Tax Policy

Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: thelip (IP Logged)
Date: September 20, 2013 01:44PM

[finance.yahoo.com]

The republican led House has voted to keep the government open, while defunding ObamaCare for this upcoming year. It is clear the republicans do not want a government shutodwn. We shall see about the democrats. Any guesses on how they will vote? Any guess on who they will blame afterwards when the democrats vote to essentially shut down the government?

Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Reply via PM•Follow This Thread•Report This Message
Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: MGB (IP Logged)
Date: September 20, 2013 03:04PM

thelip Wrote:
——————————————————-
> [finance.yahoo.com]
> mediately-trolled-ted-155432468.html
>
> The republican led House has voted to keep the
> government open, while defunding ObamaCare for
> this upcoming year. It is clear the republicans do
> not want a government shutodwn.

You do not know what the word “clear” means.

Seem pretty clear to me I do what it means.

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

It also seems clear to the Cleveland Clinic. Obama and the dems are intent on shutting down the government as well as shutting down the best health care system in the world. Let alone the poor middle class employees who are losing their jobs and health care benefits.

But hey, that is just me, the Cleveland Clinic, Trader Joe’s, Home Depot, Time Warner, IBM….

thelip Wrote:
——————————————————-
> … the dems are intent on shutting down the
> government as well as shutting down the best
> health care system in the world.

Gee, two lies in a row. The truth is the government will not be shut-down and we don’t have the best health care system in the world, just the most expensive.

The real truth is that a minority of undemocratic gerrymandered extremists are once again wasting everyone’s time and millions of tax payer’s money acting like spoiled brats, throwing a tantrum and threatening to hold their breath until they get their way. Everyone else is laughing at the at them and wondering why their parents can’t control them.

Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Reply via PM•Follow This Thread•Report This Message•Edit Post
Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: ront (IP Logged)
Date: September 21, 2013 08:02AM

and we have our president willing to negotiate with just about anyone else around the world, but not the us congress.

ront Wrote:
——————————————————-
> and we have our president willing to negotiate
> with just about anyone else around the world, but
> not the us congress.

Gee, another big lie. The fact is it’s the undemocratic gerrymandered extremists minority who are unwilling to negotiate with the president. The spoiled brats will settle for nothing less than a repeal of Obamacare. The other truth is that the preseident will never agree to that, no matter how loud the brats cry and stomp their feet.

So, Gary, why does the POTUS get a pass from you for refusing to negotiate, but not the Republicans?

Obamacare is one of the most poorly-thought pieces of legislation to pass through Congress in a heck of a long time. Something needed to be done to rein in the cost of health care, but putting an additional burden on the Middle Class, and causing full-time jobs with benefits to disappear in favor of part-time, no-benefits jobs, is sure not the way to fix things.

If Obama wanted to force action on the issue of fixing health care in the US – he’s done that, but now it’s time for the second step – serious talks about how to do it without causing the financial distress Obamacare has and will cause as we get deeper and deeper into it.

“Hurry up and pass it, and we can read it later!” should have caused each and every one of those idiots to be thrown out of office. Recent clips I’ve seen of Pelosi tell me she still has no idea what she voted for.

What all that said, the Republicans/Tea Partiers who would rather shut the country down than even talk about health care reform, also need to be thrown out. They are putting their personal agendas ahead of the well-being of the nation. That is unacceptable. Obama and his sycophants and loyalists are putting their personal agendas ahead of the well-being of the nation, too, and should also be thrown out.

i said the same thing two years ago.

NoBS Wrote:
——————————————————-
> So, Gary, why does the POTUS get a pass from you
> for refusing to negotiate, but not the
> Republicans?
>
> Obamacare is one of the most poorly-thought pieces
> of legislation to pass through Congress in a heck
> of a long time. Something needed to be done to
> rein in the cost of health care, but putting an
> additional burden on the Middle Class, and causing
> full-time jobs with benefits to disappear in favor
> of part-time, no-benefits jobs, is sure not the
> way to fix things.
>
> If Obama wanted to force action on the issue of
> fixing health care in the US – he’s done that, but
> now it’s time for the second step – serious talks
> about how to do it without causing the financial
> distress Obamacare has and will cause as we get
> deeper and deeper into it.
>
> “Hurry up and pass it, and we can read it later!”
> should have caused each and every one of those
> idiots to be thrown out of office. Recent clips
> I’ve seen of Pelosi tell me she still has no idea
> what she voted for.
>
> What all that said, the Republicans/Tea Partiers
> who would rather shut the country down than even
> talk about health care reform, also need to be
> thrown out. They are putting their personal
> agendas ahead of the well-being of the nation.
> That is unacceptable. Obama and his sycophants and
> loyalists are putting their personal agendas ahead
> of the well-being of the nation, too, and should
> also be thrown out.

thelip Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Seem pretty clear to me I do what it means.

You missed the point. Shock.

>
> [www.huffingtonpost.com]
> -clinic_n_3950640.html
>
> It also seems clear to the Cleveland Clinic. Obama
> and the dems are intent on shutting down the
> government as well as shutting down the best
> health care system in the world. Let alone the
> poor middle class employees who are losing their
> jobs and health care benefits.
>
> But hey, that is just me, the Cleveland Clinic,
> Trader Joe’s, Home Depot, Time Warner, IBM….

Obamacare is a disaster, pretty much everyone gets that at this point. But the president is not going to defund his crown jewel so passing a budget that does as much isn’t really anything more than a symbolic jab at the White House. Both sides seem to have no concept of how to negotiate for the American people. They’d rather have a pissing contest.

It’s kinda funny, all those defending the president on this one. The current law looks nothing like the law that was passed. There are waivers, exemptions, delays, etc. Still somehow the low informationers still want to blame the republicans. This is destroying the middle class and that my friends is not really up for debate.

NoBS Wrote:
——————————————————-
> So, Gary, why does the POTUS get a pass from you
> for refusing to negotiate, but not the
> Republicans?

Because its not the POTUS who is refusing to negotiate. The problem is the undemocratic gerrymandered extremists minority who will accept nothing less than a complete repeal of Obamacare.

>
> Obamacare is one of the most poorly-thought pieces
> of legislation to pass through Congress in a heck
> of a long time.

Again not true. The ideas in Obamacare have been around and debated for decades. Its based on Romneycare that been working successfully for decades.

Something needed to be done to
> rein in the cost of health care, but putting an
> additional burden on the Middle Class, and causing
> full-time jobs with benefits to disappear in favor
> of part-time, no-benefits jobs, is sure not the
> way to fix things.

The biggest problem with the law is that it don’t do enough to control spending, at least not in the short term. The real problem is the sky-rocketing costs, which has been going on long before Obamacare. But I agree, more needs to be done in this area. This is what Congress and the president should be working on. Instead we have to deal with this childish grandstanding from the estreamists.

>
> If Obama wanted to force action on the issue of
> fixing health care in the US – he’s done that, but
> now it’s time for the second step – serious talks
> about how to do it without causing the financial
> distress Obamacare has and will cause as we get
> deeper and deeper into it.

Actually it should get better as more people get enrolled, but. I agree, more needs to be done to control the long out-of-control spending. Problem is Congress insists on wasting everyones time and money grandstanding and acting like spoiled brats so nothing productive can get done.
>
> “Hurry up and pass it, and we can read it later!”
> should have caused each and every one of those
> idiots to be thrown out of office. Recent clips
> I’ve seen of Pelosi tell me she still has no idea
> what she voted for.

