Jump to content

Libs, if you all are so smart, why do you suck at math?


Recommended Posts

Example:

 

1. The ACA is covering 6 million people. But 7 million lost their insurance because of the ACA. They don't know that 6 < 7. Thats the less than sign libs in case you needed a little help.

 

2. Always wanting to raise taxes on the 1%. Its already been proven time and time again that if we took every last dime from the top 20% it wouldn't even make a dent in the debt.

 

3. They love spending money we dont have. They don't know that when you add two negatives, it not only stays negative, it actually gets larger into the negatives.

 

Why do you all suck so bad at math?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example:

 

1. The ACA is covering 6 million people. But 7 million lost their insurance because of the ACA. They don't know that 6 < 7. Thats the less than sign libs in case you needed a little help.

 

2. Always wanting to raise taxes on the 1%. Its already been proven time and time again that if we took every last dime from the top 20% it wouldn't even make a dent in the debt.

 

3. They love spending money we dont have. They don't know that when you add two negatives, it not only stays negative, it actually gets larger into the negatives.

 

Why do you all suck so bad at math?

It's not that liberals "suck at math" but rather your premises are wrong.
The ACA covers everyone in the United States. You are obviously confusing the ACA with the insurance exchange. I guess you can say I lost my insurance plan because of the ACA but the insurance company replaced it with a better one and at the same cost to me. I never had to go to the exchange.
The debt is so large that if we took everyone's money we couldn't pay off the debt. It is like someone having a home mortgage. If you took all of their money they couldn't pay it off instantly but with just a portion of their money they could pay it off over time. If the top 1% were taxed at the level they were taxed at when Clinton left office then the deficit could be reduced to nothing and over time the budget could be paid off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

2. Always wanting to raise taxes on the 1%. Its already been proven time and time again that if we took every last dime from the top 20% it wouldn't even make a dent in the debt.

 

lemme see the math

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example:

 

1. The ACA is covering 6 million people. But 7 million lost their insurance because of the ACA. They don't know that 6 < 7. Thats the less than sign libs in case you needed a little help.

 

2. Always wanting to raise taxes on the 1%. Its already been proven time and time again that if we took every last dime from the top 20% it wouldn't even make a dent in the debt.

 

3. They love spending money we dont have. They don't know that when you add two negatives, it not only stays negative, it actually gets larger into the negatives.

 

Why do you all suck so bad at math?

How about conservatives when they think we just need to fix the FED rather than abolish it.

 

There is no way to pay off $1.5 quadrillion (1500 trillion) in debt with a $38 trillion economy, yet when do you see a conservative ever take a stand on this ?

 

No offense there Vegas, you do make some good points but fair is fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is now in it's 35th or 36th revamp. By the time it is stable - sound enough to cover everyone, we will have evolved into pure spiritual beings & will no longer need health care. The entire O tribe agenda was ( is ) the disruption of America. Anyone who hasn't noticed what's been goin on these past 5 - 6 years, has been livin in that cave on Mars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here ya go - a few zillion in grants to come up with alternate clean energy by the end of the year. What a pack of feckin toadies. Shiit, that aint't payin off, is it? OK - Cash For Clunkers - another fiasco. Electric - hybrid vehicles, hmmmmmmmmmm. Didn't think that a battery in below freezing weather won't charge properly - won't hold that charge & must weigh 900 pounds. Well, the taxpayer was fecked out of the money - why can't you produce? Ya got the money. Wind farms are slaughtering birds & bats , Shhhhhh Give me a break - I feel like vomiting. I'm driving by a big industrial complex - has an enormous array of solar panels; and the maintenance team is cleaning them with gas powered pressure washers. Hey Barack - when can we expect the first wind - solar powered steel mills to go on line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is now in it's 35th or 36th revamp. By the time it is stable - sound enough to cover everyone, we will have evolved into pure spiritual beings & will no longer need health care. The entire O tribe agenda was ( is ) the disruption of America. Anyone who hasn't noticed what's been goin on these past 5 - 6 years, has been livin in that cave on Mars

Obama care or the Affordable Care Act already covers everyone. Even you have benefited from it. You just know because you haven't taken your head out of the conservative propaganda haze to see realty for what it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lemme see the math

Below is the net worth of the top 1%. It comes to 1.7 trillion dollars. Our interest is 1 trillion. So if we took every last dime of the 1% it would cover a little more of our interest in a year. That doesnt even tackle a dime of the debt yet.

 

 

"The technology boom also added new members to the top percentile of the wealthy, as shown in the Forbes annual list of the 400 wealthiest Americans. Their members' combined net worth currently equals an unbelievable $1.7 trillion, or one-eighth of the U.S. economy."

 

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/average-net-worth-of-the-1.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/03/good-question-would-raising-taxes-on-wealthy-put-dent-in-natl-debt/

Obama care or the Affordable Care Act already covers everyone.

No it doesn't. It only covers those that can afford the ACA. My family cannot afford it. We had great insurance before the ACA, then we lost it. The cheapest we can afford on the exchange is literally 200 dollars more a month with almost twice the deductible. Its horrible indurnce compared to what we had. That is with the subsidy. We are no longer covered, we have no choice but to take the fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to pay a fine to a law that was only ratified by a foreigner President.

In a just and perfect world, you would be correct. But they automatically take out the fine when filing taxes. No choice, unless we dont file taxes. But that would cause more problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16th Amendment Improperly Ratified,

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said Rebeltarian. in a just world with no government corruption, that amendment would be enforced. But I think you know that isn't going to happen.


My math is pretty good, Republicons said if they won big in the 2010 midterms they would work on JOBS JOBS JOBS and instead they voted to repeal Obama care 50 times.

Because the math of the ACA doesn't add up. 2+2 does not equal 4. According to the dems, 2+2 equals whatever the hell they want it to equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example:

 

1. The ACA is covering 6 million people. But 7 million lost their insurance because of the ACA. They don't know that 6 < 7. Thats the less than sign libs in case you needed a little help.

 

2. Always wanting to raise taxes on the 1%. Its already been proven time and time again that if we took every last dime from the top 20% it wouldn't even make a dent in the debt.

 

3. They love spending money we dont have. They don't know that when you add two negatives, it not only stays negative, it actually gets larger into the negatives.

 

Why do you all suck so bad at math?

On number two, you are dead wrong!

 

We have never tried to do this, its totally hypothetical!

 

Jeez, If we just taxed the trillions of $ hedge funds 1 0r 2% that would pay off the debt in no time!

 

Number one was answered already. Good answer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a just and perfect world, you would be correct. But they automatically take out the fine when filing taxes. No choice, unless we dont file taxes. But that would cause more problems.

This is legalized robbery by the Treasury Dept.!

 

And soon we will have a "Cyprus bank tax" that will rob us even more! :angry:

You don't have to pay a fine to a law that was only ratified by a foreigner President.

Reb, lay off the "birther" crap!

 

That sounds so rethuglican!

 

And it diminishes everything else you say.

 

It's all about perception being reality, you know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On number two, you are dead wrong!

 

We have never tried to do this, its totally hypothetical!

 

Jeez, If we just taxed the trillions of $ hedge funds 1 0r 2% that would pay off the debt in no time!

 

Number one was answered already. Good answer!

 

How about we tax YOU for a change, you f'n freeloader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you? Why did your mother, and your mothers' mother?

YO MAMA!!!

 

tee hehe

 

How about we tax YOU for a change, you f'n freeloader.

ahhhh! Fartgo rears his ugly head, up for another swallow!

 

I paid in to my SS I draw! Assbreath!

 

You are cordially invited to GFY! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...