Cable News Ratings for Thursday, December 20, 2012

Categories: '

(221) Comments - Add Yours!

1. Faith3

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM

   Hillbilly,

   Defence spending is high under both parties but as I stated, Obama and the Dems want to pay for some of that with raising taxes on the wealthy while the GOP wants to pay for it by using money from Social Security and Medicare. The way I look at it is that the middle class has paid a big chunk of change toward SS and Medicare for the purpose of those programs not to pay for defence spending. The middle class should not sacrifice what they put away for in necessary programs to pay for Defense. If we want to pay obscene amounts toward defense, let those who have sacrificed the lest pay forward.

2. cathy

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM

   @Faith3 Just change your answer when you are proven wrong. All Obama wants to do is to spend, spend, spend. That’s the problem. It’s been this countries problem for years. Obama has not agreed to any of the spending decreases. He is even asking for more spending money. And an unlimited debt ceiling. And you think that is FAIR and Balance. Read:
   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/clinton-era-tax-rates-but-not-spending-rates/

   How do you define suffering? How do you know people making over $250,000 a year won’t suffer from a cut it their income. “THEY WILL SUFFER.” If a tax increase changes you living style, if you have to sell your home because you can no longer afford it? If you have to work 10 more hours a week to keep your home.
   Do you know that everyone making over $250,000 is getting a 3.8% tax increase to pay for the Health care plan. That’s before the additional 4% Obama wants for the budget deal. THAT’S a 7.8% tax increase.
   You need to go back and read my post about how Doctors are planning on dealing with tax increases on them. Most Doctors have their own small business. With the Obama health care taxes on medical supplies and the increase business taxes Obama wants in the budget deal. Doctors business are taxed at 50%. Then a doctor’s income over $250,000 is going to be taxed at 43.4% (Remember the Obama care tax of 3.8%)
   Because 95% of a doctor’s payments come from Insurance Companies (the insurance companies set payment amounts. They have already been set for 2013.) Doctors can’t increase their fees to off-set new cost.
   Many doctors have stated they will be decreasing the hours they work decreasing staff needs. As a close friend of mine said, “All of these new taxes are going to make me have to think like a business man first and a doctor second.”

   So, everyone may have a health care plan now because of Obama. But will we have timely access to doctors.
   Progressive seem to think that “the rich” will keep working no matter how much you tax them. But it is not true, when your income is based on the amount of work time you put into it. Progressive view everyone making over $250,000 a years as a Bill Gates type and it’s not true.

3. Faith3

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 1:41 PM

   ^least^

   And thank you 1966 for those beautiful videos.

4. Faith3

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 1:46 PM

   Anyone making over $250.00 will not pay much more using the Clinton tax code. It’s those at the top of the scale that will see the biggest difference. Also, medical supply tax does not effect a doctor’s taxes.

5. Matthew

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 1:46 PM

   http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa01.htm

6. 1966

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 1:49 PM

   your welcome faith 3
   friday is open.

7. cathy

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:11 PM

   And that was usa8888 singing the new song “Don’t believe it, the Koch Brothers made it up.”
   It number five on the Progressive, lib, dems chart this week. Passing “We only need to print more money to fix the debt problem.”
   Democratic Top Five Hits Chart for the week on Dec 24th
   1) “Blame it on Bush.”
   2) “Blame the gun, not the mad man”
   3) “Tax the rich man”
   4) “Playing the race card.”
   5) “Don’t believe it, the Koch Brothers made it up.”

8. cathy

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

   @Faith3, the rich pay into SS and they will never be able to collect from it. What’s your point? That the rich need to pay pay pay. And Obama gets to spend spend spend.

9. Faith3

   Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:23 PM

   Really, the rich can’t collect in SS? I think that is lie.

10. Faith3

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:27 PM

    Yes, that is a lie saying the program as is is not a welfare based means program in which ironically the GOP wants to turn it into.

11. cathy

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:41 PM

    @Faith3, What? Medical supply taxes doesn’t impact the doctor’s taxes? How can you believe that is true? The doctor own’s the business. Every thing he needs to supply his examine rooms will have a 5% tax added to every supply he buys. Who is paying that tax if not the doctor?

    Or are you talking about the 3.8% tax that I stated. Everyone making over $250,000 will have a 3.8% tax for the health care bill.

    You need to do some research and not believe what the left is telling you.

12. Faith3

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:53 PM

    It impacts the medical supply company. Also, the healthcare bill doesn’t just effect those you mentioned. We all have skin in the game.

13. usa8888

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

    Cathy is arguing the absurd again–yes, it must be very painful for a super rich person to get by on $9.8 million/yr instead of $9.9 million/yr–maybe he buys one less Rolls Royce. And, remember , the tax rates for the rich are at 60 year lows and they NOT creating jobs. The tax increase MARGINALLY affects the rich, so people making slightly over $250K will pay virtually no more in taxes. The right wing GOP is in bed with Norquist and his anachronistic ideas. This guy is a dinosaur. The tax would have hardly any affect on doctors at all–most don’t make over $250K and tax is marginal. Cathy needs to be reminded that medical cost have risen 100% over the past 10 years and the GOP is quite content with that. These higher medical costs over 10 years have bee passed along to emoplyees by their employers–the employees are suffering as a result. It is OBAMA who is trying to bring down medical costs, not the GOP….

14. usa8888

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM

    Cathy is against Obama’s medical plan which gets rid of pre-conditions and caps on terrible diseases, among other things. Remember: the right wing GOP wants to go back to the 19th Century when the super rich controlled everything and paid NO taxes. There was no medical insurance, no Medicare for the elderly, No Social Security, no EPA (and pollution abounded–just ask the gold miners), no FDA, no USDA, few public educational institutions—-the right wing radicals want to go back to that period–greed was abundant and there was little compassion for people. If you happened to have money, good; if not, you were screwed…….

15. Faith3

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM

    Yes, the GOP would be content on passing on higher cost and allowing freeloaders to reap from the system while the middle class pick up the costs. Should this be a surprise?

16. usa8888

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM

    By the way, the top line ratings for last Friday are posted, and Fox is again BEATEN by MSNBC in the prime time demo………

17. Faith3

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM

    There are some wealthy against that system while others like the Koch’s who will stop at nothing to get their way.

18. cathy

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 3:11 PM

    @Faith3, what’s a lie? If I take a salary I pay SS up to some point, I believe is on the first $100,000. When I retire, if I make to much money with investments, I won’t get SS. SS is already means tested. Less than 2% of the people don’t get it but that’s what we are talking about the top 2%.

    Also SS is only based on what you have put into it in the last ten years.

    Here is an example of someone paying into SS and not being allowed to collect from it. My aunt paid into SS from the age of 15 to 50. She was laid off at 50. She couldn’t find a job so after two years, she moved in with her daughter and helped with the children.
    When my aunt turned 62 she went to the SS office and was told she didn’t have enough work credits in the last 10 years to get SS. So, even through she had 35 work credits before they were not in the last 10 years she get nothing.

19. usa8888

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 3:11 PM

    The big question is whether Boehner can control the right wing radicals in the House so a compromise can be reached with Obama. The American People want what Obama offers (even moderate Repubs). But the right wing radicals are holding everyone hostage. If these people only had some education, the problem would be solved but these people actually think drastically cutting spending during a bad recession is a recipe for recovery. Can you imagine? No, I can’t either…and neither can eonomists…………….

20. usa8888

    Posted December 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM

    Cathy–you are WRONG, again, about Social Security. It’s based on the top 35 earning years and is a function of what you have made, and other factors. AND making too much money on investments is RARELY a problem on collecting SS. Very few people are in Romney’s shoes……