- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,834
- Reaction score
- 53,617
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's a little hyperbolic, but artificially lowering the cost of care means care has to be rationed by some other method.
"A little" hyperbolic? It's outright fear mongering.
We already ration healthcare.
Through cost. How are you going to ration it if you're not going to do it through prices? You will determine if the cost of the operation makes sense given expected potential outcome on the patient. Basically, whether or not it is worth it to keep that person alive.
You're really going to quote the serenity prayer? You're a hack, get over it. You're only saying it because it's a policy that you support. If republicans tried to cut taxes on the wealthy you'd be the first one complaining here. Remember that when the republicans try to pass a tax break for the rich when they win the House.
they would definitely pass tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. They always do.
Having the house wouldn't be enough to pass a tax break for the wealthy. However, should the GOP attain even more power than that, they would definitely pass tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. They always do. I would say the same thing then: That there's nothing that I could do about it.
I don't drive a cab.
As to your first question, the answer is that for most small businesses the income of the company is considered income for the owner. So the two numbers are added together to get the same 500K.
On your second point for some it is a matter of equity. If you are going to get rid of the Bush tax cuts because we can't afford them, fine. But Obama is saying get rid of about 25% of the cuts and retain the other 75%. Others feel that at this stage of our economic recovery we can't afford to take any money out of the economy. Some will say that this will inhibit some small business owners from adding employees as they get to keep an ever decreasing amount of what they earn. Let's remember that this 4% is only one increase these people will be paying. In many states, which are also broke they have also raised the percent of income tax imposed on the highest earners.
Also remember that the health care bill calls for an additional 3.8% of certain income for upper income earners.
So Obama and company have done a nice job of isolating each increase and saying what's the big deal. Without having an hosest debate and putting all the increases together and explaining why that is the right way to go.
Hope this helps.
typical liberal lie. the tax cuts affect everyone. except of course those that don't pay taxes...and I guess that is what upsets liberals the most.
"ooooh look, that greedy rich guy got $10K tax break and I didn't get anything."
no **** sherlock, that evil rich guy paid $200k in taxes and you paid zippo. of course you didn't get a tax cut. you can't cut taxes any lower than 0%.
(actually you can, earned income credit pays poor people more in refund than what they paid in.)
and that is what pisses me off the most. the biggest proponents of "tax the rich", "the rich aren't paying their fair share" are the very people who pay the least amount of taxes of anybody.
It's their money, if they want to hold it it's none of your, or the Gov't business what they do with their wealth.
Not when 2% of the population is holding the economy hostage by holding 2 trillion dollars back from the American market unless they are given a few billion dollar tax credit. Also, there is nothing forcing them to invest that money in OUR economy anyway. They hate paying American wages and just keep sending OUR jobs overseas to places where people will work for $2 a day. Forget the Mexicans, the large corporations are the ones steeling our jobs.
Would you rather work in IT or cleaning toilets?
Not when 2% of the population is holding the economy hostage by holding 2 trillion dollars back from the American market unless they are given a few billion dollar tax credit. Also, there is nothing forcing them to invest that money in OUR economy anyway. They hate paying American wages and just keep sending OUR jobs overseas to places where people will work for $2 a day. Forget the Mexicans, the large corporations are the ones steeling our jobs.
Would you rather work in IT or cleaning toilets?
I am neither threatening nor blaming them for anything, I am simply saying the easiest way to stimulate the economy is to tax the rich at the levels prior to 2001, when they were still rich by the way, and give credits to those who create jobs, that way they can be rewarded for creating jobs, and the rest of the breaks give to those who will buy more, that is the Middle Class who make-up 98% of the population and can buy more things as a whole. Then the economy moves and jobs are created and the wealthy see more money because more products are being sold.
Not when 2% of the population is holding the economy hostage by holding 2 trillion dollars back from the American market unless they are given a few billion dollar tax credit. Also, there is nothing forcing them to invest that money in OUR economy anyway. They hate paying American wages and just keep sending OUR jobs overseas to places where people will work for $2 a day. Forget the Mexicans, the large corporations are the ones steeling our jobs.
Would you rather work in IT or cleaning toilets?
we actually should make the working poor and middle class pay much more in income taxes. They use far more in government services (by sheer numbers) than the people who pay most of the taxes (the top 5%) and until we make this massive voting group pay more taxes, they will continue to vote for tax and spend dems. Their votes are bought by dem promises that the dems will give them more government goodies paid for by the "rich"
as long as that goes on, this group will keep voting for more goodies and more tax hikes on the group that cannot outvote them
Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made.
Aides to McConnell said they have yet to receive a cost estimate for the measure. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That's more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama's health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined.
There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.
