Okham's Razor

[wolfman24]

Unless you are earning several millions in annual income, this is simply not correct. However, I am open to being disproven. Please post your numbers so that we can check your math, and if you are indeed correct, I will formally and publicly apologize for what I am about to say:

I think that if you have the scientific background you claim, then you have the math skills to know that what you have just said is false - which would make you a liar.

Four Options here:

1. You make well into the 7 figures
2. You do not have the scientific background you claim
3. You do not pay the effective FIT rate you claim
4. The CBO, the IRS, the Tax Foundation, and everyone else who has ever looked at federal tax rates all can't do math.

According to the IRS. the 33% rate encompasses the following incomes 171,550 -372,950 for singles and 208,850 to 372,950 for married.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do not have time to reply to your entire post yet you gave it a fair conversation and I appreciate that.

Regarding healthcare ... healthcare inflation has skyrocketed for years and your cost increase reflect many components including Big Pharma, technology etc.

Now listen carefully ...The ACA was watered down so much that the defining component that would have added competition and lowered the cost of insurance was hacked out of it ... the public option. That was the doing of the republicans and the moneyed interests in private insurance lobbyists!

Private companies could not stand the thought of public option competition as they had a monopoly and had essentially written the legislation for years by buying off republicans in congress.

There wa sno such thing as death panels ...private companies say no to care far more often than any medicare plan.

Now ... millions with pre existing conditions and children of parents under the age of 26 are privately insured as it is now against the law to drop them. I have witnessed the evilness of the private companies that make it impossible to renew once a patient is diagnosed with a medical condition.

Those privately insured patients would have ended up on the tax payers dime.

You are so misguided on the healthcare aspect ... yet I must go to sleep.

Thank you for your post. You did make some good points otherwise.

I believe your post was in answer to mine. So I will reply

I’m aware that health care costs have been skyrocketing for years, I was only pointing out that since the health care bill passed that cost have continued to rise at even a faster rate, as health care costs continue to rise, insurance premiums must also rise.

Ask yourself why that public option was hacked out of the bill, at the writing and passing of the bill, Democrats controlled both the house and senate. They basically told Republicans we don’t want your input, and won’t accept your input, this is our bill. Then after you get your bill, you can’t find the votes within your own party to get it passed …. Now not sure about you , but you tell me that I don’t want your input and won’t accept it, then come to me asking for my help passing that bill … well, lets just say your chances of getting my help would be about the same as a snowballs chances in hell. They ended up losing the public option because of their own stupidity. I certainly can’t blame someone that would only do what I would have done had I been in their shoes. In all honestly would you do any different ??

There may not be “death” panels, but in “fact” there is a panel, that was admitted in the first debate. That panel is appointed not elected. This panel has the power to say what tests, what treatments, and what services a patient is given. To be appointed to this panel you do not need a medical background. Now it could be argued that this panel would never deny a needed treatment, and I would hope that to be true. However they do have the power to do just that, and when you give someone that sort of power , can you guarantee without a doubt in your mind that they might not abuse that power? I can’t, and I would hate to think that someone has the power to tell someone look your 72 years old, your drawing SS not working, so we don’t think it’s in the best interest of our health care costs that you have open heart surgery. Just the fact that a government panel has that power scares the s**t out of me.

Pre existing conditions, I’ve already said that I agree with that portion of the bill, it’s a good thing, and I stated that in my first response to you .

I don’t feel I’m misguided at all about health care. It’s a very complicated subject and in posts of your nature, I was only pointing out what I agreed or disagreed with and admittedly didn’t go into great detail of underlying causes and effects. Because I didn’t go into great detail doesn’t mean I’m misguided or ill informed.

Where I disagree with many is that I think we have the best health care in the world we need to make it more affordable so more people can get the health care that we are capable of giving. I don’t want to destroy our health care that still serves 70% to 80% of the people very well. I want to improve what we now have. To serve more.