This isn’t the first piece of complex legislation that needed to be fixed. That’s the problem with laws that try to be all things to every interest group. A single payor system would have worked better be that would never have pasted.
>

> Obama and his sycophants and
> loyalists are putting their personal agendas ahead
> of the well-being of the nation, too, and should
> also be thrown out.

Obama “and his sycophants” are willing to meet the republicans half-way. The problem is the republicans are being lead by the nose by an extreme minority (a beast of their own creation I might add), who are simply unwilling to back-off their extreme position.

MGB Wrote:
——————————————————-

> Obamacare is a disaster, pretty much everyone gets
> that at this point.

I disagree. This issue, like all others, has its fans and its detractors.

And both sides have legions of articles and studies ad nauseam to support their side.

I am of the opinion that no single piece of legislation or overhaul or makeover of anything is enough to tank the economy or make everything hunky dory. It just does not seem to work that way.

Laws get passed, people get elected and somehow we muddle through.

I am too old to believe that all of the talk ON BOTH SIDES that doing x or electing y will result in any sort of true “diaster”.

“I am of the opinion that no single piece of legislation or overhaul or makeover of anything is enough to tank the economy or make everything hunky dory. It just does not seem to work that way.”

When is is nearly 20% of the GDP all by istelf, throw in the reduced worker hours, reduced tax reveneue, increased health care costs, increase in governement dependency, etc. I am pretty sure this single piece of legislation is more than enough to destroy the economy.

Weak tea, weak tea indeed.

thelip Wrote:
——————————————————-
> “I am of the opinion that no single piece of
> legislation or overhaul or makeover of anything is
> enough to tank the economy or make everything
> hunky dory. It just does not seem to work that
> way.”
>
> When is is nearly 20% of the GDP all by istelf,
> throw in the reduced worker hours, reduced tax
> reveneue, increased health care costs, increase in
> governement dependency, etc. I am pretty sure
> this single piece of legislation is more than
> enough to destroy the economy.

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> NoBS Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > So, Gary, why does the POTUS get a pass from
> you
> > for refusing to negotiate, but not the
> > Republicans?
>
> Because its not the POTUS who is refusing to
> negotiate.

In your post at 8:22 this morning, you said: ” The other truth is that the preseident will never agree to that, no matter how loud the brats cry and stomp their feet.” If that’s not refusing to negotiate, what is?

>
> >
> > Obamacare is one of the most poorly-thought
> pieces
> > of legislation to pass through Congress in a
> heck
> > of a long time.
>
>
> Again not true. The ideas in Obamacare have been
> around and debated for decades. Its based on
> Romneycare that been working successfully for
> decades.

Romneycare may be working. Obamacare clearly isn’t Romneycare. Romneycare didn’t cause employers to shed full-time jobs for the sole purpose of reducing their Obamacare payments.

> The real problem is the sky-rocketing
> costs, which has been going on long before
> Obamacare.

I agree with that. But Obamacare isn’t doing anything to fix those skyrocketing costs. And the implication was that it would.

> But I agree, more needs to be done in
> this area. This is what Congress and the
> president should be working on. Instead we have
> to deal with this childish grandstanding from the
> estreamists.

Yes – on both sides of the aisle.

>
> > Obama and his sycophants and
> > loyalists are putting their personal agendas
> ahead
> > of the well-being of the nation, too, and
> should
> > also be thrown out.
>
> Obama “and his sycophants” are willing to meet the
> republicans half-way.

No, they’re not. Both sides are digging in their heels and refusing to budge.

> The problem is the
> republicans are being lead by the nose by an
> extreme minority (a beast of their own creation I
> might add), who are simply unwilling to back-off
> their extreme position.

That’s one side of the problem. The other, as you stated earlier, is that ” The other truth is that the preseident will never agree to that, no matter how loud the brats cry and stomp their feet.” So we have an impasse. Who’s going to blink first?

NoBS Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Gary_Rosati Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > NoBS Wrote:
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> > —–
> > > So, Gary, why does the POTUS get a pass from
> > you
> > > for refusing to negotiate, but not the
> > > Republicans?
> >
> > Because its not the POTUS who is refusing to
> > negotiate.
>
>
> In your post at 8:22 this morning, you said: ” The
> other truth is that the preseident will never
> agree to that, no matter how loud the brats cry
> and stomp their feet.” If that’s not refusing to
> negotiate, what is?

By “that” I was referring to settling “for nothing less than a repeal of Obamacare”. That’s not negotiation, that’s caving in. Again, Obama isn’t going to do that. And why should he. The brat’s are clearly not going to follow through with their threat. They’ll back down and try to blame the whole sorry episode on the Dems. In fact they’re already doing that. See the OP.

i guess you missed obama’s talking to the press late yesterday afternoon when he said he will not negoitate.

don’t misunderstand me. i think the extremists in the republican party are wrong.

we elect these morons to run the country, not getting their faces on the news with idiotic sound bites.

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> ront Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > and we have our president willing to negotiate
> > with just about anyone else around the world,
> but
> > not the us congress.
>
> Gee, another big lie. The fact is it’s the
> undemocratic gerrymandered extremists minority who
> are unwilling to negotiate with the president. The
> spoiled brats will settle for nothing less than a
> repeal of Obamacare. The other truth is that the
> preseident will never agree to that, no matter how
> loud the brats cry and stomp their feet.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2013 01:48PM by ront.

Gary,
The House of Representatives has always been gerrymandered. Nonetheless, when the American public want to change it, they do.

It was gerrymandered in 1994 when the Republicans ended 40 years of Democrat control. It was gerrymandered in 2006 when the Democrats won it back and it was gerrymandered during the Republican landslide of 2010.

And on being undemocratic, the Republican majority is far more in sync with the public on this issue. Obamacare is very unpopular.

It’s such a bad law that the Administration has had to delay and ignore key parts of it.

I have no illusions that this effort will get Obamacare repealed. But if it forces the U.S. Senate to extensively discuss and debate it then it’s a good thing.

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Gary,
> The House of Representatives has always been
> gerrymandered. Nonetheless, when the American
> public want to change it, they do.

Sure, and when they want a simple tax code they’ll get that too, riiiight.

The Reps took gerrymandering to a disastrous level. When the Dems were in power moderates on both sides worked together and got things done. Back then “compromise” wasn’t a bad word. Since the Reps took control we’ve had one do-nothing Congress after another. Little of any substance gets done. Now business as usual is just more hot air.

>
> And on being undemocratic, the Republican majority
> is far more in sync with the public on this issue.
> Obamacare is very unpopular.

Democracy is more than the latest popularity pole. The law was supported by a President who was elected twice by wide margins. The law passed both houses of congress, including the Rep controlled house. It was even tested in our highest court. Now, even before its fully implemented, an extremist minority is holding the government hostage to force their agenda. What do the latest popularity poles say about that?

>
> It’s such a bad law that the Administration has
> had to delay and ignore key parts of it.
>
It’s a complicated law. People asked for more time to get ready for the changes. The administration acted reasonably and responsibly in granting the requests. I can only imagine the out-cry if the administration denied the requests. Face it, you Reps will find fault no matter what the administration does.

