Letters |
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
I remember when President Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. Once again, he has lied to all of us as everybody's taxes will be going up in January. It will be the highest increase in the nation's history.
President George W. Bush's tax cuts aren't just for the wealthy, as the liberals would have people believe, and they will expire at the end of the year. Taxes for Obamacare start in January. People should be prepared to see smaller paychecks.
He raised taxes starting in 2013 so he can say in his campaign that "I didn't raise your taxes."
People need to do their research so they will know the truth.
Brian Huot, Lisbon
Report a correction
Wrong.
He wants to keep the tax cuts for the middle class. He wants the tax cuts to the millionaires, like yourself, to expire.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Do you realize that
Do you realize that millionaires already pay a higher marginal tax rate due to our progressive tax system?
Why should these people stand for paying more? At what point do these people standup against the politics of envy? At what point to they change their behavior such that the coffers get even less?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Do you realize...
...the percentage of their income they pay is a pittance and they are getting away with murder? Do you realize what kind of a burden that puts on the middle class?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The takeaway is that the top
The takeaway is that the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If that's what you want to believe.
Figures don't lie. Buy liars can figure.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Actual IRS data does not support your claim!
That is certainly your neo Marxist view of the world, but actual IRS data does not support your claim.
Tax Year 2009
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$343,927
36.73%
Top 5%
$154,643
58.66
Top 10%
$112,124
70.47
Top 25%
$66,193
87.30
Top 50%
$32,396
97.75
Bottom 50%
<$32,396
2.25
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Adolph -
Thanks a lot.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.These are the same tax cuts
These are the same tax cuts he was criticizing Bush for having instituted because they were contributing to the huge deficits. Astounding how an election year can change one's perspective.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Our schools are really failing
The author say that President has lied (remember that) because he said he would not raise middle class taxes, but everyone's taxes will go up in January NEXT YEAR. How can the President have lied (past tense) about something that hasn't yet and may not happen in the future.
If the Republican's who have blocked every Presidential inititive to fix this economy since 2010, fail to act yes everyone's taxes will go up. Not because the President lied but because the Republicans are willing to do anything as they have said all along to destroy this President and the country if necessary.
The uncollectable individual mandate tax penalty goes into effect in 2014. There are no individual increases or new taxes in Romneycare that go into effect in 2013.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.He said the 'stimulus' would
He said the 'stimulus' would lower the unemployment rate to less than 6%. When will that cease to be a lie or is that not a lie yet, either?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I know you need to change the subject
1. Did he promise or did the Chairwoman of the President's economic advisors say that (which is what I remember). No matter, the stimulus that passed Congress was 1/2 of the President's proposal and therefore did not produce the results the President wanted. I assume you remember Sen. Collin's many articles in this paper proclaiming proudly how she had cut the President's proposal below $900 billion. Or the Krugman articles on how the stimulus had to be at least twice what was passed to accomplish what was necessary to bring unemployment down.
2. I remember many comments I made to the effect that unless the stimulus was doubled it couldn't achieve the necessary economic growth targets everyone was talking about or why was Sen. Collins demanding that the economy continue to faulter.
3. Projects, forecasts, etc aren't facts. No one can logically say that a forecast is a lie. They can say its wrong. But it defies logic to say a forecast is a lie. No one can accurately forecast the future.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.All Keynesian approaches to
All Keynesian approaches to economic stimulus fail and the excuse is always that government did not send enough - an old tune.
This economic approach fails mainly because the stimulus is only temporary and once the money is spent, the economy returns to its natural equilibrium point. Moreover, the stimulus money is simply moved from one area of the economy to another; it does not grow the economy. Not to mention the inflation factor.
The US needs to realize that we are at a new equilibrium point and stop trying to inflate the economy with stimulus spending.
The only way to grow the economy is expand the private sector – more taxes and regulation will not do that.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mark, you keep trying to sell this nonsense.
Economics like all human endeavor has NO "natural equilibrium point". History never repeats. The idea than anything in economics is "natural" is an analogy that doesn't fit. The idea that human activities reach an equilibrium is a gross oversimplification which is everywhere and always false. Economies are either growing or shrinking they are never in equilibrium. Equilibrium says that two or more INDEPENDENT variables have balanced each other and because they do; they will not change; will never change. The equilibrium analogy simply doesn't fit. Its origin may be the idea that price is set at the point where supply equals demand. A point only reached in textbooks that ignore human experience, asymetric information flows, and irrational behavior. No such point ever exists. Since history never repeats, stimuluses are never temporary - the future economy is built on them. Moving money from one place to another is called the velocity of money; its critical to economic growth. The velocity of money does not inflate the currency; the growth in the size of the money supply does. Deficits are not inflationary; the growth of deficits could be if the private money supply is growing; and not if the private money supply is shrinking (like in a recession).