 

[AdamT]

I believe your post was in answer to mine. So I will reply

I’m aware that health care costs have been skyrocketing for years, I was only pointing out that since the health care bill passed that cost have continued to rise at even a faster rate,

Stop right there, because that is simply false. In fact health care spending has dropped rather precipitously. Not saying that that's necessarily an Obamacare/Cost cause/effect, but it is the fact. Slower Growth in Health Costs Saves U.S. Billions - Bloomberg

 

[Mr.Nick]

It's you that has no clue. Follow the money....who made it and who lost it?

Yeah follow the money back to forced lending initiated by the government. Yeah now follow the money back to the idiots who just abused forced lending.

In short - millions of people abused credit, defaulted and then in some bizarre delusional mind state blamed the banks.

It was the individuals responsibility to pay for what they bought. Why the hell buy something you cant afford? Oh yeah because many people believe a credit card is free money.

Not to mention all the idiots maxing out credit cards and getting new ones before their credit is caught...

I don't understand how people can buy a 500 dollar product then 3 years later settle via bankruptcy and pay 50 dollars for that product when it cost the manufacturer 200 dollars to make that product....

Who got stuck with that 450 dollars? oh yeah the economy went backwards 450 dollars...

A lot of people don't look at it that way tho...

 

[iguanaman]

Yeah follow the money back to forced lending initiated by the government. Yeah now follow the money back to the idiots who just abused forced lending.

In short - millions of people abused credit, defaulted and then in some bizarre delusional mind state blamed the banks.

It was the individuals responsibility to pay for what they bought. Why the hell buy something you cant afford? Oh yeah because many people believe a credit card is free money.

Not to mention all the idiots maxing out credit cards and getting new ones before their credit is caught...

I don't understand how people can buy a 500 dollar product then 3 years later settle via bankruptcy and pay 50 dollars for that product when it cost the manufacturer 200 dollars to make that product....

Who got stuck with that 450 dollars? oh yeah the economy went backwards 450 dollars...

A lot of people don't look at it that way tho...

There was no forced lending. That is nothing but a strawman .Show me some proof with NUMBERS. Remember that $440 billion Bush sold to Fannie Mae when you do.
$440 billion that was wilingly given by the U.S. Govt. specifically to buy subprime loans from banks. In whose pocket did that money go?

 

[The Barbarian]

Stop right there, because that is simply false. In fact health care spending has dropped rather precipitously. Not saying that that's necessarily an Obamacare/Cost cause/effect, but it is the fact. Slower Growth in Health Costs Saves U.S. Billions - Bloomberg

Thanks for that update Adam .. I wasn’t aware of that.

But just so we remain clear, and don’t mislead anyone, the slow down in growth of health care costs, mean we won’t be spending as much in the future as we thought. Nowhere in the article is it stated that costs are being reduced from what they are. Just that the costs is going upwards at a slower pace then was projected.

Another thing that isn’t mentioned in that report is the cost of health insurance. That has be rising rather quickly, and in my opinion should be included in health care costs, because unless you are footing the bill for medical costs out of pocket, and most families aren’t, then families are paying a much higher premium then before.

So considering the cost of insurance premiums as part of health care expenses for families, I’m going to stand by what I said. But just so you know, I think it’s a good thing that health care costs are slowing hopefully that will help slow the rise in premiums of health care insurance.

 

[The Barbarian]

There was no forced lending. That is nothing but a strawman .Show me some proof with NUMBERS. Remember that $440 billion Bush sold to Fannie Mae when you do.
$440 billion that was wilingly given by the U.S. Govt. specifically to buy subprime loans from banks. In whose pocket did that money go?

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to inject myself into your debate here, but you aren’t entirely informed on the process of what it took for the
fall of the housing industry. In reality it was a long drawn out procedure, that started with the community reinvestment act (CRA)
In my opinion a very good bill but as often happens with the US government, good isn’t good enough, and this was the case here … the bill
was expanded upon over and over again and again. Until it blew up in our face, as it did in 2008.

If you are really interested this site provides a lot of information on how the CRA went from good to bad ….

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now as to banks being forced to make loans, in the true sense of the word "forced" you are right, however if a bank want to expand they had to
meet certain numbers of lower income loans, community organizations could and did picket such banks, which in return would lead to an investigation
to see if these banks had met all the qualification of lower income loans (by the federal government) That time lag of the investigation, would in all
probability lead to the expansion falling through. You and I both knows how fast the federal government moves.