> I have no illusions that this effort will get
> Obamacare repealed. But if it forces the U.S.
> Senate to extensively discuss and debate it then
> it’s a good thing.

If that was the purpose of their actions I might agree. But of course its not. The extremist simply want the President fail, and they’re doing everything they can to make that happen

Gary_J_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> NoBS Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > Gary_Rosati Wrote:
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> > —–
> > > NoBS Wrote:
> > >
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> >
> > > —–
> > > > So, Gary, why does the POTUS get a pass
> from
> > > you
> > > > for refusing to negotiate, but not the
> > > > Republicans?
> > >
> > > Because its not the POTUS who is refusing to
> > > negotiate.
> >
> >
> > In your post at 8:22 this morning, you said: ”
> The
> > other truth is that the preseident will never
> > agree to that, no matter how loud the brats cry
> > and stomp their feet.” If that’s not refusing
> to
> > negotiate, what is?
>
> By “that” I was referring to settling “for nothing
> less than a repeal of Obamacare”. That’s not
> negotiation, that’s caving in. Again, Obama isn’t
> going to do that. And why should he. The brat’s
> are clearly not going to follow through with their
> threat. They’ll back down and try to blame the
> whole sorry episode on the Dems. In fact they’re
> already doing that. See the OP.

Isn’t the whole point better health care, more affordable for more people? “My plan, take it or leave it” isn’t any more productive than the stonewalling and shenannigans the Republicans are pulling. That’s my point. He got both sides talking, now it’s time to talk.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: September 21, 2013 08:17PM

Gary,
1. House isn’t anymore gerrymandered than it was in the past.

2. Obamacare passed in 2010 when the Democrats controlled both Houses. And that is the main reason why Democrats lost the House in 2010.

3. They want the President’s domestic agenda, especially Obamacare, to fail. And they want it to fail because it is catastrophically bad for this country. Doing nothing is better than enacting bad legislation.

And by the way, the Republican House hasn’t done nothing. They’ve passed all kinds of substantive legislation. It just all dies in the Senate. It’s the Dem Senate that doesn’t pass anything; including an annual budget.

And by the way, the President can’t refuse to negotiate on the debt limit. He’s not an emperor. The Congress is not merely his rubber stamp. It doesn’t work that way.

If he wants to raise the debt limit he needs to negotiate. He has to concede to something that will get 218 votes in the House for raising the debt limit. Otherwise he’ll be the 1st President in American History to have a default.

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Gary,
> 1. House isn’t anymore gerrymandered than it was
> in the past.

The 2010 Rep congressional victories coincided with the 2010 census. The result was a huge windfall for the GOP. They were suddenly able to redraw hundreds of congressional maps to their own partisan advantage. The result is our overly partisan do-nothing Congress.

>
> 2. Obamacare passed in 2010 when the Democrats
> controlled both Houses. And that is the main
> reason why Democrats lost the House in 2010.
>
It’s certainly true that many 2010 freshman Republics owed their political careers to their hatred of Obama and their fervent opposition to his signature legislation. But they’re an extreme minority. They can’t stop Obama and they can’t repeal the law. They’re silly antics might be funny if they weren’t wasting everyone time and money.

> 3. They want the President’s domestic agenda,
> especially Obamacare, to fail. And they want it to
> fail because it is catastrophically bad for this
> country. Doing nothing is better than enacting bad
> legislation.

This is pure hyperbole. Alex, you’re been drinking too much coolaid. Its Romneycare after all. It has a proven track record.

>
> And by the way, the Republican House hasn’t done
> nothing. They’ve passed all kinds of substantive
> legislation. It just all dies in the Senate. It’s
> the Dem Senate that doesn’t pass anything;
> including an annual budget.

Like I said, Rep gerrymandering has result is our overly partisan do-nothing Congress.

I stopped reading at this point. If you really believe that then you are in the tall grass and no amount of evidence will get you out.

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
>
>
> The 2010 Rep congressional victories coincided
> with the 2010 census.

Nope. The census was taken in 2010. Districts were not redrawn until after that. The 2012 elections were the first that were affected by the census.

> >
> It’s certainly true that many 2010 freshman
> Republics owed their political careers to their
> hatred of Obama and their fervent opposition to
> his signature legislation. But they’re an extreme
> minority.

Point of fact, they’re actually a majority, as demonstrated by simple math.

>
> This is pure hyperbole. Alex, you’re been
> drinking too much coolaid. Its Romneycare after
> all. It has a proven track record.

It has few similarities with Romney’s plan.

>
>
> Like I said, Rep gerrymandering has result is our
> overly partisan do-nothing Congress.

Congress isn’t in charge of redrawing districts, so your point is inaccurate and invalid.

Just for the sake of intellectual honesty:

The Republican landslide election of November, 2010 was held in districts drawn in 2001.

It was in January, 2011 that these new Republican State Legislatures redrew the lines to cement their newly won majority–that is true too.

People on the left like pointing out that in November of 2012 the combined vote total for Democratic congressional candidates was greater than the combined vote total for Republican candidates. They use this figure to argue that House of Representatives is not legitimate.

They conveniently forget that the House elections are 435 separate elections; rather than one combined election. And in a majority of those 435 elections, gerrymandered or not, the Republican candidate won.

For most of the 20th century the Democrats held the majority of state legislatures and they drew the lines in their favor. You don’t think the Democrat Congresses under Tip O’Neill and earlier didn’t benefit from gerrymandering?

The good news is that despite gerrymandering the public can still change the Congress-and have done so 3 times in the last 20 years; 1994, 2006 and 2010.

If the American people want the President to have a rubber stamp Congress for his last two years, they’ll give him one in November, 2014.

Lastly, Obamacare is the worst domestic policy initiative of my lifetime. And I’m 45.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2013 12:26AM by Alexandre.

MGB Wrote:
——————————————————
>
> Nope. The census was taken in 2010. Districts
> were not redrawn until after that. The 2012
> elections were the first that were affected by the
> census.

That what am talking about. The Reps were able to lock-in their 2010 victories, get more Reps elected (which tended be even more extreme) and weaken the opposition.
>
> Point of fact, they’re actually a majority, as
> demonstrated by simple math.
>
What? 2010/2012 freshman Republics are a minority in Congress.
>
>
> It has few similarities with Romney’s plan.
>
Most articles I found says they are substantially the same. I did find one that says there’s one important difference:

[economix.blogs.nytimes.com]

> Congress isn’t in charge of redrawing districts,
> so your point is inaccurate and invalid.

No, I never said congress drew the lines. I said the GOP.

[www.theatlantic.com]

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-

> They conveniently forget that the House elections
> are 435 separate elections; rather than one
> combined election. And in a majority of those 435
> elections, gerrymandered or not, the Republican
> candidate won.

After the 2010 election the GOP was able to rewrite nearly everyone of those 435 district maps.

>
> For most of the 20th century the Democrats held
> the majority of state legislatures and they drew
> the lines in their favor. You don’t think the
> Democrat Congresses under Tip O’Neill and earlier
> didn’t benefit from gerrymandering?

Like I said, moderate even still elected. Politicians compromised. Important work got done. Those days are gone.
>

> The good news is that despite gerrymandering the
> public can still change the Congress.

Not when Congressional districts are gerrymandered so tightly.
>
> If the American people want the President to have
> a rubber stamp…

The American people want a government that’s truly representative of the people and can do what we pay them to do, help solve our problems with effective legislation.