Keynesian economic stimuluses alway succeed and the fact that the President's stimulus did succeed demonstrates the right's "conservative colored glasses" through which they distort experience. Any casual look at the economic results from the stimulus shows that it stopped the lose of jobs in its tracks, reversed the economic recession, and put the private section in position to grow (which because they have refused to do as reported again today causes the economy to stagnate). The overwhelming majority of economists at the time said the stimulus was too small to grow the economy. Republican politicians raved about how they had kept the stimulus too little to do any good (read Sen. Collin's newletters and newspaper reports as she crows about thrawting the President). It wasn't only Keynesians who said at the time that the stimulus was too small; but it was what could get passed by Congress. It was that or the loss of millions of jobs a month through 2009, 2010, 2011, and perhaps now.
I figured it out.
Mark you view economics as static. I view it as dynamic.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Jonathan, You just have to
Jonathan,
You just have to look at the cash for clunkers program to see what I’m talking about.
Government injected cash into the economy if people turned in their clunkers for a new care. That increased demand but only for a short time until the injection of cash stopped.
After the cash stopped demand dipped below the 12 month average then rose back up to about the 12 month average.
The economy has a natural rhythm, or natural equilibrium point, while the rhythm may rise and fall (not static as you accuse), it gravitates to this natural point as seen with cash for clunkers.
Any economic stimulus will only have a short term effect on the economy, especially if one is using stimulus to push and maintain the economy past its natural equilibrium point.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Personally, I never figured out what the Cash for Clunkers was
Was it an environmental program to reduce oil/gas consumption; an auto industry subsidy to increase demand; a PR jesture; or a headline looking for some commonsense. I do know this it was part of the price the President paid for Susan Collin's vote on the stimulus.
If you agree that the economy has a rhythm (I don't see the value of calling that rhythm "natural"), then it comes not to a point but to a wave. Paul Samuelson many years ago characterized the economy as an "n by n" matrix. If you could detemine the coefficients of the matrix, you would be able to forecast the direction of the economy and any subcomponent of the economy. Working out the properties of "n by n" matrices would characterize the properties of the economy. Nice work, got him the Noble Prize. Also emphasized an important idea - everything is related to everything; and everything is dynamic.
In your "rhythm" you are making an analogy to the ocean. The Cash for Clunkers program created a wave which after it passed the water level was lower than average but the next wave exceeded the average. Assumes a static overall constant sea level. In an economy nothing is constant, nothing static, the economic level underneath the wave is raising or falling never the same.
To leave that analogy, I doubt the Cash fior Clunkers program was a stimulus. I would like to see an evaluation of the results of the program (initial results were good). An economic stimulus normally is an infusion of governmental demand when consumer demand is falling that is invested in long term durable assets (education, infrastructure, etc) that are directly tied to productivity gains and therefore economic growth. A stimulus has two goals - immediate increase in economic activity and a long term increased productivity. To increase deficits as Bush did is a stimulus which is not related to the second goal and because its is not it overheats (puts money into an asset or asset classes with a stable asset inventory causing asset inflation - the housing bubble) the economy aiding in the creation of economic distortions and ultimately to economic collapses. This is why government spending is very complex issue and why government spending should in general raise and fall inversely with consumer spending and regulatory action.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The economy is 70% consumer
The economy is 70% consumer spending which is based largely on emotion – people’s willingness to spend. In the big picture, there is no formula or expression that predicts human emotion.
The natural economic equilibrium is a product of consumes willingness to send.
I believe you are perhaps making a false cause and effect relationship when you think stimulus is responsible for what would otherwise be a natural rise in the economy.
Humans have never and will never predict the economy.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Now you've got it.
emotion - irrationality. That's one of the reasons virtually all economic theories fail (they oversimplify irrationality and complexity in order to understand fully a unworkable approximation ) - why Randism fails, Austrian Economics fail, Adam Smith's economics fail (Keynsian economics replaced Smith's economics just as Newton's physics replaced greek physics). But that doesn't mean that no formula can predict human emotion. Over the extreme long term absolutely. Over the short term 3-5 years they do a pretty good job of it and that's why Keynsian Economics has worked so well - its reactive to the short term. Consumer demand goes down increase government spending to compensate; consumer demand increases decrease government spending (we have to work on this) and thus smooth out the business cycle (regulatory climate is another set of issues that must be taken into consideration). Has worked for 70 years.