So altho a bank was never "forced" to make these questionable loans, if they ever planned on expanding, they found it easier to make sure that
they met the qualifications in the number of these lower income loans. Altho not forced, they were sure influenced strongly to make them. It
as it was make those loans or don't expand.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Umemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8%
The stock market has almost doubled.
5 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Millions are able to buy private healthcare policies and millions have the security they will not be dropped in the event of a preexisting condition.
The US needs to continue climbing its way out and I like the contrast from 2008 when the economy crashed.
Romney has all the same people lined up as advisors as BuCheney when they spent on war profiteering and cut taxes on the wealthy and gave a windfall of billions to BigPharma that we could not afford.

Do we need to get better ... yes.

Obama-Biden 2012 Forward

Ok point by point.
1.) Mostly because of people who dropped out of labor force.
2.) Great so people are putting their money in stocks because the interest rate is so low they have no incentive to save - that means less capital investment and production.
3.) Which isn't enough to recover the jobs lost, not to mention population growth.
4.) It's growing slower today than in 2011, which was less than 2010. If inflation is higher than government estimates, we are actually in a recession.
5. - 6.) These points go together, because the government is inflating another bubble in the housing market and financial sector. We haven't created real wealth.
7.) "We're all Osama, Obama." Al Qaeda is alive and GM isn't in great shape.
8.) "Millions are able to buy private healthcare" - sorry but did we do anything to lower costs? If not how are people who couldn't afford it before going to afford it now. Sorry it is only good for insurance companies not for patients.
9.) Except Obama/Bernanke repeated the policies of Bush/Greenspan/Bernanke so we aren't digging our way out we are repeating the same mistakes.
10.) Talking point, like Obama Bush inherited a recession when the stock market bubble burst in 2001 and he used economic stimulus in the form of tax cuts to "stimulate" economic growth. Bernanke and Obama did the same thing but on steroids over the last 4 years. So the exact same policies. You also said above that you think housing prices going up is good which means you don't understand how the economic crisis occurred in the first place (hint: it was precipitated by a huge bubble in the housing market). If you think housing prices artificially rising, people then taking out the equity, and spending the money on crap made in China is good for the economy then vote for Obama because that's what the plan is.

 

[Samhain]

Dion, I have posted my numbers multiple times on these forums in order to demonstrate that low-income Americans not only pay lower rates than Romney, but see Tax Day as Pay Day. I will repeat:

Family of 4, filing jointly:
Social Security Wages and tips: $29,723
Federal Income Tax Withheld: $922
Social Security Tax Withheld: $1,248
Medicare Tax Withheld: $431
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES WITHHELD: $2,602
Federal Tax Refund Check: $6,370
NET FEDERAL TAXES PAID: -$4,232
NET FEDERAL TAX RATE: -14.5%


This ought to be pretty easy for you to match. I look forward to you doing so.

In 2010, on an AGI of 78,000, my effective rate was 10.01%

 

[tres borrachos]

she is lying or mistaken or just ignorant.

to pay an effective rate of 33% you have to have an earned income of at least several hundred thousand dollars.

she is probably combining FICA which is not the federal income tax in order to make that claim.

what is really funny is that we have some left leaners on this board who pretend to be experts in tax issues and they never seem to post when liberals make clearly wrong claims about the taxes.

If she truly has a "consulting business" that's the place that a good accountant would find huge deductions. There is obviously no truth to anything Dion has posted.

 

[Jonsa]

I believe your post was in answer to mine. So I will reply

I’m aware that health care costs have been skyrocketing for years, I was only pointing out that since the health care bill passed that cost have continued to rise at even a faster rate, as health care costs continue to rise, insurance premiums must also rise.

Yes, insurance companies immediately started raising rates in anticipation of Obamacare. Remember, they are going to have a mandated profit/admin margin. as competition starts to come into play, costs should go down, likewise as electronic records, procedure caps, waste elimination, fraud crackdown, and preventative care options come on line.

