Type to search

The House’s Latest Health Care Vote Puts Campaign Cash Ahead of People

Memo Pad

The House’s Latest Health Care Vote Puts Campaign Cash Ahead of People


Congress shouldn’t make working- and middle-class families pay for the repeal of a sales tax on one of America’s most profitable industries.

Last week the House voted to increase health care costs on middle-class families in order to protect one of the most profitable industries in the country. And almost nobody noticed. More than three dozen Democrats, oiled by campaign contributions, joined all 233 voting Republicans in voting for a repeal of a 2.3 percent sales tax on the medical device industry included in the Affordable Care Act. They voted to pay for the lost revenues by making families who are fortunate enough to get back on their feet pay more for health coverage.

The vote last week symbolizes most everything that is wrong about our politics, and in particular the politics around the Affordable Care Act, with one very welcome exception. The White House – not known for standing up tall – promised a veto of the legislation.

One way that the Affordable Care Act will be paid for is by new taxes and reduced Medicare revenues from major segments of the health care industry. In return, health care providers will reap greater revenues from tens of millions newly insured people and improved health coverage for tens of millions more. Medical device manufacturers got off easy with the 2.3 percent sales tax considering that, according to Forbes, the industry is one of most profitable in the country (number one on return on assets, number four on return on sales, and number nine on return on equity).

That did not stop the medical device industry from fighting the tax with the usual cry wolf tactics, saying it will cost jobs and hurt small business. An editorial from, of all places, Bloomberg News takes the industry’s arguments apart, one by one. The most glaring example is the charge by the industry’s trade association, AdvaMed, that the tax would cost 43,000 U.S. jobs as manufacturers moved offshore. But since the tax applies to all medical devices sold in the U.S., there is absolutely no advantage in moving jobs offshore. Doing so won’t reduce the tax by a nickel (or a yuan).


  1. doowoplover534 June 14, 2012

    More sellouts from a corrupt congress. What else is new. Look at the taxpayer subsidies to the rich oil companies. A disgrace.Then they turn around and want to cut Social Security, Medicare, hospitals, libraries, teachers ,etc.They have no values, no morals , no shame.But the people have themselves to blame for voting republican .

    1. TheSkalawag929 June 14, 2012

      I wish there was someone out there that could tell me why people making under $250k would vote republican.

      1. Linda Rockhold June 17, 2012

        I agree, and my husband asks this almost every day.
        He also asks, “Are there THAT many stupid people in this country?”
        We have checked into moving to Canada.

        1. jack berezny June 22, 2012

          That is what I asked when Bush II got elected twice. I asked it again when Reagan got re-elected and was never impeached for the Iran-Contra Affair.

  2. Eleanore Whitaker June 14, 2012

    Get smart people. Taxpayers do not HAVE to contribute a single dime of tax revenues to ANY business if we don’t want to. If these elected officials are handing out tax revenues like candy to businesses who don’t need it, get rid of them.

    Money is buying jobs in the House and everyone see that and does nothing about it. There is one simple thing you can do…go to the government website, find out who your state representatives are and send them a flood of emails demanding an end to this Pay to Play by the House and Senate. Then, if they ignore your emails…call them and ask to speak to them directly. Do not under any circumstances be intimidated or in any way put off by some representatives twerpy staff. Your taxes pay their salaries…Stand Your Ground! Call or email until they know your name. This is what Americans do to protect their government from skankola.

    1. RodgerMitchell June 14, 2012

      Get even smarter. Realize that federal taxes pay for nothing. The federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars. It is Monetarily Sovereign.

      Even if federal spending doubled and federal taxes were $0, the federal government could pay all its bills.