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
>
> > They conveniently forget that the House
> elections
> > are 435 separate elections; rather than one
> > combined election. And in a majority of those
> 435
> > elections, gerrymandered or not, the Republican
> > candidate won.
>
> After the 2010 election the GOP was able to
> rewrite nearly everyone of those 435 district
> maps.

Gary,
The Republicans did not invent gerrymandering. And 2010 was not the 1st year a political party had a big advantage in redistricting. You’re forgetting the history of Democrats doing the same thing.

2ndly, the Republicans have compromised. About 7 months ago they compromised big time on taxes. And Obama and the Democrats have been as intransigent as they claim the Republicans have been.

an interesting fact.

over the last 100 years the democrats have controlled both houses of congress the majority of the time.

You are right NoBS, affordable quality health care IS the point. But, the republicans don’t want to sit down and rework the ACA. The want it repealed, nothing less. Then, as I said in another thread, they will go right back to ignoring health care as they have done for decades.thats the reason Obama digs his heels in. If just one republican made the suggestion to sit down and look at what changes could be made to keep a majority happy, I think he would be ok with that. But he WON’T just sit back and let them repeal it and if he did they’d have a field day talking about how weak he is( example; Syria).

So, what’s the answer?

Why do the American people overwhelming want Obamacare repealed? Why won’t Congress participate in it? Why do the American people reject this law?

Why? Because no one has read the whole thing nor do they understand it. The bottom line is it will provide the opportunity for health insurance for 30,000,000 Americans, even those with pre-existing conditions. What is the Republican healthcare plan? Emergency rooms treatment?

Here is the latest Republican plan, there have been several before, but since many here only get their news from MSNBC, you never hear about them. [dailycaller.com]

By the way, 30,000,000 Americans have the opportunity for health insurance today, so if that is your best argument, well you lost.

Sooo BAK…

thelip Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Here is the latest Republican plan, there have
> been several before, but since many here only get
> their news from MSNBC, you never hear about them.
> [dailycaller.com]
> s-new-plan-to-repeal-replace-obamacare/

Only three years late and hardly worth the wait.

[radio.foxnews.com]

i think some people aren’t aware that state legislatures draw congressional districts.

justsaying… Wrote:
——————————————————-
> You are right NoBS, affordable quality health care
> IS the point. But, the republicans don’t want to
> sit down and rework the ACA. The want it repealed,
> nothing less.

It needs to be repealed. It’s bad law. So repeal it and start over. Get it right this time. That’s what i expect from my leaders, regardless of their party.

MGB Wrote:
——————————————————-
> justsaying… Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > You are right NoBS, affordable quality health
> care
> > IS the point. But, the republicans don’t want
> to
> > sit down and rework the ACA. The want it
> repealed,
> > nothing less.
>
>
> It needs to be repealed. It’s bad law. So repeal
> it and start over. Get it right this time.
> That’s what i expect from my leaders, regardless
> of their party.

And again, I reiterate, if it is repealed it will be the end of any effort to address health care. The republicans don’t want any part of it. They’re too busy preventing abortion and making sure gays don’t marry. Health care for anyone who isn’t THEM is not a priority.

justsaying… Wrote:
——————————————————-
>
> And again, I reiterate, if it is repealed it will
> be the end of any effort to address health care.

How so? This president has until 2016 and the rest of the time he’ll likely have a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. So repeal the law and start over with the knowledge that there needs to be some bipartisan compromise to get a real law passed. I know, I know, these guys are all idiots and they don’t care about us enough to put aside differences, but I can still be hopeful.

> The republicans don’t want any part of it. They’re
> too busy preventing abortion and making sure gays
> don’t marry.

The GOP has mostly shifted on the gay marriage issue. The lion’s share of us have been wondering why it was an issue in the first place, but that’s a whole separate debate.

Health care for anyone who isn’t THEM
> is not a priority.

No, health CARE has always been something that we believed was a right for everyone. Health INSURANCE is something different entirely. I’m not sure how we got so entitled in this country but I simply don’t understand why we’re being told that everyone needs to have expensive insurance plans. I think there’s a way to provide basic coverage (which has been available for pretty much two decades) without taxing the middle class into oblivion and destroying the health insurance plans of millions of private sector workers.

Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Reply via PM•Follow This Thread•Report This Message

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: justsaying… (IP Logged)
Date: September 23, 2013 09:20AM

I guess you really are a dreamer if you think any republican congress will help THIS president do anything

I said abortion and gay marriage tongue in cheek, but if you think about the Only topics we have heard about BESIDES ACA in the last 6 years you’d be hard pressed to find much else. Except, of course, the ever popular gun control issue. Nothing that will actually HELP the American people.

And lastly, no generic and cheap (basic) insurance is going to cover the people who need it most which is the elderly, the chronically ill and those with pre-existing conditions. Which leaves folks at the same place we are now where the chosen few-think congress- are well cared for and the majority of everyone else can, as I said, pound salt

BAK mentioned emergency room as the “health care” option for many people. It’s not even a joke. It’s how it is now. And we all pay for that through our higher premiums and taxes in the form of Medicaid.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Gary_J_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: September 23, 2013 02:06PM

MGB Wrote:
——————————————————-

> How so? This president has until 2016 and the
> rest of the time he’ll likely have a Republican
> House and a Democratic Senate. So repeal the law
> and start over with the knowledge that there needs
> to be some bipartisan compromise to get a real law
> passed. I know, I know, these guys are all idiots
> and they don’t care about us enough to put aside
> differences, but I can still be hopeful.

What your being is disingenuous. If the Reps were successful in defeating the ACA it would take them three years just to stop gloating. Hell, it took them that long just to present an alternative, one that has no chance of passing. JS is right on this point and you know it.
>
>
> No, health CARE has always been something that we
> believed was a right for everyone. Health
> INSURANCE is something different entirely.

But without some way of getting health care that right is meaningless.

I’m
> not sure how we got so entitled in this country.

As you say, basis health care is a right.

> but I simply don’t understand why we’re being told
> that everyone needs to have expensive insurance
> plans.

I agree, there is no right to Cadillac care.

I think there’s a way to provide basic
> coverage (which has been available for pretty much
> two decades) without taxing the middle class into
> oblivion and destroying the health insurance plans
> of millions of private sector workers.

I would like to hear your plan. One thing’s certain, what we were doing before ACA wasn’t working either: skyrocketing costs, millions without effective care, the whole system riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse.

Would you support a single-payer system for basic care?

Gary_J_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> MGB Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
>
>
> > How so? This president has until 2016 and the
> > rest of the time he’ll likely have a Republican
> > House and a Democratic Senate. So repeal the
> law
> > and start over with the knowledge that there
> needs
> > to be some bipartisan compromise to get a real
> law
> > passed. I know, I know, these guys are all
> idiots
> > and they don’t care about us enough to put
> aside
> > differences, but I can still be hopeful.
>
> What your being is disingenuous.

No, I’m being idealistic. There’s a difference.

> >
> >
> > No, health CARE has always been something that
> we
> > believed was a right for everyone. Health
> > INSURANCE is something different entirely.
>
> But without some way of getting health care that
> right is meaningless.

You have a way. You have six ways. There are already programs that address the needs of the elderly, the poor and the young (though I believe the cutoff for “young” is 29).

