Who's "us"? I sure would like to know how many people you think just saw a tax increase. Imaginary people don't count, mind you.

Jag- the majority of the supreme court said it was a tax increase.

Jag and Frank, you need to do some research. Just do a search on "tax increases under obamacare" to fnd any number of articles listing the tax increases, some of which have already kicked in and some which are not effective until 2013 or beyond. There's also a very big potential impact to HSA plans (high deductible plans with a health savings account) based on guidance released by the Health and Human Services Department this past February that could make them more costly to those of us who have them. While not strictly a "tax", it will be money out of my pocket for no good reason and affect my insurance (which the president said wouldn't be affected) for absolutely no good reason. HSA plans allow us flexibility and control over our health care dollars, so apparently the government thinks it needs to step in to control them.

Frank,

I say again. Just because you have health insurance doesn't mean you aren't going to be taxed. Sheeeesh! The Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate constitutional as a mandated tax. What don't you understand! There are costs associated with this new bill that are paid for by taxes. 75% of the taxes in the bill fall to those that make under $250,000. Close to $800 billion in new taxes over 10 years. The individual mandate was ruled constitutional yesterday under the guise that THAT particular element of the bill is a tax.

"The Romney campaign's explanation for why Obamacare is rife with taxes is testimony from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that the ACA will raise approximately $500 billion in taxes over its first 10 years."

"The Kaiser Foundation points out that in the CBO report there are $808 billion in tax credits to low-income and middle-class families to help them afford health insurance over the next 11 years."

http://gma.yahoo.com/fact-checking-romney-does-health-reform-cut-medicare-230303419--abc-news-politics.html

Your $800 billion number seems at odds with the $500 billion reported facts, and nothing in there say anything about that 75% burden falling on those with < 250,000 in income. The $800 billion is actual the amount of subsidies and tax credits if anything.

The article also talks about new taxes in the medical industry that will help cover those expenses. What I'm reading from it, the medical industry is willing to take that tax hit because they are going to see expanded business since whole new groups of people that were never buying health services before will be making purchases. The increase in taxes to them will be way beneath the new business revenue.

its a brand new ballgame with our tax structure. Time for ben cardin and the rest of our destructive politicians to say bye..Did ben cardin read the dang thing or is he another ruppersberger? Does he know it takes $1/2 trillion off medicare but he don't have medicare so why should it matter? Does he know it covers illegal aliens the friends of liberals for their votes? Does he know that 35 states already already cover pre-existing conditions and more on the way? Does he know that social security and medicare and welfare running out of money because its controlled by government? What makes this any different? Vote Dan Bongino not cardin..

The Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) that the Supreme court upheld was not about Health care at all, far from it. The issue was how far can the federal government can go to regulate the States and the citizens of the US. The states medicaid provision was struck down but the single most polarizing issue was: can Congress require citizens to purchase health care? well, thats a "no brainer" from the beginning because our Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall regulate Interstate Commerce" (IC) and does not provide for requiring citizens to engage in IC. So the purchase mandate will was struck based on the IC clause. Which led Justice Ginsberg infamous broccoli line: " if we allow congress to require citizens to purchase health care, where does it stop? will they next tell them to buy broccoli?" Well, it looks like they will be able to after all; since, Justice Roberts ruled and the purchase mandate upheld that the mandate is a tax. Which we all know Congress has the power to levy and collect taxes.
So now Congress can tell me to buy broccoli, if I don't, I'll be taxed.

One can also assume the AHCA (Obamacare) was not at all subject to the interpretation of the Constiution from the get-go, since the Chief Justices aligned themselves along politcal party lines;with Justice Roberts, to everyone's surprise, going liberal. In this respect it was sad day for America.

Corbin, I wonder who you think ultimately pays the increased taxes levied on an "industry". apparently you don't realize that such taxes are simply passed on to the consumer; the ultimate payer of all taxes. Industry simply passes it on and the consumers costs go up accordingly. It is amazing how little some folks understand.