      1. greghilbert June 14, 2012

        Geez Roger, when you stretch the truth that far, it breaks. If we tried to print that much money it would be so worthless that we’d run out of forests trying to make enough paper to pay for the ink!
        Besides, right now it’s not the government that has the ability you speak of. By law, the Federal Reserve tells Treasury how much to print, not vice versa. The Federal Reserve is not a government department but the for-profit clearinghouse of the for-profit banking cartel. We pay them to sell our dollars, which are debt instruments, not vice versa. Read any of the dollar bills in your wallet, look up Federal Reserve on Wikipedia.
        Treasury prints the bills and delivers them to the Federal Reserve.
        The Federal Reserve takes a cut upon selling them cheaply to the banking cartel. The banking cartel profits by selling them at a far higher rate of interest (the prime rate or higher) to borrowers, mostly smaller banks, corporations, other governments. Some of those borrowers sell it in turn to credit card users, at interest rates typically ranging from 13% to 29%. Funny thing is, for every “dollar” the banking cartel buys, they can issue many more dollars in loans. Big ponzi scheme. We’re just the suckers who pay the interest on the debt we sold to the banking cartel’s Federal Reserve in the first place, AND in effect we back all the loans the cartel makes. If we didn’t, the bills in our wallets wouldn’t be worth the paper they are printed on. I don’t mean this figuratively. I mean it literally.

        It always surprises me how few people realize that the Federal Reserve is a for-profit corporation created, owned and controlled by a small number of mega-banks, ie the banking cartel. Then again, neither the financial industry nor the governmental-political elite really want people to grasp the full truth of the matter. If people realized the full extent of the ponzi scheme, and it’s cost to them, it could set off a panic triggering collapse of the ponzi. We’d suffer big-time awhile, but they’d suffer loss of their wealth and power and maybe also their heads, literally.

        1. RodgerMitchell June 14, 2012

          Clearly, you are not an economist, but allow me to educate you:

          1. No one “prints” dollars. The U.S. dollar has no physical existence. That dollar bill is just a receipt showing that the holder owns a dollar. But the dollar itself is just an accounting notation.

          2. Congress and the President create dollars when they authorize spending. The government creates dollars when it spends, by instructing creditors’ banks to credit checking accounts.

          3. Banks do create dollars by lending, but that is separate from federally created dollars, which come into existence via deficit spending. You are confusing the two separate processes, and adding a bit of conspiracy theory to the mix.

          4. The popular wisdom is that federal deficits cause inflation. In fact, since the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign on 8/15/71, there has been zero relationship between federal deficit spending and inflation.

          I would send you to the supporting data, but this site doesn’t seem to like links. If you Google “Monetary Sovereignty,” you’ll get there.

          1. greghilbert June 14, 2012

            Wow Rodger, I now realize that I am not only a poor excuse for a progressive, but a stupid conspiracy theorist whose 3 years of post-graduate education and 20 years as a successful profit/loss exec made me stupider still, while you are a non-bankster economist who has found THE MAGIC BULLET!

            You wrote “Even if federal spending doubled and federal taxes were $0, the federal government could pay all its bills.”

            Golly, I can’t wait till you educate the nation’s professional economists! Surely they will leap to their feet and shout “By golly, he’s right, let’s double federal spending, eliminate all federal taxes, and then exercise our right of Monetary Sovereignty to pay our bills with the money we don’t print and which has no physical existence!”

            You have also awakened me to the realization that there is not now nor was there ever any form of conspiracy by the banking cartel, nor any collusion with it on the part of anyone holding elected office. Everything I ever read about the banking cartel’s creation of the for-profit Federal Reserve and its operating effects in partnership with our federal government is now purged,
            and I promise to send my first Social Security check to Alan Greenspan or perhaps one of the bank CEOs or Senate Banking Committee members I have hitherto criticized so unfairly.

            I regret that despite your brilliant effort to educate me, I am unable to purge the illusion of printed pieces of paper in dollar denominations resident in my wallet. I can think of nothing to do but burn them in hopes of purging my mind of further delusion.

            Thanks Roger!

          2. RodgerMitchell June 15, 2012

            Well, I tried. Unfortunately, you would rather demonstrate your sarcasm than learn.

          3. greghilbert June 15, 2012

            Rodger, your pompous presumptiveness parallels your theory: neither know when to quit.

