- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
A disturbingly high percentage of the revenues still come from insurance premiums for other programs. About $53 billion of the net deficit reduction is from Social Security taxes collected on the wages people will now be getting in lieu of health care benefits. But since those contributions raise the amount Social Security will eventually have to pay out, the Republicans convincingly argue that this is not true "deficit reduction"; it's just deficit shifting. Ditto the premiums for the new long-term care insurance.
The score for the Senate bill includes $72 billion in revenues generated by the CLASS act, a federally-backed disability insurance program. But that $72 billion is just premium revenue that will eventually have to be used to pay out benefits. The score counts that revenue anyway, despite the fact that, according to the CBO, it would probably add to the deficit in the long term.
The reconciliation bill will end student loan subsidies to lenders. The C.B.O. says this will save $19.4 billion over the first decade, accounting for virtually all of the $19.8 billion in deficit reduction from the health care reconciliation bill.
Obama's socialist health care program may be approved tomorrow by the slime ball dems but it will never pass the stink test in the SCOTUS.... No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that you have to have health insurance and you can not be forced to buy it...37 states are already filing law suits against Obama Care.....
Thank God this piece of crap will be thrown out.........
You can post this in more threads but you're still wrong.
It needs to be both, really. The problem is during a recession, reducing spending and raising taxes just amplify the problem.
Reducing spending, especially in government, is never a bad thing when times are tight. There's plenty of waste that could be eliminated quite easily, IMO. Business and consumers are going to drive the economy, not the blowhards in Washington DC.
Reducing spending, especially in government, is never a bad thing when times are tight. There's plenty of waste that could be eliminated quite easily, IMO. Business and consumers are going to drive the economy, not the blowhards in Washington DC.
Exactly, you cut taxes and reduce spending.......works every time.......JFK did it....Reagan did it and so did President Bush........
Exactly, you cut taxes and reduce spending.......works every time.......JFK did it....Reagan did it and so did President Bush........
Obama's socialist health care program may be approved tomorrow by the slime ball dems but it will never pass the stink test in the SCOTUS.... No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that you have to have health insurance and you can not be forced to buy it...37 states are already filing law suits against Obama Care.....
Thank God this piece of crap will be thrown out.........
Where exactly do you think government-spent dollars go? Some sort of fire pit?
It gets paid to someone, who spends it on something, where it gets spent on something else, and so on.
Reduction in government spending has a similar effect to reduction in consumer spending.
Reagan and Bush both increased our debt significantly. Borrow and spend just means you pay later instead of now.
Where exactly do you think government-spent dollars go? Some sort of fire pit?
It gets paid to someone, who spends it on something, where it gets spent on something else, and so on.
Reduction in government spending has a similar effect to reduction in consumer spending.
Reagan and Bush both increased our debt significantly. Borrow and spend just means you pay later instead of now.
You and others keep on making this argument, but repetition doesn't make it any more reasonable.
Why don't you look up what percentage of people fell into the highest tax bracket back when the top marginal rates were that high.
Because that will prove what?
That's a whole lot of babble. You have no evidence that it wouldn't have a positive effect. We did have prosperity, and when you take into account the deficit and the increase in wealth for the top tax rate it doesn't take a genius to figure out where all the money went. Therefore taxing their good fortune gained at the expense of the majority of the country seems reasonable to me. I understand that the Reaganites can't stand to hear such things. We've all listened to your ilk too long and now look at the mess.It will help you understand why it's facile to claim that because the tax rates were higher in the past, tax rates should be increased now.
Setting aside the fact that you've offered zero evidence that higher taxes in the past actually had a positive impact on the economy, if the top marginal tax rate in the past only applied to income over a exceedingly high amount, then that information is absolutely useless in determining what our top tax rate should be today.