Obviously "natural" means something to you. Its a word I in no way associate with complex dynamic social interrelationships. I think you mean the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. Its invisible because it doesn't exist. No invisible hand, no self-correcting economy, no "natural equilibrium", no natural rise in the economy. Because the economy like all human activity is exceedingly complex that is no reason to throw up our hands and give up and turn over the course of events to invisible hands or some unknown and unknowable nature. We should never surrender our capacity to act to the limitations of our knowledge. We should never allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Hundreds of people daily predict the economy with varying degrees of accuracy.
Here's another analogy you probably won't like. The Heisenberg or uncertainty Principle holds that any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental lower bound on the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known. It means that in wave-systems pairs of properties are accurately represented by clouds not points. It applies very well to economics or an complex wave-like system.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Natural means without outside
Natural means without outside influence, such as stimulus, like in the natural spending pattern of consumers without government incentives.
“Keynsian Economics has worked so well” – what are you smoking…
Nice Wikipedia rendition of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In layman’s terms, the Heisenberg uncertainly principle means that when trying to measure something, like a particle’s momentum, the act of measuring momentum changes the momentum and therefore position, so one cannot obtain an accurate measurement. I don’t see any relationship to economics.
Economic theory cannot be measured because it has no control group to compare results against. That is, you cannot bifurcate the economy and apply stimulus to one half and no stimulus to other half and measure economic activity.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.well that's a new definition
What you mean is based on the internal working of a system. First, government is part of the economy. There is nothing outside about it. At best its a meaningless arbitrary distinction. To suggest that government is somehow artficial or outsde the economy is to completely misunderstandf all economic thought starting with Adam Smith whose whole point was that how government was then involved was not constructive. To separate government from economic activity is impossible conceptually and practically.
Thought we might be getting somewhere. Name anytime Keynsian economics when applied has not worked. If you can you will be the first.
If you read wikipedia which is a good definition you should have read far enough to see - " and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology." You are descriping the "observational effect" not the uncertainty principle and they are very different. As the article clearly and accurately states the uncertainty principle is an innate property of all wave-like systems. Economics is very much a wave-like system (like for example the Business cycle).
What you are discussing in the last is "testing" techniques which by their very nature are attempts to isolate a single variable from all other variables and measure the effect of a change in that variable. Lovely technique. Works very well in some circumstances. Because it doesn't work in others does not mean that economic theory cannot be measured only that it can't be measured by that technique. Econometrics has successfully measured economic effects for many decades. Now its true that Hayek believed what you wrote but he did his work in the '20s before computers and then defended his theory that economics was a "mind game" until his death. Lots of people have defended silly theories until their death. The idea that economics is subjective went out with Berkeley's idea that all reality was subjective (in the mind of God)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I need to change the subject?
I need to change the subject? Hell, I learned that neat little technique from you, Jon.
"No one can say that a forecast is a lie." Ahh, but Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, though, is that it?
"No one can accurately forecast the future." So, all that stuff about we're all going to die someday is bunk?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You need to reply with 200
You need to reply with 200 words or more, like Jon, and wear down your reader as compared to sticking to a narrow point like you do now.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.54 Mark count them in reply below
But I will please you that I will not reply to Paul any longer. Now that I know that he's simply mindlessly copying unfounded conspiracy theories from the fanatical haters of everything American.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You try so hard, Paul, wouldn't it help if reality was on your
side. That wasn't a forecast. Bush claimed to know in the present that the weapons of mass destruction did exist. He wasn't telling us the Saddam would aquire them. He said he had them. Nor is death a forecast seems to be a well established fact. Keep trying perhaps someday you'll believe in something that is defensible.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.When are you going to stop
When are you going to stop living in the past!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The past is the window to the future
If you don't understand the relationships between "things" has they have changed in the past you can't possibly forecast how those "things" will behave in the future. The past determines those "n by n" matrix coefficients.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Eyes front to the future,
Eyes front to the future, stop arguing the past.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You're big on semantics and
You're big on semantics and creative enough to come up with a jazz line for just about anything, but how many opinions have you changed.
Here's one for you....oBAMa has a Social Security number that was issued in Connecticut, but he's never resided in that state.