The market is far more elastic than that. The company could become more efficient, cut costs in other places, or accept a loss of profits. Expanding their market share would also affect revenues so the price of the tax is ultimately spread out amongst a larger group of customers. If one competitor manages to keep prices low through one of these techniques then they would be at a price advantage and customers would in theory go to them.

Buzz - perhaps you only listen to the conservative talk shows that have been spreading the outright lie that congress is exempt from Obamacare? I suggest that you read the actual law or at least listen to some other less-biased news sources.

The fact is that the members of congress will be required, by law, to buy their insurance only from a health insurance exchange once the ACA becomes fully in effect in 2014.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/08/congress-exempted-from-obamacare/

Just look at the promenade for Spring Grove that was a done deal, who has any say? Not the people its a anymore

That was written by Ben Domenech, co-founder of Red State, a very popular conservative blog, and numerous other conservative ties. Just because it's CBS doesn't mean the content can automatically be considered "liberal" or "conservative."

He was also fired from the WaPo in '06 for plagiarism he committed in college after only three days on the job.

Corbin, I don't know what the truth is. But what I do know is that liberals are very quick to start with the ad hominem attacks. What does plagerism in college have to do with the truthfulness of he said?

You're technically right, it doesn't have anything directly to do with what he said and others (Frank in Elkridge) have already taken up that part of the discussion below. I was including it mostly because it was something I recognized about the writer, including his conservative background. Admittedly six years is a long time and as far as I know he hasn't plagiarized since then.

Buzz - Sigh...

I can read. It says exactly what I just said, and I never said that CBS is part of the conservative media. I'm talking about Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox, Washington Times, New York Post, etc.

If Russell Kirk himself did a guest column in the NYT, Buzz would cite that as an example of the liberal media.

The problem is that employers may find it more cost effective to just pay the tax rather than provide insurance to employees. That would force employees into the government exchanges where they may or may not get what they had at a similar cost to what they received through their employers. The "if you're happy if with your insurance you can keep it" canard was exposed some time ago.

Bart,
Actually, in some ways, your choices about your medical needs will be restricted with the parts of the law that affect Health Savings Accounts. Further, the insurance you are mandated to by must meet a certain level of coverage, even if you personally do not need such a level of coverage. Coverage, I might add, that has already caused isurance costs to rise and will make them rise further in the future. Depending on your income, the premiums might be too much for you personally or your employer to afford. Yes, Yes...I know there are tax credits in the law to help people by isurance, but that still might not make the insurance affordable enough. What about the taxes of medical devices, high-end isurance plans, etc? This law was never about health care as it does nothing about the reason going to see a doctor are so expensive.

ddbs00:

“The problem is that employers may find it more cost effective to just pay the tax rather than provide insurance to employees.”

So wait: presently those employers have the option of providing health insurance or not providing health insurance at all and paying nothing, and they are choosing to provide the health insurance.

But when the choice becomes providing health insurance or paying a potentially smaller penalty, they will then choose to pay the penalty? Why would they change their approach in this way (especially since the difference between providing the insurance and not providing it will become a lot smaller)?

"if people refuse to pay and they have no visible income, where does the money come from ?"

If you're poor you're covered. It's only if you can afford it that you will be required to pay it, and being required to pay for it means with a significant government subsidy.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_does_the_individual_mandat.html

'The individual mandate is a requirement that all individuals who can afford health-care insurance purchase some minimally comprehensive policy. For the purposes of the law, "individuals who can afford health-care insurance" is defined as people for whom the minimum policy will not cost more than 8 percent of their monthly income, and who make more than the poverty line. So if coverage would cost more than 8 percent of your monthly income, or you're making very little, you're not on the hook to buy insurance (and, because of other provisions in the law, you're getting subsidies that make insurance virtually costless anyway).'

Thank You Dennis !

Isn't it just wonderful that the federal government has now decided what portion of my family income and budget should be assigned to "health care"?