The stimulus bill, at $787 billion, would do about a fifth as much damage. But that's actually misleading: The stimulus bill was a temporary expense (not to mention a response to an unexpected emergency). Once it's done, it's done. An indefinite extension of the Bush tax cuts is, well, indefinite. It will cost $3.9 trillion in the first 10 years. And then it will cost more than that in the second 10 years. Call that number Y. And then it will cost more than Y in the third 10 years. And so on and on into eternity. Comparatively, the stimulus bill is a tiny fraction of that. The bank bailouts, which were passed by George W. Bush and the Democrats in 2006, will end up costing the government only $66 billion. The health-care bill improves the deficit outlook.
Republicans and tea party candidates are both running campaigns based around concern for the deficit. But both, to my knowledge, support the single-largest increase in the deficit that anyone of either party has proposed in memory.
The plan would require immediate cuts of $101 billion — or 21 percent[1] — in funding for discretionary programs other than those funded by the defense, homeland security, and military construction and veterans appropriations bills, as compared to their current (fiscal year 2010) funding levels adjusted for inflation (in other words, compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline).
This would represent the deepest cut in funding for these programs from one year to the next in recent U.S. history .[2] Coming amidst the deepest economic downturn since the Depression, it would remove substantial purchasing power from the U.S. economy and thereby cost hundreds of thousands of jobs while heightening the risk of a double-dip recession. Rep. Boehner’s contrary claim that these cuts will “promote job creation” reflects a serious misunderstanding of basic macroeconomics under current economic conditions.
That portion of the health care legistlation doesn't take effect until 2014. Letting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire this year wouldn't have anything to do with that for another 3 years. Therefore, it's a baseless argument.
You did not address the state income taxes which are also going up. Not sure why a new tax already on the books does not count, but are entitled to an opinion even I think it is wrong.
State income taxes aren't the federal government's problem. Take that issue up with your respective state government. As to your argument against why income taxes shouldn't expire for anyone at this time, it's very simple. REVENUE!
Someway and at some time, this nation will need to start paying down it's debt. Of course, one way to do that is to cut some government programs and cut out fraud, waste and abuse. Certainly!! But with the country's economy the way it is currently and the profound need to stimulate productivity and, thus, create retail demands for goods and services, the government cannot afford have anything near a spending freeze except in those areas most Conservatives would like alone - defense, homeland security, Veteran's Affairs and the military. You have people out there without homes, without jobs, barely able to buy food. And then there are the natural and man-made disasters that have adversely affected portions of this country, and there's no way you can cut service programs right now. It just makes not sense whatsoever to do that! So, on compassionate and humanitarian standing alone, you just don't do that now. Instead, you retain those programs (unemployment, welfare, WIC, etc.), increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals because they are the ONLY viable revenuse source who can afford to contribute more, and use those funds to pay down the national debt. Once the country's economy has returned to some form of normalcy, you re-evaluate the tax issue. At that point, lowering those taxes of the wealthy would be the right thing to do.
Now, if you don't think such a compromise could be trusted by the left, you simply state that you will not yeild on this issue unless and until a firm date (year) is stipulated within the proposed bill and the only way you'd accept those taxes not being reduced by that time is if the economy hasn't improved by then. To me, that's the best compromise Democrates can hope to achieve their goal whether Republicans win the mid-terms or not.
And you have to look no further than Ronald Reagan to thank as the person who destroyed America's manufacturing base. No wonder he is the idol of Corporate America and the Republican party.
You may have forgotten that the President has a working commission to reduce the deficit. Their report is due out in December. It is suppossed to cover all forms of revenues (taxes) and spending including entitlements.
So this effort by the President just seems to be grandstanding before an election to pit certain types of people against others. Exactly what he said he would get rid of if elected. Otherwise why keep harping on a piecemeal fix of the problem which will make it harder for the commission to do it's work.
Who cares about manufacturing? Wealth does not come solely from manufacturing. Don't believe me? Then why do you tip your waiter?
Class warfare at it's ugliest. More proof Obama isn't interested in getting the economy turned around. Why does he hate small business owners?
How is advocating a proposal (campaigning) he believes can help improve the nation's economic problems grandstanding? I could understand if he delayed making any recommendations whatsoever until just after the commission came out with it's report but he did so without reviewing the report or claims his report was a better way that what the commission recommended, but that's not the case. Grandstanding implies you're trying to show someone up. Since there's no report to "out-do"...
Now, if folks didn't like President Obama before, they likely aren't going to vote for a candidate they believe would represent a contiuence of his policies. But if they like the candidate more, they'll likely come out and vote for that candidate again. It really comes down to do you hate the man that much, do you totally disagree with his policies or you just don't like your Democratic representative/alternative. In that, you'd certainly have to choose. But if you think the opposite in any respect, you owe it to yourself and your country to get out and vote (accordingly).
He doesn't. That;s Republican rhetoric. He hates big business assholes and useless wealthy ****ers who do not pay their fair share.
Hmmmm....."Fair share"? What is their "fair share"? How much of their earning should be confiscated so that those who earn far less pay nothing?
j-mac
Who should carry the heavy burden? Those who can. I know the evil poor should be burdened as much as possible. Scoodge understood that well.
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?