That's a whole lot of babble. You have no evidence that it wouldn't have a positive effect. We did have prosperity, and when you take into account the deficit and the increase in wealth for the top tax rate it doesn't take a genius to figure out where all the money went. Therefore taxing their good fortune gained at the expense of the majority of the country seems reasonable to me. I understand that the Reaganites can't stand to hear such things. We've all listened to your ilk too long and now look at the mess.
That's a whole lot of babble. You have no evidence that it wouldn't have a positive effect.
We did have prosperity, and when you take into account the deficit and the increase in wealth for the top tax rate it doesn't take a genius to figure out where all the money went.
Therefore taxing their good fortune gained at the expense of the majority of the country seems reasonable to me.
I understand that the Reaganites can't stand to hear such things.
We've all listened to your ilk too long and now look at the mess.
They explain it in the article. It changes the dynamics of competition for them while raising their costs.
One thing is certain: they will be laying off a lot of people, as will many companies.
Hello 15 percent unemployment?
Sorry Navy....Obama and the Democrats are going to protect your ass despite every effort from you Republicans to prevent it.
This time around, your precious corporate insurance companies are going to lose and the American people are going to win this round.
That's a whole lot of babble. You have no evidence that it wouldn't have a positive effect. We did have prosperity, and when you take into account the deficit and the increase in wealth for the top tax rate it doesn't take a genius to figure out where all the money went. Therefore taxing their good fortune gained at the expense of the majority of the country seems reasonable to me. I understand that the Reaganites can't stand to hear such things. We've all listened to your ilk too long and now look at the mess.
This is not a loss for insurance either. They are going to do quite well in this new structure. This is really a loss for America. We could have had real health reform and all we got was very, very ugly politics. Everyone in Washington should be ashamed at this outcome. And the American electorate should be ashamed for not really understanding the issues and substituting noise and shouting for intelligent debate.
How exactly are all these rich people getting rich at the expense of others. Is it by working hard and making good choices in thier life. My father has done very well in life by going to school on scholarships and than worked hard and making lots of money. There is nothing that kept other people from doing the same thing in life other than thier lazyness or bad decisions. Why should people who have done well for themselves have to pay more than thier fair share. Why in the world should the US gov punish people for being succsesfull.
How many people make enough to pay a particular tax rate is irrelevant to the tax rate. The rate is what it is and if you make enough, you pay at that rate.He's basically saying that when the tax rate was at 90% or whatever, that way less people made enough to pay such a tax.
I think you need to take another look at your logic.Now if the rate is at 40% and a lot of people make enough to pay it then your going to have a net increase in tax revenue because you haven't priced every one out.
You're right, even though that has nothing to do with what the tax rate is or should be.Making more money is not based on pure luck.
How about math. If you make 500 million a year and are taxed at 35% would you pay more or less tax if the rate was 70%?I'm not the one claiming it would. See, if you're going to make a claim, you should back it up with evidence.
I'm sorry that instead of a rebuttal of substance you chose to dodge.I'm sorry that you don't understand statistics.
Says you, a Reaganite.The share of federal income tax borne by the richest 1% has long outpaced their share of federal income.
We were and still are operating under Reaganomics.The income disparity between the top 1% and the rest of the country grew faster under Clinton than under any other president.
Thanks you. I'll take that as an 'I have no real rebuttal'.More expert statistical analysis.
Why don't you also use the Craig T. Nelson school of thought while you're telling us how your Dad got scholarships... The quote goes like this:How exactly are all these rich people getting rich at the expense of others. Is it by working hard and making good choices in thier life. My father has done very well in life by going to school on scholarships and than worked hard and making lots of money. There is nothing that kept other people from doing the same thing in life other than thier lazyness or bad decisions. Why should people who have done well for themselves have to pay more than thier fair share. Why in the world should the US gov punish people for being succsesfull.
How many people make enough to pay a particular tax rate is irrelevant to the tax rate. The rate is what it is and if you make enough, you pay at that rate.
You're right, even though that has nothing to do with what the tax rate is or should be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?