Ask yourself why that public option was hacked out of the bill, at the writing and passing of the bill, Democrats controlled both the house and senate. They basically told Republicans we don’t want your input, and won’t accept your input, this is our bill. Then after you get your bill, you can’t find the votes within your own party to get it passed …. Now not sure about you , but you tell me that I don’t want your input and won’t accept it, then come to me asking for my help passing that bill … well, lets just say your chances of getting my help would be about the same as a snowballs chances in hell. They ended up losing the public option because of their own stupidity. I certainly can’t blame someone that would only do what I would have done had I been in their shoes. In all honestly would you do any different ??

I recall the outrage of the republicans about not being consulted, but the truth is they were. They rejected their own ideas and went snaky about death panels and the such, spreading as much disinformation as possible. The public option was a victim of republican blocking strategy.

There may not be “death” panels, but in “fact” there is a panel, that was admitted in the first debate. That panel is appointed not elected. This panel has the power to say what tests, what treatments, and what services a patient is given. To be appointed to this panel you do not need a medical background. Now it could be argued that this panel would never deny a needed treatment, and I would hope that to be true. However they do have the power to do just that, and when you give someone that sort of power , can you guarantee without a doubt in your mind that they might not abuse that power? I can’t, and I would hate to think that someone has the power to tell someone look your 72 years old, your drawing SS not working, so we don’t think it’s in the best interest of our health care costs that you have open heart surgery. Just the fact that a government panel has that power scares the s**t out of me.

No, that panel does not rule on what tests a patient can be given. If it scares you, then you really should get all the facts.

Independent Payment Advisory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where I disagree with many is that I think we have the best health care in the world we need to make it more affordable so more people can get the health care that we are capable of giving. I don’t want to destroy our health care that still serves 70% to 80% of the people very well. I want to improve what we now have. To serve more.

Interesting dichotomy. The health care system that supposedly serve 70 to 80% very well is also the highest per capital healthcare system in the world. Granted at the peak of the pyramid, US healthcare is by far the best available on the planet, but overall, the system does not deliver the best outcomes when compared to other countries. So how does one reduce costs in a strictly for profit system? I would suggest that elminating the insurance company overhead/profit from the system in a single payer model would cut hundreds of billions of dollars. The argument that the government couldn't run an efficient system is not borne out by other countries. In canada, we still have private insurance companies which cover the 30% or so of costs not covered by our health plans for things like prescription drugs, elective cosmetics surgery, optician, chiro, private room etc.

 

[Jonsa]

Ok point by point.
1.) Mostly because of people who dropped out of labor force.

Are you aware of what kind of people dropped out of the labor force? what is the retirement rate vs graduate rate? how many became disabled, how many went back to school to take advantage of the retraining programs? Of the 86 million age eligible for work americans fully 81 million are either retired, disabled, students, prisoners, institutionalize, military or stay at home parents.

2.) Great so people are putting their money in stocks because the interest rate is so low they have no incentive to save - that means less capital investment and production.

If the stock market is strong, that means that capital is being raised. The stock market does not often go up or down because of the small investor, it is the institutional investors actions that usually affect indicies. In addition, corporations have enjoyed record profits for four years in a row, and have tons of capital to invest, except it isn't in their best interest to do so.

3.) Which isn't enough to recover the jobs lost, not to mention population growth.

Jb growth has recovered the jobs lost in the first 18 months of the Obama administration. Yes it isn't as fast as anyone would like, but there was a pile of legislation that got blocked by senate filabusters and a recalcitrant congress, that would have created more. when policy is not able to be enacted, you cant expect the bennies (if any)

4.) It's growing slower today than in 2011, which was less than 2010. If inflation is higher than government estimates, we are actually in a recession.

No, gdp growth may not be spectacular, but its still growth. No recession.

5. - 6.) These points go together, because the government is inflating another bubble in the housing market and financial sector. We haven't created real wealth.

Of course its as real as paper wealth can be.

7.) "We're all Osama, Obama." Al Qaeda is alive and GM isn't in great shape.