Go.....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Source please
1. I don't believe it until I see a credible source that verifies its true and they state how they found Obama's SS number.
2. If its true (1 chance in a million), so what. SS has routinely messed up issuing numbers which is why we in IT have been told never to use them as universal ID's. Too may duplicates among many problems.
3. What are you implying or don't you know.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Took 1 just 1 Google search to find out the truth of this
There is none.
"One of the favorite Birther claims is that President Obama is using a Social Security number that was somehow fraudulently stolen from a man who was born in Connecticut in 1890. Like all birther lies, this one is refuted by the evidence."
If anyone wants they can Google this; fact is there is no truth to this at all.
The birthers got the 1890 from a court filing in which it was not a date.
The Social Security Administration says the area code has no meaning once they went to computers in the 60's the card was issued in 1977. And it could simply be an error - Danbury Ct and Obama's zip code in Hawaii at the time were 98614 and 08614 an easy typo to make and since the area code had no meaning it would not have been picked up in an edit check.
or this:
But the death index shows that the SSA was informed of Ludwig’s death. The Jean Paul Ludwig referred to in the email — born in 1890, lived in Connecticut, died in Hawaii — looks to be the same one listed in the database (born on Feb. 17, 1890; SSN issued in Connecticut; death benefits issued in Hawaii).
But the Social Security number listed for Ludwig is 045-26-8722, not 042-68-4425.
I could go on and on. It is a lie. Just like all the other lies about Obama spread by the Republicans.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What I do know is that the
What I do know is that the democrat/liberal misgiving doesn't exist for which you don't have an excuse.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.That's because I live in the real world
and you live in a world of conservative lies; so there is always some truth that contradicts what you think you believe.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Thanks for making my point.
Thanks for making my point.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If you got run hit by a car
you'd testify on a stack of bibles that Obama ran you down because you knew about his secret plan to imprison people over 5' 6".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.All set
I don't make over $200,000 and I already have good health insurance, so I should be all set. Thanks for your concern though Brian. Oh and nice job utilizing the new talking points.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Let’s see if you still feel
Let’s see if you still feel the same way at the end of next year when you file your tax return.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Misleading
He is not raising taxes on the middle class. That is a misleading characterization.
He is raising taxes on the uninsured.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Anyone who has dividend
Anyone who has dividend income, which is a large segment of the middle class if they have savings, will pay a tax increase – 3.8% under ACA.
Also, under the ACA, there is a tax on some medical supplies, which will be passed on to the customers in the form of higher insurance premiums.
Those are just two examples of tax increases on the middle class, I’m sure there are more that I did not recall this morning.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wrong
The dividend tax(which actually applies to unearned income, so it includes capital gains, house sales, ect...) is for those with a adjusted gross income (AGI) over $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). So by definition, that isn't a middle class tax hike.
The device tax isn't on supplies, but more equipment. The rules haven't been finalized, but they are talking more like CAT scanners and X-Ray machines, not hearing aids and eye glasses.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.WOW
3.8 cents on the dollar!!! $38.00 on $1000.00 annually... I can keep going with the math but if I get past $10,000.00 in savings then, at least in my book, I've gone beyond being middle class.
Medical supplies and prescriptions are going to be priced higher no matter what happens as soon as the economy starts to pick up.
Your argument is invalid.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The assertion was that taxes
The assertion was that taxes will not rise for the middle class. Some individuals, whose incomes are considered middle class, have dividend incomes. If taxes increase on dividend income, and middle class have dividend income, then one cannot say taxes will not raise for the middle class.
Moreover, I forgot to add in the experation of the bush tax cuts, so taxes on dividends will go from 15% to 28.8%, a 13.8% increase.
I think the rebuttle to the original assertion is complete.
Lastly, middle class is based on income, not savings. Some middle class individuals save lots, some don’t. Some middle class save and invest enough to become millionaires, on paper, in retirement.
Better living through smaller government!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Moreover, anyone with
Moreover, anyone with dividend income will pay 25% tax (up 10%) due to expiration of Bush tax cuts. Obummers exemption only applies to earned income, not dividends or passive income.
In summary, that is a 13.8% increase.
No tax increase on the middle class is simply a lie.
Better living through smaller government.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Didn't realize...