>
>
>
> I’m
> > not sure how we got so entitled in this
> country.
>
> As you say, basis health care is a right.

And nobody is taking it away. You can walk into any doctor’s office or ER and be treated for your ailment. Nobody stops you at the door and asks for proof of health insurance.

>
>
> I think there’s a way to provide basic
> > coverage (which has been available for pretty
> much
> > two decades) without taxing the middle class
> into
> > oblivion and destroying the health insurance
> plans
> > of millions of private sector workers.
>
> I would like to hear your plan.

It’s pretty long and I have yet to iron out all the kinks. But rest assured that I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and writing down my thoughts (though I don’t now why, nobody would ever listen to me).

One thing’s
> certain, what we were doing before ACA wasn’t
> working either: skyrocketing costs, millions
> without effective care, the whole system riddled
> with waste, fraud, and abuse.

Do you think fraud and abuse stop when you have a convoluted system run by a government that cannot get its $h!t together on ANYTHING?

>
> Would you support a single-payer system for basic
> care?

Yes. I know, I’ll turn in my GOP Membership Card and have the elephant tattoo removed from my buttocks post haste. Seriously though, a narrowly used single payer system without waivers, mandates, fines and above all lobbying might actually work. How about just expanding Medicare to cover people since that seems to be the only government program that is halfway competent? No prescription drug benefits though. Too expensive. Instead companies that make the drugs allocate needed medicine to the program and in return receive patent extensions and 100% tax deductions for the cost of the drugs that they give away along with amoritization of the cost of R&D equal to the percentage of free medicine given. Win-win. Incentivize companies to give something away and in return people don’t go broke buying pills.

When was the last time you walked I to an ER or urgent care and nobody asked you for your insurance info? You must living on some other planet.

You have a way. You have six ways. There are already programs that address the needs of the elderly, the poor and the young (though I believe the cutoff for “young” is 29). << And your party leaders want cuts to SS, Medicare, Food Stamps and other social programs. Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2013 04:47PM by BAKnight. Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Reply via PM•Follow This Thread•Report This Message Re: Let's see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown Posted by: MGB (IP Logged) Date: September 23, 2013 05:12PM justsaying... Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When was the last time you walked I to an ER or
> urgent care and nobody asked you for your
> insurance info? You must living on some other
> planet.

Are you denied care because you don’t have insurance? That must be a new thing they’re trying out.

BAKnight Wrote:
——————————————————-
> You have a way. You have six ways. There are
> already programs that address the needs of the
> elderly, the poor and the young (though I believe
> the cutoff for “young” is 29). << >
> And your party leaders want cuts to SS, Medicare,
> Food Stamps and other social programs.

Yes because, as your compatriot Gary pointed out, there is fraud and waste within the system. And cutting food stamps shouldn’t be too hard since this president has basically presided over the largest expansion of recipients in the program’s history. So yes, I’d like for us to not to have record high giveaways forever. And Social Security is a total joke. my party doesn’t need to cut it, it’s already on a path to killing itself.

MGB Wrote:
——————————————————-
> justsaying… Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > When was the last time you walked I to an ER or
> > urgent care and nobody asked you for your
> > insurance info? You must living on some other
> > planet.
>
>
> Are you denied care because you don’t have
> insurance? That must be a new thing they’re
> trying out.

Oh, no, they’ll treat you. To a point. Heaven forbid its anything more than a few stitches or a sinus infection.

So, they do an X-ray for some random pain that turns out to be, let’s say, cancer. They give you a glass of water, a $50 Vicodin and show you the door. But not before making you stop at the finance window to make a payment plan for the $1000 dollar visit to tell you you have a problem that you have no money or insurance to fix. Not to mention now that we’ve discovered a condition that precludes you from getting insurance, you can officially consider bending over and lubing up. Oh, and pick out a cheap plot cause you’re gonna die.

I can attest to this scenario. It happened to very dear friends.

Nope, we don’t need no stinking Obamacare!

MGB Wrote:
——————————————————-
>
> You have a way. You have six ways. There are
> already programs that address the needs of the
> elderly, the poor and the young (though I believe
> the cutoff for “young” is 29).

Yeah, what a mess. And littered with waste, fraud, and abuse. All these programs need to be consolidated, simplified, and, perhaps, offered through single payer tax funded provider.
>
>
>
> And nobody is taking it away. You can walk into
> any doctor’s office or ER and be treated for your
> ailment. Nobody stops you at the door and asks
> for proof of health insurance.

There’s a barrier between the waiting room and the doctor, usually in the form of a receptionist who’s job it is to get your insurance info. Sometimes they also have you sign a contract that you agree to pay any deficiency due after the insurance payment. Try to see the doctor without providing the information or signing the contract. For more fun, ask for a price list of the services offered.
>
>
>
> It’s pretty long and I have yet to iron out all
> the kinks. But rest assured that I have spent
> quite a bit of time thinking about this and
> writing down my thoughts (though I don’t now why,
> nobody would ever listen to me).

Hey, would love to exchange ideas. Its all about exercising those frontal lobs. Its one of the most human thing we can do: plan, scheme, and speculate on how best to achieve your goals.

>
> Do you think fraud and abuse stop when you have a
> convoluted system run by a government that cannot
> get its $h!t together on ANYTHING?
>

I’m thinking perhaps a narrowly used single payer system without waivers, mandates, fines and above all lobbying might work.

>
> Yes… a narrowly
> used single payer system without waivers,
> mandates, fines and above all lobbying might
> actually work.

Hey! I was thinking the same thing.

How about just expanding Medicare
> to cover people since that seems to be the only
> government program that is halfway competent?

Sounds quite expensive, will need to implement cost savings. What about pay for performance?

[www.healthaffairs.org]

No
> prescription drug benefits though. Too expensive.
> Instead companies that make the drugs allocate
> needed medicine to the program and in return
> receive patent extensions and 100% tax deductions
> for the cost of the drugs that they give away
> along with amoritization of the cost of R&D equal
> to the percentage of free medicine given.
> Win-win. Incentivize companies to give something
> away and in return people don’t go broke buying
> pills.

Not crazy about patent extensions but interesting thought. Keep the ideas coming.

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
>
> There’s a barrier between the waiting room and the
> doctor, usually in the form of a receptionist
> who’s job it is to get your insurance info.
> Sometimes they also have you sign a contract that
> you agree to pay any deficiency due after the
> insurance payment. Try to see the doctor without
> providing the information or signing the contract.
> For more fun, ask for a price list of the
> services offered.

I’ve been to doctors that do not accept insurance. Nothing. You pay out of pocket, on the spot. This practice is becoming more common in…Massachusetts. Doctors, rather than deal with the influx of new patients from the state’s health insurance program, are going to all-cash services for new patients. Who does that hurt? The poor. That is one of the many unintended consequences when you try to make universal laws over privately held businesses.

This thing is a mess but I’m glad we at least have an interesting discussion going.

As if we needed more proof its the Dems and Obama who want a government shut down: [news.yahoo.com]

Dear Lord are you dense, thelip.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: thelip (IP Logged)
Date: October 04, 2013 09:51AM

You didnt answer the question js, so I will ask again.

Why not give individuals the same waiver Obama gave congress and big business? Isn’t that a compromise? Isn’t that fair?

thelip Wrote:
——————————————————-
> You didnt answer the question js, so I will ask
> again.
>
> Why not give individuals the same waiver Obama
> gave congress and big business? Isn’t that a
> compromise? Isn’t that fair?