AQ is decimated and but all those AQ affiliates are not in direct operational contact with each other. GM "only" made 2.1 ebita adjusted in the second quarter, Chevy has had 8 straight quarters of record sales, Chinese sales are at a record. the only "downer" about GM is the stock price, which if they keep up their preformance will look after itself.

8.) "Millions are able to buy private healthcare" - sorry but did we do anything to lower costs? If not how are people who couldn't afford it before going to afford it now. Sorry it is only good for insurance companies not for patients.

All kinds of initiatives in the AHCA, and mechanisms to monitor costs and develop actionable strategies. Insurance companies are now mandated to provide certain coverages as well as maximum markups on services which will also lower costs as that and increased competition come into play. There's a ton of other initiatives that are designed to increase efficiency, improve care, and manage costs.

9.) Except Obama/Bernanke repeated the policies of Bush/Greenspan/Bernanke so we aren't digging our way out we are repeating the same mistakes.

Given history, you can hardly call the application of keynsian economic theory a mistake.

1

0.) Talking point, like Obama Bush inherited a recession when the stock market bubble burst in 2001 and he used economic stimulus in the form of tax cuts to "stimulate" economic growth. Bernanke and Obama did the same thing but on steroids over the last 4 years. So the exact same policies. You also said above that you think housing prices going up is good which means you don't understand how the economic crisis occurred in the first place (hint: it was precipitated by a huge bubble in the housing market). If you think housing prices artificially rising, people then taking out the equity, and spending the money on crap made in China is good for the economy then vote for Obama because that's what the plan is.

Bush used stimulus as tax cuts while at the same time dramatically increased spending on the credit card. You know two wars are a tremendous economic stimulator as well. Meanwhile tax cuts were represented only 1/3 of Obama's stimulus bill.
Housing prices going up is a good thing. Its called market adjustment and the days of NINJA junk mortgages are in the past, likewise (if Dodd/franks actually gets implemented) derivatives and credit default swaps will be regulated, bank liquidity ratios will increase, and organized liquidation of the supposedly "too big to fail" institutions has been spelled out and "bailouts" have been expressly forbidden.

 

[cpwill]

I pay a much higher percentage of taxes than Romney. I will send my numbers to you privately ... (cannot right now and will you be willing to make a 50 donation if I rove the science degree as well? I think that is a fair bet?

In addition ... mine is not quite as simple. You will understand why when you receive the numbers. What is the penalty for proof of a science degree in which you and TD called out liar?

How about TD ... ? ; )

Are you sticking to your claim that you pay an effective 33% FIT rate?

 

[azgreg]

Are you sticking to your claim that you pay an effective 33% FIT rate?

If she is she needs a new accountant.

 

[Turin]

ahhh Weak and not evidence based.

I have never needed the safety nets in place and pay taxes at almost twice % that Romney does. I am happy the safety nets were there for Paul Ryan and his mother when his father died.

Sorry pal ... I buy and grow my own organic food and I pay for the 3 iphones used by myself and my two sons.

As if she's even SEEN $3MM.

Maybe this is the one who spends $3,000 a year on birth control?

Hardly ...twice the percentage of taxes ...yet most likely a higher percentage if we include the offshore account income!

I knew when I wrote this succinct factual OP it would attract attacks on me! ; )

You don't pay an effective rate of 28% so stop fibbing

I did not say an effective rate and I certainly know very we'll the difference. I stated I pay 33% of income in federal taxes. I have a salary from a FT professional position and a private consulting business.

Does Federal Tax Include Social Security & Medicare? | eHow.com


My marginal rate is higher than 33%.

Now, I was challenged to prove my degree and I agreed with vauge as verifier as I trust him for confidential data. Turtledude ... Are you willing to do the same with your JD? You are quick to make allegations I am lying and CPWill wants numbers and proof of a degree.

I am also willing to explain my 3 sources of income and no! unlike you claim ...I definitely do not earn millions. Can you back up your claims of having a JD and earning millions? I have no problems verifying with my statements.

I pay quarterly taxes and I know exactly what I am paying and on what income.

TD ... you have been boasting of millions and a JD for years ... I was called a liar based on my modest 6 figure salary and licensure that can easily be verified. Are you willing to have vauge verify your JD. That only takes a moment ... just as my license only takes a moment to verify!