It's not "free" now, unless you don't count premiums people pay for health insurance or the cost to the taxpayers when people without insurance go to the ER. This "form of health care" is EXACTLY the same "form of health care" we have now: private plans you choose and pay yourself, or with a government subsidy if you need it. You are misinformed.

I believe you Grand Dad ! The biggest cost will be when the government decides that they know better than you or your doctors what treatments you will have .

Or maybe a 2,000+ page document written in legalese isn't that easy to interpret.
And it's not like the unbiased government has done a great job of educating us riff raff about it over the last two years, or that the members of Congress who passed it have any clue what it all means. Sometimes an obtuse document is just an obtuse document, but I'm glad you're learned enough to decipher it.

Actually, some of us have read up on it a LOT and gone to multiple sources to see both the pros and cons of the bill and then - apparently horror of horrors to some - we have made up our own minds. How dare we do that!

Ask some of the people with student loans who have had their servicing of those loans transferred from the Department of Education to (apparently incompetent) non-profit loan servicers as part of the healthcare reform act how they are feeling about this change?

Ask people who have been impacted by changes to what can be paid for with FSA dollars. Ask people with HSA plans who are reading articles from both sides of the political spectrum that say their costs are apparently going to be increased based on HHS guidance from February.

The Senators and Representatives didn't know what was in this bill when they passed it. Why would we go to them for advice? When we do research on government websites, such as HHS, we do not like what we are reading and do not agree with these changes.

Stop being so condescending just because we don't agree with the law or your opinion.

Theresa , If you sincerely believe what you wrote my heart goes out to you. Somehow I doubt that you actually believe that the tea party has brain washed anyone. I think your a die hard democrat or a mole working to spread false info . Is Obama paying you with our tax dollars ?

Theresa, remember the town halls held by all the politicians when they were debating the ACA? Remember Ben Cardin getting up in front one town hall meeting and saying he hadn't read the bill? I do, and you can google it if you think I am making it up. These are the people you choose to believe? The ones who didn't or wouldn't read the bill they fought so hard to pass. I don't hate the man, I dislike and disagree with his policies and the last time I checked I was still allowed to do that without fear of being bullied and berated. Unless of course Gov. O'Malley's anti-bullying campaign only applies to those who agree with your ideas. Just saying.

They don't know because they don't want to know. It's easier to argue against what they think it is, rather than what it actually is. When people are polled on the individual policies of the Act, they're overwhelmingly in favor.

My goodness Theresa, I really do wonder at your sources for unbiased information. After all, was it not that super intellect in congress who said "we have to pass the law to find out what's in it"! As for Fox News, at least they have the temerity to include at least one liberal on nearly all panels and occasionally give said liberal entire hour blocks. Since we regularly watch all of the major news channels, it is pretty clear who really makes an attempt at being unbiased. Being unbiased means more than simply agreeing with the Democratic party.

...possibly some of the primary concerns over this ACT becoming reality is:

1)Putting blind faith in a huge government program with a terrible track record of fiscal responsibility. Look to SSA, Medicare.

2)Trusting the government with health care even more than we have already. Look to unscientific US Dietary Guidelines which continues to destroy America from the inside out.

I suppose we just get the US government to ensure we ALL get pats on the back from our robotic overworked doctors for eating low fat and staying below 300lbs.

George , Please tell me your joking ?

Elaine, you are clearly a hysteric who chooses to remain purposely ignorant about the law.

e

Elaine, just relaying some sarcasm!

He'd probably say "you're fired", because he's not a complete moron.

Who is "US" Theresa ? Can you explain to me how you do not take sides or affiliate with either party and yet refer to yourself in the plural , Perhaps you just have a little mouse in your pocket.

Judith - I am afraid it's no use explaining that to Buzz. What you just said is printed in black and white in the article that he posted a link to. I copied and pasted it below:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

1. "Care" is not denied; payment is denied. Pyment is determined by an insurance commission established by the state.
2. The insurance company in imvolved with payment, not "care".
3. Big deal. Twenty six year olds very rarely need health care.
4. Isn't it nice to have the federal government dictate profit margins? Maybe they should take over the auto industry. Oh, too late!
5. Even the supporters recognize that this is a trivial percentage of the population.
6. Yes, and those of us that have health insurance will now also have to pay for the tens of thousands of federal "workers" that are being hired. That should really reduce costs!