The waivers are only temporary to help businesses adjust to the new law.

[www.latimes.com]

No consumer group has asked for a waiver for individuals. The fact is the law is working fine for individual consumers. Millions of uninsured Americans can now get meaningful coverage at an affordable price. That can’t be denied for a pre-existing condition and they aren’t subject to life-time caps. This is a big step forward in affordable care in this country. The only ones asking for waivers and delays for individuals are the radical republican, who’s long stated goal isn’t to help consumers but to kill the law.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: CONservativeAgenda (IP Logged)
Date: October 04, 2013 10:54AM

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
> No consumer group has asked for a waiver for
> individuals. The fact is the law is working fine
> for individual consumers. Millions of uninsured
> Americans can now get meaningful coverage at an
> affordable price. That can’t be denied for a
> pre-existing condition and they aren’t subject to
> life-time caps. This is a big step forward in
> affordable care in this country. The only ones
> asking for waivers and delays for individuals are
> the radical republican, who’s long stated goal
> isn’t to help consumers but to kill the law.

All true, but also much of the affordability is via government subsidy.

CONservativeAgenda Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Gary_Rosati Wrote:
> > No consumer group has asked for a waiver for
> > individuals. The fact is the law is working
> fine
> > for individual consumers. Millions of
> uninsured
> > Americans can now get meaningful coverage at an
> > affordable price. That can’t be denied for a
> > pre-existing condition and they aren’t subject
> to
> > life-time caps. This is a big step forward in
> > affordable care in this country. The only ones
> > asking for waivers and delays for individuals
> are
> > the radical republican, who’s long stated goal
> > isn’t to help consumers but to kill the law.
>
> All true, but also much of the affordability is
> via government subsidy.

The government already subsidizes health care every time the poor use the ER for the sniffles and also for everyone on Medicaid. That’s just pretty much going to continue so what’s all the fuss?

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: October 04, 2013 09:18PM

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> thelip Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > You didnt answer the question js, so I will ask
> > again.
> >
> > Why not give individuals the same waiver Obama
> > gave congress and big business? Isn’t that a
> > compromise? Isn’t that fair?
>
>
> The waivers are only temporary to help businesses
> adjust to the new law.

The waivers are a way for the administration to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Support the right people and get a waiver–don’t support the right people–well you know the rest. It’s all a power grab.

And the businesses that don’t get a waiver will adjust by laying off workers and cutting hours.

This new law is the worst domestic policy of my lifetime. It’s a disaster for this country. We are less free and less prosperous because of it.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: October 04, 2013 10:46PM

thelip Wrote:
——————————-
>
> If you watched or listened to any conservative
> show, If you listened to the Republican Congress,
> you would know they have asked for the same
> waiver. Temporary or not. So why not grant the
> waiver?

Come on, its not about waivers or death panels or any of that stuff with you Reps. Its about being obstructionist and finding fault with Obama anyway you can. It’s what comes from having a string of failed Republican Presidents. You Reps are desperate for some rhetorical balance, so your party is doing whatever it can to made Obama look like a failure. But try as they might Obama is proving to be one of our best modern presidents, better than even Clinton, and its driving you freekin crazy. So much so that your party’s desperate antics have painted them into a no-win political corner.

GOP used to stand for Garnd Old Party. Now it stands for pathetic.

> Isn’t it fair to give middle class workers
> the same deal?

Middle class workers don’t want waivers, they want affordable care and meaningful coverage without all the deny-benefits games — you know, what we had before ACA, and what you want us to go back to. No thanks.

> Hey, by the way, has anyone tried to get health
> insurance at the government web site? Day 4 and
> you still can’t sign up. What a bang up job.
> Will I still get fined if I don’t have health coverage?

Well, of course, the bad news is Rep state governments are giving little help, but the good news is that its only been 4 days. Applicants have plenty of time to find an insurance plan and avoid a penalty. Any taxes would be owed by April 15, 2015 — a year and a half from now.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: October 04, 2013 11:59PM

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-

> But try as they might Obama is
> proving to be one of our best modern presidents,
> better than even Clinton.

If you said this while hooked up to a polygraph machine you’d not only flunk the exam, but you would cause the machine to short circuit, spark and smoke.

You can’t possibly be serious. Gary, go have a glass of good wine and hit the hot tub. You need to relax.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2013 12:00AM by Alexandre.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: October 07, 2013 08:14PM

thelip Wrote:
——————————————————-
> We’ll at least now I understand why I can’t get
> through to Gary. He is unaware that big business
> was even getting a waiver.

Oh I understand about the waiver but what I want you to tell me what the waiver is for. If you understand what the waiver is for then you will understand why individuals without health care arn’t getting the waiver.

One other point, if I am getting
> insurance through my company and I elect to get
> it, I don’t need a subsidy.

Well, your getting a subsidy, a subsidy from your employer.

What about the
> millions and millions of people who don’t have
> insurance and are not eligible for subsidies, …

They have to buy it. Fortunately the exchanges were set-up to help these millions of people, people who don’t get a subsidy because they’re self employed or their employer doesn’t provide heath insurance. Its a place for these people to compare plans and get the best deal for the best price. Its a market solution to keep costs down and quality high. As a conservative you should support the exchanges. It was, actually, a republican idea.

> … you
> know, like the one Congress is getting,

Again, Congress is is giving a discount on health insurance to its employees, just like any other large employer gives discounts on health insurance to its employees. Its called a subsidy.

>
> So tell us Gary, why does Congress get a 72%
> subsidy and I don’t?

Because you don’t work for Congress.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: October 11, 2013 09:11PM

Does it matter to anyone that Senator Obama opposed increasing the debt limit in 2006. Or is it too impolite to mention this bit of hypocrisy?

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. … I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” Senator Barack Obama, March 16, 2006.
[www.washingtonpost.com]

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Does it matter to anyone that Senator Obama
> opposed increasing the debt limit in 2006. Or is
> it too impolite to mention this bit of hypocrisy?
>

Fact is everyone agrees we spend way to much. The problem is we can’t agree on how to cut. Reps want to cut social programs to finance tax brakes for the rich. Dems want to preserve the programs and increase rates on the rich. And that’s where we’ve been stalled for way too long.

This is crazy. Are we really so partisan that we can’t work his out? Reform the programs. Reform the tax code. Its shouldn’t be that difficult. But nobody likes to work with a gun to their head

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–

> Fact is everyone agrees we spend way to much. The
> problem is we can’t agree on how to cut. Reps
> want to cut social programs to finance tax brakes
> for the rich.

Gary, That was never true. That’s a phony strawman. Republicans, whenever they favored cutting taxes, did so in an across the board way.

Republicans just agreed to some huge tax increases last January. And as I follow their current demands during this government shut down they don’t include any tax cuts.

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
>
> Gary, That was never true. That’s a phony
> strawman. Republicans, whenever they favored
> cutting taxes, did so in an across the board way.
>

For example, they always want a lower tax rate for investment income. That’s a huge benefit to the rich as their income is disproportionately investment income.

> Republicans just agreed to some huge tax increases
> last January.

We finally got rid of the Bush tax rates. A small step in the right direction. Fact is the code needs major reforms. It needs to be simpler for one. Just about everyone agrees on that. Getting rid of the investment income deferential would be a good start.

