so much bureaucracy. Got it. Also, how could you guys so easily skip over something as serious as how you portrayed Benghazi for something so trivial as the health care reform act Mitt Romney implemented in his state? It's almost as if...
After Romney got his plan in, how many people in his state lost their healthcare coverage? Zero.

A state can do whatever they want, but not the federal government. If the state of Ohio wanted to start a new program that everybody has to own a firearm provided by the state, they can do that, the federal government can't. It's none of their business what we in Ohio do provided it doesn't violate the US Constitution.

Comme Care is entirely different than what Romney did. And no Republican ever proposed Commie Care the Republican version. No Republican ever sponsored a bill anything like it.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#22674 Dec 6, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
does it hut when force feed fact?
half this country pays ZERO income tax, and if it is payroll deducted, it is returned.
when you remove your head from your azz, you will see daylight for the 1st time.
Pull your brain up, your ignorance is showing.
Canton

Canton, OH

#22675 Dec 6, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
As we've discussed before, there are plenty of other ways to help people with no coverage without the federal government taking control over the entire thing. Some young and healthy people see no need to purchase health insurance if they don't get it from work. Those are the people OBummer was counting on. But it's not happening. Others like my sister who works at the Cleveland Clinic has no insurance coverage either. Her healthcare is supplied directly by her employer.
What you don't understand is that if.... IF it was really the concern of DumBama or any Democrat that everybody be covered, it doesn't take a 2,800 page bill to do it. It doesn't take millions of people losing their coverage that they liked either. They could have easily set up a fund for all of those people and offered it to them if they wanted help. But forcing people to buy something they don't want or can't afford is totally un-American.
About ten years ago I had a major house fire. I suspect it was a foe of one of my tenants. My house insurance didn't go up after the rebuilding. I thought I had great insurance or something. One year from the date of the fire, they canceled my insurance on all my properties.
No other insurance company would cover me. The bank was getting uneasy about me not having coverage. My insurance broker hooked me up with the State of Ohio. They had a bare bones policy that was more than reasonable. I was on it for three years before I could get better insurance from an insurance company. Now that's the way to solve a problem like that. There's no reason we can't have the same thing when it comes to health insurance.
Hey electric, gas, water bill, car insurance, sticker on my license plate and 99% of the television shows I pay for but don't watch...XXX here is calling your "capitalism" un-American.
Canton

Canton, OH

#22676 Dec 6, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Your pattern & history of being a pain in the butt & how you did it showed intellect, that's why I & a couple of others started calling you for trolling. It can be fun but you carried on for 1000 pages! lol Rather persistent.
Look, I don't have affordable medical/dental insurance available to me. Too small of an employer for good rates.
My teeth are bad from years of too many sodas, I am developing arthritis etc so I truly want insurance. My issue is that I don't trust the government to run a bath without a running waste. Look at Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Social Security, SNAP, the Highway Fund(s), Medicare, Medicaid etc etc.
Why can't they simply legislate that one can buy insurance across state lines, dependents are covered until 26, that people can't be denied for pre-existing conditions & a few other things that are good about the ACA WITHOUT the FEDS holding the strings?
My answer is that there is no GOOD reason.
Just splitting hairs but the diff from auto ins & health ins is that the government doesn't control one & doesn't need to control the other. The success of the 1st one is proof of that.
As far as Jefferson's times & population & today's population being millions & millions, it was & IS all proportional/comparitive. No real difference for either time period.
Just because I am laughing at you doesn't mean I don't mean what I say. It just means I find it funny.
fifth

Brighton, MI

#22677 Dec 6, 2013
good point
Pops

Newport, KY

#22679 Dec 6, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because I am laughing at you doesn't mean I don't mean what I say. It just means I find it funny.
How about a comment of substance?
Canton

Canton, OH

#22680 Dec 7, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>How about a comment of substance?
You mean like "Waaaaaah he called me names!"? We can't all be so sensitive to such substantial things as birth certificates, invisible commie and wars on Christmas. You know, the important things.
Pops

Newport, KY

#22681 Dec 7, 2013
Republican 101 wrote:
<quoted text>Quick tip for ya, don't b!tch about laziness right after you tell everyone how dependent you are upon hired help.
Makes ya seem like a self important, deluded sissyboy.
Oh wait...
Actually it makes him look like an employer/job creator.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#22682 Dec 7, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Comme Care is entirely different than what Romney did. And no Republican ever proposed Commie Care the Republican version. No Republican ever sponsored a bill anything like it.
One of the few nice things about getting old is that you can personally remember how ideas actually evolved, rather than relying on the opinions of folks like you.

"Mitt Romney, as we know, has been catching a lot of flak from conservatives for Romneycare, because Romney’s signature legislative achievement served as the model for Obamacare. But as Romney said in a debate in Las Vegas last October,“we got the idea of an individual mandate…from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation.”"

"In 1991, Mark Pauly and others developed a proposal for George H.W. Bush that also included an individual mandate."

"In 1992 and 1993, some Republicans in Congress, seeking an alternative to Hillarycare, used these ideas as a foundation for their own health-reform proposals. One such bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R., R.I.) and co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time. The HEART Act proposed health insurance vouchers for low-income individuals, along with an individual mandate.

Newt Gingrich, who was House Minority Leader in 1993, was also in favor of an individual mandate in those days. Gingrich continued to support a federal individual mandate as recently as May of last year.

It would seem that 1990s conservatives weren’t concerned with the constitutional implications of allowing Congress to force people to buy a private product.“I don’t remember that being raised at all,” Mark Pauly told Ezra Klein last year.“The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax…So I’ve been surprised by that argument.”"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/201...
Joeweld

Allison Park, PA

#22683 Dec 7, 2013
Never re-elect anyone.
An honest person in an elected post is fair game for those who can influence him or her to do as they are told by those who put up the $s to fill the chair.
After one term they are either taught or will use the opportunity to profit from the office on their own.
Money buys the seat and money will delegate the actions of anyone in any elected seat.
I hear a lot about ‘term limits’ and we the people can do that by just a simple vote.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbia Station Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Loyal fans of Solon Comets trek west to Strongs... Sun Scott 1
OH Who do you support for Auditor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) Sep 19 Vic 231
Cut screen interpreted as attempted break in: O... Sep 14 BLB 1
OH Who do you support for Treasurer in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) Sep 13 They cannot kill ... 191
Animal Planet Investigates Petland (May '10) Sep 3 Julie 27
OH Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2... (Oct '10) Aug '14 gary 2,230
Review: North Ridge Christian Life Church (Jan '13) Jul '14 Don 23
•••
•••
Columbia Station Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbia Station Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Columbia Station People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbia Station News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbia Station
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••