No insults intended to those of limited intellect.

My my my, TomP to the rescue.
1. Oh, payment is denied, so Doc works for nothing? Yea right, get a life.
2. BS, deny payment deny care, get real.
3. And when they do? Ugh.
4. When health insurance gouge a need for health, you bet.
5. Unless you are one of them. If trivial, why do insurers block them?
6. It will save us money.

The only thing less than limited intellect is your non-intellect. Fool.

FIFA, I feel so much better now that you've clarified these misconceptions. I was so stupid as to believe I actually choose my doctor…guess I only thought I did. That I don't get to decide what procedures I need…guess I imagined that too. As for number 3….personally, I don't see what the big deal is about keeping your adult children on your health insurance. My father was married with 2 children by the age of 26. And for number 6…all people will be forced to buy health insurance whether you can afford it or not. And those of us who work for a living are still paying for those who cannot pay. It'll just be a different form of robbing us.

Very well Fifa - You go ahead and enjoy your handout ..

Obviously if you believe Obama Care is good for the nation you one who is on the receiving end and you will not be paying for anything in premiums or taxes.
Enjoy it while you can !

Sorry Elaine, I pay for my own health insurance and have for a very longtime, in addition paying a bunch of income taxes as well. That doesn't blind me from seeing the good in this law. Your hatred not only of the law but Pres. Obama as well is clear.

As I always say Elaine, follow the money. Who is supporting/not supporting any issue and what are their motivations? Keep the blinders off and see clearly. You will be amazed. Have a nice day, and that is sincere. Sorry if I have offended you with my sarcasm.

FIFA Your suggestion to "follow the money" is really interesting. If you bother to check, the insurance industry of which you seem to have such a low opinion were pretty universally in support of Obamacare. Of course, the major health provider corporations were as well. Now for the lowly practitioner, who cares about them? And when those folks that ultimately provide health care decide it just isn't worth it and leave to sell insurance or drugs, well, let the government Docs see the patients.

TomP - you make my point. It is very interesting why the insurance industry isn't 100% behind Obamacare as it gives them many new customers. The only valid theory is that they believe they make more money under the status quo. So somehow they see this as costing them money or they are not sure.

FIFA you seem to be unaware that the insurance industry has overwhelmingly supported Obamacare for precisely the reasons you suggest. There really is no obligation for a private insurance company to do anything but maximize their profit. That is absolutely fine and how the system works best. They have no obligation to do absolutely anything else. Consequently, when they embrace this scheme as they have, it is simply because they recognize it as a great business opportunity.

The same with Mikulski, Dutch, and Sarbanes just ot name a few. How anyone thinks they are being represented when these politicians vote party lines all the time is a mystery to me. They are only representing themselves!

I'm confused - what new agency are you talking about?

What a thoughtless statement about Sen. Cardin, you are Mr. "Independent". Has Bartlett or Harris ever gone against thr Republican establishment? You are as independent as Boehner or McConnell. A joke, sir.

FIFA - try this and READ what was written. Notice the comment (both parties). Got it? I will try to edumacate you as best I can.
Remember RIF - Reading Is Fundamental!
It is simply impossible for Democrats and Republcans to be in constant agreement. Cardin is bad. Harris is also bad.
Got it?

RMI - as long as you're still paying attention, can you answer my question about what new agency you are talking about?

Corbin - always willing to educate those. Simply do a google search - "new agencies under the affordable care act" and you will see all you need to see.
This is in addition to the 16,000 IRS agents hired to enforce the tax/penalty as a result of the mandate.
The IRS right now does not have sufficient personal with training and knowledge to do anything more elaborate than a basic desk audit - unless they are attached to the large fortune 500 companies. No chance they can add 16,000 more and train them.
It is out there for all to see.
Good luck.