Lets go ... I am awaiting the original challenger who offered an apology ... if instead we make a donation to DP if I can verify? Are you up for the same challenge?

Seriously ... if you want to call liar and I am willing ... are you?

CPwill and Turtledude proof? ...with a donation to DP for the one who is determined dishonest?

Oh btw I don't need anyone to verify that I have a law degree etc. One poster on this board knew me as a coach in a sport his son was a national champion in. Another poster-also an attorney in Ohio, knows me due to conversations we have had in PMS. And CC knows I am telling the truth as well since the first guy I mentioned-among others-have confirmed what I have said.

I am using all my deductions and had an outlier year related to a research project i concluded. It is not a consulting job ... it is my own PLLC.

I paid 33% of total income to the feds and was including FICA ... my income and profession was called out as a liar and I offered verification if turtle dude joins in with vague as the trusted person to verify. TD has jumped all over the deflection of marginal v. effective yet that was not how it originated or what I said. It really was just an offhand reply as I have no reason to lie about myself on a forum. My words are part of me and I do not fabricate even on an anonymous forum.

I offered to let vauge determine if TD was a JD as he often claims and verify my licensure as well ...with anyone being dishonest making a donation to DP. I had mentioned an undergrad degree in science and a more modest income then the millions TD claims he earns as a JD.

I made a general statement in reply to one Romney had made regarding taxes paid and that was how this discussion went down this rabbit hole. I was then challenged by several on my profession and income. shrugs ... I invited them to the loft with vague to verify. It seems Turtledude makes lofty claims yet keeps deflecting about effective v. marginal taxes when that was not even the discussion. He is has been told 4 times it was not an effective tax rate yet I guess my willingness to be transparent and invite him to do the same inspired his need to bury the posts.



Turtledude ... I have told you 4 times I was not referencing an effective rate and I was willing to verify the details and my professional licensure with vague.

Are you up for the challenge on your JD and multi millions you claim to earn or are you burying the post of mine I quoted above by deflecting the discussion.

Epic fail! ; )

Strange cpwill when I offered to allow vauge to verify what you called out as a lie (degree and income) you spout gibberish like this! ; )

Even funnier ... turtleDUDE jumps in claiming to be a JD making multimillions joins in calling me a liar. I transparently offer to let vague verify my professional license and to verify TD claim of being a JD with any dishonesty by either of us being a 50 $ donation to DP and TD runs down a rabbit hole of twisting my original statement that I said an effective rate.

Oh btw .. TD ... the verification only takes a moment online and I trust vague with that information. It simply takes a first and last name for a JD or a healthcare professional?

Let me know if you change your mind?

I was only referencing what I pay the feds total ... if I started adding in property and state taxes etc it would be over 40%. I reside in a state with no sales tax.

Shiang you got tangled in a feud where TD was burying the mess he made for himself by calling me a liar and then claiming to be a JD earning multi millions.

I offered to let the owner verify each of our professional license for a fun penalty of fifty bucks donation to DP for either of us who could not verify and the turtledude has now been trying to dogpile the thread.

; )

Are you sticking to your claim that you pay an effective 33% FIT rate?

cpwill ...Keep up and pay attention. I have stated repeatedly I was not speaking of an effective rate.

However ... Yes ...on the topics you and TD called a liar of course I offered to let vague verify with you paying a donation to DP if proven wrong. I have an undergraduate and graduate degree in health sciences. It can be proven in a moment online and so can turtleDUDE's JD and I offered a fun verification by vauge in either of us being dishonest would donate 50 bucks to DP.

I pay 33% to the feds and if I included state and property taxes I am getting up well over 40%. My reference was about Romney.

Anyone can go to an IRS calculator. I have stated repeatedly I was including FICA.

Now ... I pay far more of a percentage than Romney even when i had a mortgage.

Does turtleDUDE still claim to have a JD and make multimillions?

Are either of you up to have a few claims made verified.

Epic fail ... the entire thread is here where you both deflected and went down rabbit holes and the entire conversations over the past days.