            When you wrote “Even if federal spending doubled and federal taxes were $0, the federal government could pay all its bills”, I replied “Geez Roger, when you stretch the truth that far, it breaks.” I didn’t argue against raising the debt ceiling, nor for deficit-reduction austerity on the backs of the 99%, nor even dispute a lack of modern-era correlation between money supply and inflation. On the contrary, I argued against the absurdity of your contention, as a measure of truth taken too far, and as a measure of truth incomplete for entirely disregarding the Federal Reserve mechanism by which the wealth of the many is yet being transfered to the few, compounded as that is by tax cuts for the wealthy.

            I made no claim to be an economist. I do claim to be a progressive screaming “bloody murder” over the ongoing transfer of wealth, and I do claim to have no profiteering or other self-serving motive for commenting on National Memo articles.

            You, however, wrote a book in 2005 and would like to sell more copies.

            Below are a few of the comments found where your book is sold:

            “Unbelievable collection of misinformation…Somehow, everyone wants to dabble in economics without training, even though few would try it in other professions. This book carries that idea to the extreme. The author has an MBA and an undergraduate marketing degree. He rejects and/or misstates virtually everything in macroeconomics in a way that a first-semester undergraduate economics student could shred.
            Among the many logical fallacies are his statement that because an economy requires money to grow, and because money is debt, and because a large economy requires more debt than anybody but the federal government could manage, this proves that the economy requires ever-growing federal debt. He frequently confuses correlation with causality when he compares various economic variables. He lists a number of statements that he claims are all false, even though they are not even controversial to anyone other than the author. …What are the odds that a guy with training in marketing and business administration would disprove all of the economic theory that evolved through centuries of economic research? …I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, particularly in light of his logical fallacies and confusion over many of the institutional facts…”

            “Trite…the author’s lack of understanding of the Federal Reserve system and where treasury bonds go (abroad, for the most part) shows a failure to grasp one of the most basic issues in monetary reform. This book is a pitch for infinite borrowing and elimination of taxes, written in sound bites. If you enjoy being lectured to by a …propogandist, this book is for you. If, however, you have a genuine interest in monetary reform in a way that will benefit society in general (rather than a small sliver of the very wealthy), try Michael Rowbotham’s ‘The Grip of Death’ or Ellen Hodgson Brown’s ‘The Web of Debt’. These will explain to you why we are in the economic mess we are in and what would really help to get us out of it. Questioning the framework itself is necessary. It was something that was possible throughout the 19th century but the American population went to sleep after the FED was created in 1913, assuming the status quo was then fixed.”

            “A work of complete fiction…In a nutshell, this book’s basic premise is that the government can create money at will. Therefore, the government should create all the money it wants and make us all rich. It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to realize the absurdity of such a hypothesis. Freely printing money at will was tried before in this and other countries and the results are always disasterous.”

            My interest here is for purpose of warning other progressives not to espouse a theory that will only make them appear ridiculously naive, while undermining the case for repeal of tax cuts for the wealthy.

            Observe that the person espousing the theory has a book-royalties profit motive for asking you to learn about it.

          4. RodgerMitchell June 16, 2012

            Actually, I’ve lost money on every book sold. I wrote it only to get the truth out.

            The entire Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) group of economists agrees with the statement, “Even if federal spending doubled and federal taxes were $0, the federal government could pay all its bills.”

            I do agree with one of your comments, when you said, “I made no claim to be an economist.” You certainly aren’t.

          5. greghilbert June 16, 2012

            That’s an untruth or half-truth from the get-go. You could have posted the works as a free PDF on your website. but instead you wrote a for-sale, for-profit book you market on your website.

            You claim to speak for the entirety of a group of economists, but are not yourself an economist. Were you to advocate MMT as a theory backed by data that makes a strong case AGAINST priority to deficit reduction and FOR increased govt spending, I’d not be arguing. My argument is with making an outcome claim for a theory requiring actions (doubling federal spending and eliminating all federal taxes) that have no chance of implementation in the real world.

            I’m hostile to enlisting progressive support of a theory specifying actions that may gain book sales for you, but yield ridicule for progressives.

            You can arrogantly diss me until the cows come home, but I don’t think it will get you bandwagon support for doubling federal spending while eliminating all federal taxes.