Thanks for responding. This does give an outlay for new agencies, though it has a giant disclaimer explaining it is hard to know exactly how many agencies might need to be created and if some of the stated agencies already exist or overlap. But, yes, you are right there are new agencies.

https://www.aamc.org/download/133856/data/crsentities.pdf.pdf

The 16,000 IRS agents seems to be an unfounded number though.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/will_the_irs_need_16000_new_ag.html

Get out and work for Dan Bongino…get Ben Cardin out of office.

I most definitely will. Thanks!

I'm sticking with the candidate who actually has a backbone.

Tim,
Obama is a joke. The man wouldn't know leadership if it bit him in the bud. Giving speeches is not leadership. Golfing every weekend is not leadership. If he was a true leader, he would roll up his sleeve and actually begin to seriously work with Congress to solve the problems facing the country and not flying here, there, and everywhere demanding Congress pass "this bill" when no such bill is before the houses or one of their committees. Obama is nothing more than an empty suit and a tool.

Congress should continue in session until compromise~positive progress is accomplished...earn those bennies...

I'm with Tim.
Happy 4th.

Steve S:

I find the irony dripping when people backing Mitt Romney claim Obama is a joke of a leader.
He HAS tried working with Congress. See, there's a reason Congress's approval rating is never above 20%. You can't work with people who REFUSE to work with you. You can't work with a Congress that's taken a blood oath to not raise a single tax - explicit or implicit.
President Obama was the one who backed and sent to Congress the 'Gang of Six" budget plan. The one that raises revenue AND cuts spending. That debt ceiling debate told me all I needed to know about the Republicans of today.

It's not my problem you're too myopic and miseducated to see this. Or perhaps, it will be in November.

It is interesting that Obama's supporters can claim with a straight face that he is the one willing to compromise when in fact the proposed "compromise" is do as I say or I will rely on Senator Reed to not allow a vote! While constantly admonished as the party with no ideas, the REpublican leadership in the House has repeatedly passed measures to see them never brought to the floor of the Senate. Interesting, that Obama would be characterized as the one with "backbone". Jellyfish comes to mind!

I totally agree Dennis about "our lifesytles". Too many fat(not slightly overweight), unhealthy people. Too many people poisoning themselves every day. Heck, I have an older relative who is on oxygen tanks and he STILL SMOKES.

See, what most conservatives don't realize is that this country's had "national healthcare" all along. It's called the Emergency Room.

and people seem to think Obamacare's going to be worse? No chance.
...

Frank, I could care less about the time of day, but I do care that the Speaker of the House pronounced with glee that we "had to pass it to find out what was in it"! What wonderful insightful leadership of the legislative branch of our government.

How sad! Obstruction of a really bad idea should be lauded. Perhaps there is no solution to our healthcare system that can emanate from the federal government. Perhaps there is a solution that says keep the government out of my private life and budget.

Agreed as people like Cardin and Obama certainly know the government knows whats best for the people! Just ask them and they will tell you!

As Romney and his corporations knows what is best for you?

Paul,
Democrats continue to say Romney is being driven by corporation greed. Funny thing is where do the Democrats get their money from to push their political agenda?

Eastsider, I am sure you would agree that corporations and the very wealthy for the most significant part support Romney. Ever wonder why? If not you are blind. They support the candidate who most represents their interests, no one else's.. Basically that means screw everyone else, but they have to make you think they care. So they have to go after the emotional issues, lazy overpaid union workers, bring back prayer in school, lazy welfare bums, daggum illegal immigrants, Muslim Obama, etc. you don't see it, because you don't want to believe it. I can only point it out to you. But if you are blinded nothing can be done.

Paul, So when Obama gets massive support from Millionaires, Billionaires, and Corporations that is just their way of "giving back" to the less fortunate or do you have some other way to twist the truth even further?

These issues can be debated until we are all blue and red in the face...unless campaign finance reform is forced by the people our country will continue the downward spiral that seems to have placed us in this very bad situation.
Obamacare is destine to fail as well.