Off to work. ; )

 

[iguanaman]

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to inject myself into your debate here, but you aren’t entirely informed on the process of what it took for the
fall of the housing industry. In reality it was a long drawn out procedure, that started with the community reinvestment act (CRA)
In my opinion a very good bill but as often happens with the US government, good isn’t good enough, and this was the case here … the bill
was expanded upon over and over again and again. Until it blew up in our face, as it did in 2008.

If you are really interested this site provides a lot of information on how the CRA went from good to bad ….



Now as to banks being forced to make loans, in the true sense of the word "forced" you are right, however if a bank want to expand they had to
meet certain numbers of lower income loans, community organizations could and did picket such banks, which in return would lead to an investigation
to see if these banks had met all the qualification of lower income loans (by the federal government) That time lag of the investigation, would in all
probability lead to the expansion falling through. You and I both knows how fast the federal government moves.

So altho a bank was never "forced" to make these questionable loans, if they ever planned on expanding, they found it easier to make sure that
they met the qualifications in the number of these lower income loans. Altho not forced, they were sure influenced strongly to make them. It
as it was make those loans or don't expand.

Most subprime loans were made by institutions not regulated by the CRA. CRA loans had better than average repayment historys. Like I said, CRA loans are a strawman used by the GOP to cover up their shilling for the bankers. GW Bush's $440 Billion "Minority housing initiative" had NOTHING to do with CRA. The quote below is from your link.

Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA-regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][119] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversightCommunity Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TurtleDude]

why did Dion think we were challenging her statements other than her clearly erroneous initial assertion of paying a rate of 28% or 33% in FIT? that was the only really dispute

 

[H. Lee White]

Do we need to get better ... yes.
Obama-Biden 2012 Forward

Tell us about all of the change Obama promised and then actually delivered on.

 

[AdamT]

Tell us about all of the change Obama promised and then actually delivered on.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

 

[H. Lee White]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

No... I meant the "Change" he promised -- as in changes from the GWB policies/actions he ran against.
You know... like closing Gitmo, cutting the deficit in half, etc.

 

[zimmer]

Umemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8%
The stock market has almost doubled.
5 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Millions are able to buy private healthcare policies and millions have the security they will not be dropped in the event of a preexisting condition.
The US needs to continue climbing its way out and I like the contrast from 2008 when the economy crashed.
Romney has all the same people lined up as advisors as BuCheney when they spent on war profiteering and cut taxes on the wealthy and gave a windfall of billions to BigPharma that we could not afford.

Do we need to get better ... yes.

Obama-Biden 2012 Full Speed Forward to Retirement

ROTFLOL... That ain't Occam's razor... that's Obama's Razor without the ah's and stuttering when he doesn't have Le Teleprompteur.

Unemployment 8+% for four years.

What's Occam say?
When you hear hooves... think horses not zebra's... when in America. Vice-versa in Afrika.

8+% ... Occam Americana says... Major League Fark Up.

8+% ... Occam Obama Afrikana says... Good times are here! Vorwarts!!!

Dion,
Weez aints Afrika.

 

[tres borrachos]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Which of Bush's policies - the ones that Bush implemented - did Obama change? Be specific, please.

 

[The Barbarian]

Jonsa;1061040781]Yes, insurance companies immediately started raising rates in anticipation of Obamacare. Remember, they are going to have a mandated profit/admin margin. as competition starts to come into play, costs should go down, likewise as electronic records, procedure caps, waste elimination, fraud crackdown, and preventative care options come on line.

I remember they are going to have a profit/admin margin, one that will be impossible to do, no company that you can find could ever begin to operate on a 15% to 20% gross profit margin and survive, this is the back door to government run health care, and nothing else. That and it does nothing to lower health care costs at all. that part of the bill simply states that 80 to 85 cents of every dollar collected in premiums must go to medical costs.

I recall the outrage of the republicans about not being consulted, but the truth is they were. They rejected their own ideas and went snaky about death panels and the such, spreading as much disinformation as possible. The public option was a victim of republican blocking strategy.