            Moreover there are probably now only two people reading this thread, so if you want to take your parting last-word shot, go for it.

          6. newznut June 18, 2012

            Thank You / Greg

    2. jack berezny June 22, 2012

      People should get mad. A tax cut for business is nothing more than a tax increase on the middle class.

  3. Trent Portch June 14, 2012

    Wouldn’t those bribes to public officials be better spent investing in small businesses owned by lower and middle class families? Wouldn’t that create more sustainable jobs by those who actually already showing willingness to work? Should we being euthanizing the non working class of lawyers and politicians who simply extort and abuse everyone on all sides for personal gain without having to actually produce or earn anything of value to others? That way at least our children and their children would be safe from these ugly, pig faced monsters. I mean let’s be honest, most of them are butt ugly, yet we are forced to endure pictures of them over and over. This cannot be good for our children psychologically. That mich ugly is going to negatively affect everyone. Ugly inside and out, and being a member of the bar, should require forced euthanasia.

  4. James Aldrich June 14, 2012


    1. CPANY June 14, 2012

      James: Your wrong. Political contributions aren’t tax deductible, unless they’re for AIPAC, and that’s because AIPAC exists to funnel money to Israel. Despite the “PAC” in “AIPAC,” it’s not registered as a PAC, thereby allowing people who contribute to it to deduct their contributions.

      Want to predict how soon this abuse will be corrected?

  5. Debbie Kiesel-Ryan June 14, 2012

    Posted this on my FB page so America can see Congress for the sell outs that they are. Funny, their rating with the American people is at an all time low and they still continue to do this crap!!!!!

  6. albdisqus June 14, 2012

    Having worked with many medical equipment manufacturing companies, and reaches out to many recently I was totally shocked to discover that out of 100 I called, NONE were still alive, or within the U.S. Out of 100 they are all closed, moved offshore because of two main reasons: EPA/FDA rules too expensive and easier to work offshore, and taxes too high. Every last one of the 100 fairly large medical equipment manufacturers I called had either gone out of business, moved offshore, or been bought out by an offshore company that moved it into their country. So reducing the tax burden on these companies to keep them here is just one good approach to turning that trend around. The U.S. is losing companies and job from over regulating and over taxing. I talkto CEOs of those companies and they all say the same thing, that “they tried” to keep their companies here but finally had to move on, close down, sell, or move off shore. One had tried to save over 700 of his local employees but finally moved manufacturing to China and his administrative offices to London.

    1. scareygary June 14, 2012

      How much did the salaries of those CEOs skyrocket UP when they made the move offshore? That’s where so much of the ‘savings’ go…..; not to the lowly ‘worker’, especially not if he or she tries to organize for a livable salary and a few benefits. Very FEW people or corporations are ‘over-taxed’, in my limited experience, but there’s a perception they are. The richest seem to often pay the LEAST as an ‘effective’ tax rate…sometimes nothing on billions of profits.

      And what is ‘over-regulated’ to one person amounts to ‘protection from fraud/abuse/cheating” to another. If businesses and people would follow the Golden Rule instead of “those with the gold makes the rules’, we’d need far FEWER ‘regulations’. And iffewer people DUCKED paying a share of their blessings back for the good of the whole Country, we’d all be better off, IMHO….

      Your government is being BOUGHT. Good for OB-1 to stand tall. It takes balls to fight, not ‘city hall’, but BIG MONEY…..

    2. SaneJane June 14, 2012

      You are blaming regulations for these companies moving whereas blame should be placed on the greedy manufacturers. Personally, I prefer medical devices that are produced under regulations that help ensure the device is safe for me to use and also helps protect our environment. Deregulating everything to entice the vultures back would certainly assure us of sub-standard medical devices. If these people lacked integrity when they moved their businesses what makes you think they will suddenly gain it and hold themselves to a high standard when there is nothing to force them?