How about you Alex. Do you think we should have a different rate on Investment income?

> And as I follow their current
> demands during this government shut down they
> don’t include any tax cuts.

Come Alex, you know they’re saving that for the vote on the debt limit.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: October 11, 2013 11:43PM

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> >
> > Gary, That was never true. That’s a phony
> > strawman. Republicans, whenever they favored
> > cutting taxes, did so in an across the board
> way.
> >
>
> For example, they always want a lower tax rate for
> investment income. That’s a huge benefit to the
> rich as their income is disproportionately
> investment income.

That’s a tax that ONLY applies to people wealthy enough to have investments. Poor people with no investments pay zero capital gains anyway. So a tax cut on investment income only favors investors because they are only ones paying it.

> > Republicans just agreed to some huge tax
> increases
> > last January.
>
> We finally got rid of the Bush tax rates. A small
> step in the right direction. Fact is the code
> needs major reforms. It needs to be simpler for
> one. Just about everyone agrees on that. Getting
> rid of the investment income deferential would be
> a good start.
>
> How about you Alex. Do you think we should have a
> different rate on Investment income?

The problem with a high capital gains tax is that it freezes capital in place and discourages investment; a prescription for stagnation. But to answer your question, I don’t necessarily think we should have separate tax rates for investment and regular income. Ideally, I’d prefer one equally low rate for both.

You’re talking to a disciple of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-

>
> That’s a tax that ONLY applies to people wealthy
> enough to have investments. Poor people with no
> investments pay zero capital gains anyway.

Yeah, poor people pay the higher tax, the one on regular income. Of the two which would you want to pay?

> So a
> tax cut on investment income only favors investors
> because they are only ones paying it.
>

Do you think investor are more important to American than 9 to 5ers? Do invest

> But to
> answer your question, I don’t necessarily think we
> should have separate tax rates for investment and
> regular income. Ideally, I’d prefer one equally
> low rate for both.
>

See, we’re making progress already. Like I said, it shouldn’t be so difficult.

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
>
> >
> > That’s a tax that ONLY applies to people
> wealthy
> > enough to have investments. Poor people with no
> > investments pay zero capital gains anyway.
>
> Yeah, poor people pay the higher tax, the one on
> regular income. Of the two which would you want
> to pay?
>
> > So a
> > tax cut on investment income only favors
> investors
> > because they are only ones paying it.
> >
>
> Do you think investor are more important to
> American than 9 to 5ers? Do invest
>
>
> > But to
> > answer your question, I don’t necessarily think
> we
> > should have separate tax rates for investment
> and
> > regular income. Ideally, I’d prefer one equally
> > low rate for both.
> >
>
> See, we’re making progress already. Like I said,
> it shouldn’t be so difficult.

Let me just respond one at a time.

1. Poor people don’t pay the higher rate because they aren’t required to pay any federal income tax. And the lowest bracket is 10%; which is lower than the capital gains rate anyway.

2. I don’t think anyone is more important than anyone else–I don’t get how this question is even relevant.

3. If we were smart, we’d tax investment and regular income at the same low rate. But when we have a top tax rate of 35% (confiscatory level) that’s a different story. Do you really want to have a capital gains tax at 35%? How do you think that will affect our competitiveness in the world? What do you think that will do to the jobs of those 9 to 5ers you’re talking about?

Economic freedom is as important as political freedom.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 11:44AM by Alexandre.

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
>
> 1. Poor people don’t pay the higher rate because
> they aren’t required to pay any federal income
> tax. And the lowest bracket is 10%; which is lower
> than the capital gains rate anyway.
>

Well poor is a relative term. Let’s say middle class. Fact is most people who considered themselves middle class paid tax on their income at a hight rate than, say a guy like Mitt Romney. This is because our tax code makes certain value judgments regarding things like income and expenses. It says income from investments should be encouraged so it should be taxes less than income from another source. This then promotes an economic privileged class: persons who’s income is primarily investment income.

We need to have a value free tax code, one that treats all income and expenses equally. This is the best way to keep the system fair and simple. After all, taxes should be about collecting revenue, they should not be used as a means of social engineering. By putting values into tax collection you make the system a complicated mess which is forever being re-written, and you open up the system to gaming by elites. You also help to maintain an economic privileged class which spills over into the political arena.

> 2. I don’t think anyone is more important than
> anyone else–I don’t get how this question is even
> relevant.
>

See above.

> 3. If we were smart, we’d tax investment and
> regular income at the same low rate. But when we
> have a top tax rate of 35% (confiscatory level)
> that’s a different story. Do you really want to
> have a capital gains tax at 35%?

Income should be taxes as income, just as you said. There should be no value judgment given to the source of the income. It should be a flat tiered rate, with everyone paying the same rate at each tier.

How do you think
> that will affect our competitiveness in the world?
> What do you think that will do to the jobs of
> those 9 to 5ers you’re talking about?

There you go again, putting values into the tax code. We need to get away from that type of thinking. Otherwise we will be forever cursed with a tax code that’s overly complex, constantly being re-written, open to gaming, and which promotes a privileged economic class.

>
> Economic freedom is as important as political
> freedom.

Political freedom is based on the rule one man one vote. Economic freedom is based on the rule all income is equal. A rule our tax code doesn’t follow.

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> >
> > 1. Poor people don’t pay the higher rate
> because
> > they aren’t required to pay any federal income
> > tax. And the lowest bracket is 10%; which is
> lower
> > than the capital gains rate anyway.
> >
>
> Well poor is a relative term. Let’s say middle
> class. Fact is most people who considered
> themselves middle class paid tax on their income
> at a hight rate than, say a guy like Mitt Romney.

Mitt’s taxes weren’t too low. The taxes of the people he was compared against were too high. I know you and a lot of others want to stick it to people in Romney’s financial position, but you have to consider the consequences of having high taxes on investment income.

We live in a global economy and people can put their money most anywhere–that’s not a value judgment, it’s just an observation of reality.

This is why I became disenchanted with the political Left. They would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich. Whereas, I don’t mind if the rich get richer as long as the poor are also getting richer.

> This is because our tax code makes certain value
> judgments regarding things like income and
> expenses. It says income from investments should
> be encouraged so it should be taxes less than
> income from another source.

The distinction between investment income and regular income is the result of a compromise. If you want to lower the top tax rate to 15% from its current 35% then I’m happy to treat both types of income the same way. But if you insist on taxing both forms of income at the higher (not lower) rate than you will just chase business and investment out of the country. That’s exactly what’s happening in France right now. Read about what the new tax code in France is doing to the French economy.

> > 3. If we were smart, we’d tax investment and
> > regular income at the same low rate. But when
> we
> > have a top tax rate of 35% (confiscatory level)
> > that’s a different story. Do you really want to
> > have a capital gains tax at 35%?
>
> Income should be taxes as income, just as you
> said. There should be no value judgment given to
> the source of the income. It should be a flat
> tiered rate, with everyone paying the same rate at
> each tier.

What’s this talk about tiers? I thought you opposed value judgments in the tax code. That means you oppose a progressive tax system.

Explain why someone with a high income should be subject to a higher tax rate than someone who earns less. Please explain this without making any value judgments.