I think most of us agree Campaign Finance Reform is needed. Well, except for the Supreme Court and Congress.

As a fellow conservative, would you please define this oft used term "fair play". I know how it works in sport, but how it applies to "life" is really beyond me. When someone defines just what this thing called "fair" really is, perhpas we can work to achieve it. Until then, frankly, it is a useless concept and nothing more than a political slogan.

Gentlemen, let's get some facts straight as we can all agree there is only one set of facts and many opinions as to what they mean.

Regarding direct campaign contributions to candidates, those are limited in amount by law. Bundlers gather these contributions up and then get "recognition" for doing so. This happens at all levels of politics. But that is not where the game is now due to Citizens United.

As of July 4, 2012, Conservative leaning Super Pacs have raised over $160 Billion compared to liberal leaning Super Pacs raising just over $50 Billion (www.opensecrets.org). These are unlimited campaign contributions and were previously restricted by McCain-Feingold legislation. Citizens United SCOTUS decision unleashed the money and it is pouring into Super-Pacs. My point and the facts are it is going to more conservative than liberal groups. These are not considered campaign contributions because "coordination" with the campaigns are banned by law. .... Continued

Once again...until campaign finance reform can be accomplished our country will continue to get screwed EQUALLY by both of the greed driven, power hungry parties.
The vast majority of super pak money comes from corporate elite giants that rule our Countries perceived leaders....until you get that fact straight...you can't possibly know what's going on with our once great Country

@Dennis - I would have liked to have lived in any of Romney's houses as he grew up, but I would not have liked to live in most of Obama's houses. What do you think?

Re Muslims - just about 50% of Southern Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim. Yes, Muslim is considered a 4 letter word by many people, not just Republicans. Remember the Muslim "Mosque" in New York and the uproar that caused.

Re Illegal Immigration - any responsible leader knows you can't send 11 million people out of the country.

Re - "That would mean giving incentives to large companies to keep the jobs in the U.S." - that statement is simply hilarious. First it is welfare in my mind. But more importantly, you and I pay taxes in this country for many things and one is defense. When a corporation ships jobs overseas it does that for two selfish purposes, one for lower costs to improve their profits and secondly, to avoid income taxes by keeping those same profits overseas. Disgusting.

Our country's children die for the benefit of that corporation and we have to give them an incentive to keep the jobs here. That just sucks.

In addition to corrupted campaigns we also have corrupted courts that have no real say in any serious matter....they are owned by the same design...
Obama and Romney are both bad news for our once great Country...

Go away Jackie Auburn.

i agree. He's so far left dumb even this illegal alien employer dont follow the laws. How many americans has he put out of work.. Ask him how Garcea is.

@Eastsider - did you even bother to read my post? Talk facts please, then opinions. You have no facts to support your opinions. You continue to leave out the Super Pac spending, why is that? I don't live in a Democratic fantasy world, I deal with facts. The Republican fantasy world is the one that doesn't believe in global climate change, gee, why is that?

Far off. You are just wacko. Now for everyone to see the real Jackie Auburn/amdactivist.

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profile/jackieauburn561

That just about says it all.

Gee, Paul. Thanks for the link. I think I will join.

Frank, I would call it more of a stream of unconsciousness.

@Dennis - Let's see a mixed race kid with a single white mom born in the early 60's. I bet you he had it easy.

As some would say, we will never agree on most anything, but the weather. It is sure hot.

Dennis, I am one of the fortunate who have whole house power in case of outtages, 45KW. You and Frank are welcome if you can get here. My father was French Canadien and married my German mother in Germany. I am an Army brat. They were die hard Democrats. She never worked. He put in 20 years in the Army. Both are gone.

They taught me well.

Buzz, I have no problem with your post. But it is biased writing. Please investigate and write a post on what our tax code gives to the wealthy and corporations. You chase pennies and are pound foolish. I hate to say it, but it smells of an agenda.