    3. Elsa June 14, 2012

      And look at the results of moving off shore: More products recalled because of quality issues, more contaminated of Over-the-counter medications (and the prices are still going up), more air and water pollution in third world countries. Do not forget they may be far away but we share our air and oceans with them and what is contaminated there moves slowly but surely here. The greedy companies are only thinking about their bank accounts, not about people’s health. Neither are they concerned about the long term health of the planet we all must live on. I too have worked with health insurers, pharma and the medical device industries – they are pigs; they serve no one but themselves.

  7. RodgerMitchell June 14, 2012

    “One way that the Affordable Care Act will be paid for is by new taxes. . . “

    Completely false. State taxes pay for state spending. County taxes pay for county spending. City taxes pay for city spending. But, federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.

    The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. Unlike states, counties, cities, you and me, who are just the users of dollars, the federal government is the creator of dollars.

    If federal taxes fell to $0, this would not affect by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to pay all its bills.

    The myth that federal taxes pay for federal spending is the reason why we have been so slow to recover from the recession.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  8. howa4x June 14, 2012

    These are people who believe that profits are more important than people. I don’t know how many examples it takes to make the middle class realize that the Republican and conservative democrats are not there for them but for the health of corporate America. What is almost worst is that this same congress refuses to protect children by not following the recommendation of 5 afgencies about childhood obesity and type II diabetes. The recommmdation was to stop allowing companies advertise sugary products directly to children since we are facing an epidemic. The congress of course sided with the sugar industry profits over the health of our children. So much for family values!

    1. Judith Finley June 14, 2012

      You want family values. Where is the family?????? This is the type of thinking that give the Repubs something to get their teeth into. Its “Family Values” not government values. As far as i’m concerned parents need to teach their kids how to eat whats good for them. Learn to say NO. Religion also needs to be learned in the home. Not in the schools. Again Family Values, again, the emphasis on family. Quit trying to get out of doing your job and raise your own kids. You, the consumer can put these people out of business by saying no and not buying what they have to sell. By the way are you one of those people who still buy from Walmart? Just curious.

      1. howa4x June 14, 2012

        I have to disagree to a point. Yes its the parents that must teach the kids how to eat right and religious values or at least give them a sense of right and wrong. My kids are in their 20’s and all very healthy and not over weight. All still exercise. But there are millions of people who because of economic conditions, don’t get time with their kids and those kids are being advertised to without the ability to discern what is good or bad for them, and this is where the government should step in for public protection. Don’t you as a parent want to know what is in your food? Don’t you want the government to make sure you are told that or would you just like to find out yourself? How about your water, don’t you want someone in governent to make sure it’s safe to drink? Or the food supply, don’t you want it labled if it has pesticides on it? Do you want to leave that up to Agra-business who is obcessed with profits. I’m not talking about the Nanny state,but giving you the accurate information so you can make an informed decision.
        The problem with childhood obesity and diabetes type II is that these kids will develop heart disease by the time they are in their 30’s. They will be a drain on the health care system and use up far more medical resources than a healthy person. Since insurance rates are gagued by spreading the risk across a large pool of people, they will drive up the rates for everyone, even those like you and I who made sure our kids were raised healthy, so it is our own best economic interest that we all do something about this. They will also be non contributers to our economic system.
        So while its important for parents to protect their kids, government also has that role.

  9. Jo Ward June 14, 2012

    I am a democrat. But, I am beginning to agree with Republicans about the future of SS and Medicare. GET IT OUT OF THE HANDS OF CONGRESS. I don’t want to see the money in Wall street either- so what’s the solution? Maybe Congress should cash all the current SS recipients out. Then, stop collecting SS and allow individuals to decide how best to prepare for retirement. I never thought I would agree with the Reps!
    As far as Medicare – it should be a universal program still supported by taxpayeers.

  10. Jo Ward June 14, 2012

    Let’s take this another step. To accompany the end of SS as we know it, future generations should have courses in high school on basic financial responsibility and include retirement planning. It should be tested on the Senior exams. I know the kids may not be ready – but at least it would begin a thought process on the realities of life.