Right now, 50% income earners in this nation pay zero federal income tax. And some of those people actually get a tax “refund” via the EIC, even though they paid nothing in income tax.

Let’s get rid of the value judgments and say if you earn income in the USA (regardless of the amount) then you pay income tax–no exceptions.
>
> How do you think
> > that will affect our competitiveness in the
> world?
> > What do you think that will do to the jobs of
> > those 9 to 5ers you’re talking about?
>
> There you go again, putting values into the tax
> code. We need to get away from that type of
> thinking. Otherwise we will be forever cursed
> with a tax code that’s overly complex, constantly
> being re-written, open to gaming, and which
> promotes a privileged economic class.

A tax code that doesn’t crush economic growth and a tax code that isn’t overly complicated aren’t mutually exclusive. We can have one tax code that does both.

When you have real economic growth you promote all classes; not just the “privileged” economic classes.

> > Economic freedom is as important as political
> > freedom.
>
> Political freedom is based on the rule one man one
> vote. Economic freedom is based on the rule all
> income is equal. A rule our tax code doesn’t
> follow.

If you believe that then you would favor a flat tax that exempted no one and that charged everyone the same rate.

Lastly, what is “gaming” the system anyway? If gaming the system means paying no more in taxes than is legally required then I “game” the system and so does everyone else.

Re: Let’s see if the Democrats are the ones wanting a government shutdown
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: October 12, 2013 08:25PM

For the record, I’m not a proponent of a flat tax. I was just pointing out that the only type of tax system free of any value judgments would be a flat tax.

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-

>
> Mitt’s taxes weren’t too low. The taxes of the
> people he was compared against were too high. I
> know you and a lot of others want to stick it to
> people in Romney’s financial position,

I don’t what to stick it to anyone, I just don’t think the tax code should make value judgments on the source of income. Income is income and should be tax at the same rate. Whether the rate is high or low depends on the tier.

> but you
> have to consider the consequences of having high
> taxes on investment income.
>

You have to consider the consequences of making value judgments on the source of income.

> We live in a global economy and people can put
> their money most anywhere–that’s not a value
> judgment, it’s just an observation of reality.

The rich do invest all over the world. Its not like giving them special treatment here has kept from out-sourcing jobs to China.

>
> This is why I became disenchanted with the
> political Left. They would rather the poor be
> poorer provided the rich were less rich. Whereas,
> I don’t mind if the rich get richer as long as the
> poor are also getting richer.

By what’s happening is the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. The political Left wants to reverse this trend. Eliminating the tax differential for investment income would be a good start.

> The distinction between investment income and
> regular income is the result of a compromise.

No, its the result of a value judgement, and it has no place in our tax code.

> you want to lower the top tax rate to 15% from its
> current 35% then I’m happy to treat both types of
> income the same way.

I want all income treated the same and taxed at the same tiered rate.

But if you insist on taxing
> both forms of income at the higher (not lower)
> rate than you will just chase business and
> investment out of the country.

Gee, sounds like extortion to me. Give me special treatment or I’ll take my money somewhere else. Well, as I said, the rich are already investing worldwide. Their not really keeping up their end of the bargain, so there’s no reason to continue treating investing income any different than regular income.

>
> What’s this talk about tiers?

Also tronche or tronches. It just means income in a tronche or tier is taxed at the same rate, so, say the first 10K of income is taxes at, say 2%, income in the next tier, say 10K to 20K, is taxes at a high rate, and so on.

I thought you
> opposed value judgments in the tax code. That
> means you oppose a progressive tax system.

Well, I said no value judgment on the source of the income. The tax would be both flat and progressive. Flat on each tier but the tax gets progressively hight on each higher tier.

> Explain why someone with a high income should be
> subject to a higher tax rate than someone who
> earns less. Please explain this without making any
> value judgments.
>

See above.

> Right now, 50% income earners in this nation pay
> zero federal income tax. And some of those people
> actually get a tax “refund” via the EIC, even
> though they paid nothing in income tax.
>

There’s more to taxes than income taxes. All you Reps want to talk about is income tax, unless it about eliminating the income taxes for a national sales tax.

> Let’s get rid of the value judgments and say if
> you earn income in the USA (regardless of the
> amount) then you pay income tax–no exceptions.
> >

Sure, at the tier rate.

>
> Lastly, what is “gaming” the system anyway?

An example, we gave an exemption to business for the purchase of small trucks, but because the way the law was drafted businesses used the exemption on the purchase of luxury SUVs. That’s gaming the system.

I know of no one on the Right who has a problem with the idea of taxing investment income and regular income the same. The only debate is the rate. If the rate is low enough then it doesn’t matter to me if they are taxed the same.

And when is searching for the best ROI (return on investment) extortion? People search for the best price. It’s mathematics. If one fund gives me a higher rate of return I go with that fund. If a gas station on one side of the street has lower gas prices than the one on the other side of the street–then guess which gas station I choose?

By the way, for foreign investors, China’s capital gains rate is 10%.

Here, in California, people are upset that Apple opened a campus in Austin, Texas that will have 1500 jobs. It’s just starting to dawn on them that California taxed Apple out of the state. It wasn’t extortion.

And we harp about the income tax because that is the biggest blow. And it’s a blow that half the nation doesn’t suffer. At least with Social Security and Medicare, there’s an idea that we will get that back if we live long enough.

But since we are on the subject of values and taxes:

Why do we have corporate taxes? If the owners of a corporation (shareholders) pay taxes on the dividends from their shares (investment income) then why is that revenue taxed again, via the corporate tax? Why the double hit on the same revenue?

Maybe raise taxes on investment income while eliminating the corporate tax altogether. The higher rates would be offset by the elimination of double taxation. It might be fair.

World wealth invested in the United States is ~25%.

MGB Wrote:
——————————————————-
> World wealth invested in the United States is
> ~25%.

And let’s keep it that way or improve upon it.

Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> And we harp about the income tax because that is
> the biggest blow.

Not for everyone.

>
> But since we are on the subject of values and
> taxes:
>
> Why do we have corporate taxes? If the owners of a
> corporation (shareholders) pay taxes on the
> dividends from their shares (investment income)
> then why is that revenue taxed again, via the
> corporate tax? Why the double hit on the same
> revenue?

Its a quid-pro-quo for the limited liability. Limited liability is a huge benefit to share-holders. You can avoid the double tax quite easily, simply by doing business as a sole proprietorship.

Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > And we harp about the income tax because that
> is
> > the biggest blow.
>
> Not for everyone.

My point exactly. Half the country rides for free and the other half pays.

> >
> > But since we are on the subject of values and
> > taxes:
> >
> > Why do we have corporate taxes? If the owners of
> a
> > corporation (shareholders) pay taxes on the
> > dividends from their shares (investment income)
> > then why is that revenue taxed again, via the
> > corporate tax? Why the double hit on the same
> > revenue?
>
> Its a quid-pro-quo for the limited liability.
> Limited liability is a huge benefit to
> share-holders. You can avoid the double tax quite
> easily, simply by doing business as a sole
> proprietorship.

I’ve heard that argument. But I thought the original reason the corporate form was created was to encourage risk taking by limiting liability; not as a means of taxing the same money twice.

But maybe, we’ve stumbled on the justification for taxing investment at a lower rate–that money was already taxed once via corporate taxes.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2013 01:19AM by Alexandre.

Pages

Archives

Recent Comments

Recent Posts