That is your truth, the facts say otherwise, they were not asked or given the opportunity to form this bill in any way. They didn’t reject there “own” ideas they rejected those of congresses before them. The public option was a victim of a poor written bill, the democrats couldn’t get passed even thoough they held a super majority in the senate and the house.

No, that panel does not rule on what tests a patient can be given. If it scares you, then you really should get all the facts.

Independent Payment Advisory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should read your own links all the way to the end rather until you find what you hope is your answer .. . Here is what a Democrat who voted for the bill said about this provision. …..
Pet Stark(D-Calif) said that IPAB sets Medicare up for unsustainable cuts that will endanger the heath of patients and that he would work tirelessly to mitigate the damage the panel would cause.


So yeah even after reading your link …fully buy the way… I’m still scared to death. ....btw I hope everyone reads your link .. because it causes more questions then it gives answers ... it's a good read.

Interesting dichotomy. The health care system that supposedly serve 70 to 80% very well is also the highest per capital healthcare system in the world. Granted at the peak of the pyramid, US healthcare is by far the best available on the planet, but overall, the system does not deliver the best outcomes when compared to other countries. So how does one reduce costs in a strictly for profit system? I would suggest that elminating the insurance company overhead/profit from the system in a single payer model would cut hundreds of billions of dollars. The argument that the government couldn't run an efficient system is not borne out by other countries. In canada, we still have private insurance companies which cover the 30% or so of costs not covered by our health plans for things like prescription drugs, elective cosmetics surgery, optician, chiro, private room etc.

We have the best health care in the world .. period ... I want to see links where patient survival rates for major medical problems top that of the US Now I understand that any program either run by the government or by private insurance companies will have problems, and this site list some of the problems with government run healthcare.
http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths. Myself I would rather improve on "our" system, then adopt another system that has it's own problems.

 

[cpwill]

cpwill ...Keep up and pay attention. I have stated repeatedly I was not speaking of an effective rate.

that is what you originally claimed - that you paid a FIT rate of 33%. Which is what TD and I immediately said was false. You are attempting to pivot now to a strawman.

 

[ab9924]

I do not have time to reply to your entire post yet you gave it a fair conversation and I appreciate that.

Regarding healthcare ... healthcare inflation has skyrocketed for years and your cost increase reflect many components including Big Pharma, technology etc.

Now listen carefully ...The ACA was watered down so much that the defining component that would have added competition and lowered the cost of insurance was hacked out of it ... the public option. That was the doing of the republicans and the moneyed interests in private insurance lobbyists!

Private companies could not stand the thought of public option competition as they had a monopoly and had essentially written the legislation for years by buying off republicans in congress.

There wa sno such thing as death panels ...private companies say no to care far more often than any medicare plan.

Now ... millions with pre existing conditions and children of parents under the age of 26 are privately insured as it is now against the law to drop them. I have witnessed the evilness of the private companies that make it impossible to renew once a patient is diagnosed with a medical condition.

Those privately insured patients would have ended up on the tax payers dime.

You are so misguided on the healthcare aspect ... yet I must go to sleep.

Thank you for your post. You did make some good points otherwise.

Can I join in for this one?

I am wondering, was the public option taken out Obamacare for the purpose of making Obamacare impossible on the long run?

Healthcare insurance as a private sector business seems to run on the old fashioned insurance business model, that is everyone pays a little to the insurer, and when an accident happens, the insurer pays, then pockets what's left over for shareholder profits.

But getting old and sick is not an accident, it is an absolutely certainty. So how can an insurance business model keep the member costs under the actual cost of care, let alone profits? I guess nohow, and the entire idea is flawd. Then the insurers try to catch up by dropping the too sick, like car insurers refusing old cars and accident-prone drivers. Now the Obama administration took away even this little from them.

So, what is left for them now? Let's rest assured that all health insurance costs will soon sky-rocket as if they weren't already high enough.

Then, wasn't McCain's 2008 plan of ending employer-sponsored healthcare much better? Plus McCain's cross-state and pre-condition liberation would have pulled the money-pile out of under the feet of the insurers, and the pre-70's supply-demand balance would have returned to the US healthcare sector.

What's your take?