  11. punatic June 14, 2012

    The problem isn’t ‘regulations and taxes’ per se…..it’s more so that offshoring presents No taxes and regulations! Disallow any of these off shored devices from being sold in American…..companies just love that segment of the market/health insurance!

  12. Dee Wan June 14, 2012

    This article does not explain the mechanism of the tax. It is called a sales tax which implies the buyer pays it at time of purchase. If that is the case, how does its repeal hurt a user? If it is a tax on the industry not directly tied to the sale, but rather to the manufacturer, that is a different story.

    Why is this information missing? One can’t make sense out of this article when such an important distinction is absent.

  13. Judith Finley June 14, 2012

    not only Republican. The Dems. have their hands out to. We need to vote out everyone that have their hands out. You expect this from Republicans so as far as im concerned when the Dems do it it is an even greater sin aganist the people.

  14. Elsa June 14, 2012

    The rich and corporations will steal every penny they can, if it is allowed. It can not be said enough times, vote, know who you are voting for and what they stand for, look at the record of the person you are going to give your vote to – before you give it. They all lie and cheat – party does not matter.

  15. Joanne M. Folz June 14, 2012

    The saddest thing about all of this is that WE THE PEOPLE keep electing the same bozos.
    If they can’t work with each other for the clear and simple benefit of this country, then they should be held accountable and voted out. We are so ill-informed, so under-educated regarding civics, and frankly, too lazy to go past the sound bites, it seems true that we are getting the government we deserve. If this this fast-food nation doesn’t get active pretty soon, we all may as well just plug into our media games and fade away.

    1. Mulligatonney June 15, 2012

      Bingo, Joanne – you just hit the nail squarely on the head. Not once did you blame Democrat or Republican… because any mediocre student of history and politics is well aware that greedy, ambitious, power-hungry politicians love to bribe ignorant voters with their own money!

      If our “representatives” do not do as they promise, we should have the intestinal fortitude to throw them out the next time they come up for re-election. Period.

      The fact that almost all politicians, by definition – are liars is indisputable. The fact that many people vote for someone they know has lied to them repeatedly – could be the major reason that our country is in the position it is in.

      Well spoken madam… Vote the liars out. All of them. Starting with the one presently occupying the White House. At least vote for someone who hasn’t proven to you he is a promise breaker. The present chief executive’s actions, compared with his campaign promises – has removed all doubt.

      He is not getting my vote again.

  16. David H June 14, 2012

    Maybe I should have campaigned for Hillary Clinton. She already knew they way to the healthcare woodshed, she may have been more effective.

  17. Kevin Schmidt June 14, 2012

    Of course, if we had Medicare for all, it would cut the cost of healthcare by hundreds of billions of dollars. The only people that would be negatively affected by it would be those blood suckers in the for profit health insurance industry. But they could be easily retrained to become productive members of society, finally.

  18. David Getman Sr. June 14, 2012

    In the topsy turvy world of [democracy], we have been deliberatLY misled for A purpose:
    [divide and conquer]. Let me remind the voters who are happy with one voice, you PAY for what you [give away], your time/life. You want division, democracy does conquer and divide, in that order. When an automobile is considered an irreplacable item without a living human being, the automobile becomes disabled. I do not see any parking place especially demarked for the disabled [automoile, it is not an automobile is it without your effort]. Charge the medical profession for the assistence you provide or report the income on a 1099 misc. to the professional grifters for your intellectual property used for the delivering and waiting for and give care to the DOCTORS PATIENT. CHARGE FOR YOUR LIFE, SPENT.

  19. greghilbert June 14, 2012

    I’m hostile to unjustified tax breaks to corporations, but don’t think the author made the case clearly and accurately.

    The sales tax is not paid by the corporation. The sales tax is paid by the consumer buyer of the corporation’s device. The corporation only collects the sales tax and forwards it to the government.

    That said, I think it fairer to collect the tax from all buyers of medical devices — on the grounds that if they have the money or insurance to pay for the device, the 2.3% sales tax is not for them a hardship — than to forgo that tax revenue and recover it later from those who’d previously been uninsured and qualified for a subsidy. Those people on average will have a far lower ability to retro-pay than the average of buyers of medical devices are able to pay on an ongoing basis.