I have been waiting for 3 months. How much more, you promise and can't deliver.

I will go as far as you want with your idiotic games Jackie Auburn of Essex. You write like you have a third grade education and worse your IQ is less than your age. Everyone, except you, sees that. Grow up girl, you are embarrassing your gender.

Here are the facts. Number one, who brought up skin color, you did. Does that make you the racists? Number two the State of MD is a sanctuary one. What does that mean? And number three Robert, you have no room to talk about racism. Your philosophy is two fold, anyone who disagrees with you is as racists and number two, how can a man with three names be believed on any subject when you continue to deny your own existence.

LOL Maryland isn't a Sanctuary State..

Does your friend have some kind of magical powers that she can tell if someone is "illegal" or not just by reading their names?

Where do you get that 97% figure? It is hard to know anything about undocumented individuals because they tend to eschew census takers and pollsters since revealing their undocumented state would, from their perspective, potentially put them in danger of being deported. Is there an actual source for that 97% number? Googling for it doesn't bring much clarity: http://bit.ly/NDKYWJ

If you have an actual link I think anyone following this discussion would love to see where that number is from.

"97% of mostly hispanics in Md are illegal not racist."

That sentence makes zero sense in about 42 different ways (is English your second language? Serious question). I'd love to know what you actually are trying to say. That 97% of illegals in MD are of hispanic origin? I very much doubt that, but I suppose it's in the realm of possibility. Do you have a cite? Obviously, you're not trying to say 97% of people of hispanic origin in MD are here illegally. Though your English is so broken I can see why people would assume that's what you're trying to say, which would obviously be an extremely racist thing to say.

She makes zero sense and makes up numbers. She is simply a pathetic thing called a human.

Maryland is a sanctuary state. We had to force our legislature to pass legislation to require ID for driver's licenses two years ago because illegals knew how easy it was to get a Maryland license. The problem was so widespread that other states began refusing MD driver's licenses for identification.

MD also refuses to require ID for voting. Why is that? Certainly not because it's voter intimidation like the democrats would have you believe. The sad truth - as I see it - is to promote voter fraud.

Now Maryland - unless it is voted down on the ballot this November - will be giving in-state tuition to illegals at our colleges and universities. Children of career military who are stationed in Maryland don't even get that benefit!

Maryland IS a sanctuary state.

Thats a bogus website I think there are 11 Sanctuary States now and Maryland isn't one of them.

Eastsider. Will you please re-read what you said and open your link? lol.. Maryland is not on the NON SANCTUARY STATE.. TOLD YA..Md gives them anything they want. in baltimore city unemployment for black americans is higher then 15%.. hispanics *mostly all illegal* 10 or 11%.. i think it just jumped to 11.. http://www.sanctuarycities.info/nonsanctuary_states.htm

Eastsider you just contradicted yourself.

Are you referring to the noun or adjective? There is a difference as with your geography.
____________________________________

Americas - International News - The New York Times

Find breaking news, world news and multimedia on Canada and South America
with news from Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Peru and ...
www.nytimes.com/pages/world/americas/index.html

___________________________________________

You should now quite a bit about bullying tactics Robert. No need to capitalize "Nut Job", it's not a proper noun. What is a "casse"?

I thought your were the expert on all things including grammar.

I did not refer to George Bush. I referred to MOM's comment. You have to click on the link to read the content.

"FAIR. Crossing the Rubicon of Hate"

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate/

Not even remotely factual. Nobody knows how many "illegal" aliens are in Maryland nor how much we spend. The W-T video was staged and debunked years and years ago.

"Faux News"? How clever. Steve I'm sure you actually watch Fox news so you know how "biased" they are. Of course, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest are really "fair and balanced".

no no you are living in an "IM" age instant message if i want write anything proper it will written that way DUDE you want things the way you want and that is not reality

typo? you meant to type ROLL not ROLE MODEL thats a brain fade not typo BUSZY

Correction made. There is a difference between typos and the term illiterate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy

ROLL WITH IT DUDE