    As I understand it, the author is saying that the retro-pay penalty loads all the foregone sales tax revenue on the backs of the few subsidized folks who later disqualify for subsidy because of higher income or access to employer-paid insurance. He’s saying those few will then pay dearly, as opposed to the many paying a little.

    Further, as the industry’s corporations see it, the sales tax on their devices reduces sales of their products by as much as 2.3% (the amount of the sales tax). Google “price elasticity of demand” for an explanation. I’m sure the industry argued that a 2.3% reduction in sales translates to fewer beneficiaries of their products and fewer people employed to manufacture and sell them.

    Needless to say, however, their underlying motive is an increase in their own profit.

    Still, to the extent sales taxes are regressive, the fairer solution to this and the whole bloody mess would be a surcharge tax on excess profits and high personal incomes the healthcare industry derives from society as a whole. Big Pharma, insurers, device manufacturers, MDs, RNs, medical school profs, the works. Let the corporations profit, let the professionals enjoy the high earnings they need/deserve, but past a certain point of wealth, tax them fairly and use those proceeds to help fund those who could not otherwise afford healthcare.

    That is in fact the only solution to the American nightmare as a whole. The 1% are feeding on the 99%, and the 20% are prospering at the expense of the 80%. The financial industry is the biggest vampire, but the healthcare industry is also a blood-sucker.

  20. Fred June 14, 2012

    It shows congress is by the business and for the business not the people. It is time to eliminate political careers. It is indeed time to decrease congressional terms to a maximum of two 2 year terms and then your out for good. No retirement and health care shen you are out. You are supposed to be SERVING THE PEOPLE ONLY. SALARIES CUT TO 75,000 DOLLARS PER YEAR! NO LOBBYIST JOBS POST SERVING, AND NO SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT MONEY POST SERVING! Before you cut anything cut yourselves and then tell us how good it is to cut the budget, lower taxes on the rich and tax the middle class!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Congressional behavior is deplorable and there is no accountability. One question — What are you teaching your children?? It is simple greed, power and control. Have any of you ever listened to yourself? You may learn something about yourselves and that you can choose to change your behavior. I believe most of Congress is unaware of their own behavior! If you are aware of your behavior and choose not to change you shouldn’t be there!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. ivory69690 June 14, 2012

    see even some stupid greedy bastards DEMS are changing there stripes for money . and its what the GOP ding dongs want get mad as the 2 dozen back stabing DEMS and then what are you going to do vote in REPS to office ? ya right thy know what thy are doing all of them . DEMS are traders just for money . well put there names up and lety all know who the back stabers are and get some stand up new DEMS in office . theres going to be a time where all there bull craps going to hit the fan and then thy will be saying whys this happening to me why are ppl. doing this to me and my fam ? cry a river idiots

  22. TheSkalawag929 June 14, 2012

    I must disagree with you on the point of legislating in the name of childhood obesity. It is up to the parent to make sure as best they can that the food that their child is eating is safe and healty. It is the parent that purchases the food so they should be held responsible for reading the label before they make the purchase. I agree with your other points about government and its responsibliity.

  23. Fred June 14, 2012

    It is time to change congressional terms to 2-2 year terms maxium and then your out. No health care or pensions when the terms are over and salaries cut to $75,000 per year for serving. while in office. Let’s see how congress likes the budget cuts. The public should be voting for any and all increases in pay not the members of congress. Democracy is by the people for the people not by the business for the business!

  24. William Schawo June 15, 2012

    The Damn politicians sell out to the Fat Cats

  25. jack berezny June 22, 2012

    We need a national healthcare system, funded by taxes on stock, bond and all security transactions. National healthcare will be good for everyone (just ask the Japanese whose life expectancy is much greater than ours in the US) AND high speed trading and penny arbitrage will die a sudden and welcome death if sellers had to part with 10% of the sales proceeds of futures, stocks, bonds, credit default swaps, and so on. Capital gains taxes and carried interest taxes could go away along with all the complicated rules and record-keeping.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.