...the Bush tax cuts had expired. You sure are right up-to-date.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.He Bush tax-cuts are due to
He Bush tax-cuts are due to expire this January unless extended or modified by this administration, so any effect in policy change will be felt when you file your 2013 tax return.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.He --> The
He --> The
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Brian, I’m glad that there
Brian,
I’m glad that there are more people than myself who are paying attention. There will be a bit of irony for the “tax the rich” crowd - smaller paychecks as you stated.
Moreover, it is really arrogant to refer to tax cuts as an expense, like it is the federal government’s money in the first place. It is not, it is the people’s money - ..|..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's not the largest tax increase in history
You really should check something besides FOX to get your information.
I am neither for nor against the ACA because I happen to already have insurance but I like the idea that people who work the system will no longer be able to do so without a penalty.
Anyways, follow the link http://factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/
As for the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, if he hadn't cut them, we wouldn't need to have this argument. There would be enough money in the coffers to pay for it without any increases. Oh yeah, if we got the hell out of the middle east and stayed home where we belong, there'd be more than enough money to pay for it completely and still keep the Bush Tax Cuts.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.There'd be more than enough money
if "WE" got rid of all those "unconstitutional alphabet soup agencies" and get back to the true principals of our "Founders". The entitlement mentality certainly was never one of them !! Individual Freedoms and responsibilities is a must to get us all back on track to one of the greatest document ever written for mankind !! Is it not true that there are more illegals and legals trying to gain access to this dream, than any other country?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3) Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The founders...
...didn't like each other - at all. But they worked it out, together, for the good of the nation, and came up with a constitution, which you enjoy interpreting, being an expert on unconstitutional applications. They did not put the countries' business on hold, solely for political purposes, as this congress has done.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If we spend money
If we spend money responsibly, then many people would not get their allotment of wealth redistribution. Take for example dollars spent on food assistance. When OB took office, cost to taxpayer was about $16B. Same expense is now over $70B.
Where can I get me some?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (6) Disagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Simple facts – the bush tax
Simple facts – the bush tax cuts reduced federal revenue buy $1T over a decade. CBO pegs ACA at $1.7T over a decade, almost 2x, so your statement about paying for ACA does not fly.
Moreover, $1.6T is borrowed to fund the federal government each year. Let me repeat, each year, not a decade mind you.
Something does not add up- ..|..
Better living through smaller government.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Check the facts again
I may have been off by about $100 billion but in the grand scheme of things, that much doesn't really matter, does it?
CBO offers new estimates-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/health-care-reform_n_1347327.html
My real problem is that people would rather continue to pay for other people's healthcare than to make them pay for themselves. Personally, I feel that the people who are complaining the most about this are the ones who go to the ER for free treatment rather than buy insurance.
If you can afford it, buy it or get penalized. You'll get a tax credit for it, so why all the noise?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ed, I added up the numbers
Ed,
I added up the numbers again, yep still a big negative balance, $1.6T a year. That is about $.40 on every dollar is borrowed – this country is in the hole and still digging.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5) Disagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Did you even follow the last link???
Your own quote of the CBO in your first response was 1.7 trillion over ten years the first time, and $1.6 trillion doing your own math in your second argument. I gave you a good link to a good source that says the cost will be $1.083 trillion over 10 years and you still argue. I was within reason on my quotes and you were way off and now want to argue with the fact checkers.
As for the rest of you who disagree with me without having the cajones to say why, STFU, or be brave enough to say why out loud.
You're probably the ones I referred to in my post about getting your medical paid for by the rest of us when you can damned well pay for insurance but choose not to. Well now you have to, and if you're employed and can pay even a small amount towards health insurance so that the government doesn't have to use my tax dollars to cover your cheap A$$es, you should have to pay!!!
I don't understand the Republican reticence about this program. It makes people responsible for themselves and their families, it makes them have to pay in to support a system that they were leeching from. The only problem that I see here is that these "So Called" Republicans might have to actually pay something to the system that they themselves have been screwing for years and they don't like it. "I'm not getting anything out of it" is a pitiful excuse.
I'm waiting for the candidate to run on the platform of "no free handouts". All of you idiots will vote for him/her and once they're elected they'll cut unemployment, hospitals will no longer have to care for the uninsured, food stamps will be non existent, and the minimum wage law will be repealed. Where will you be then?
Oh, and for those of you thinking that you'll move to another country to get away from all of this "Socialism", every other advanced country on the planet has all of the programs that are being screamed about here. Nope, their taxes may not be as high but the cost of living or the draconian governments make it no better than it is here.
before you all start pointing you fingers and yelling "liberal!!!", I want to say this. I am not a liberal, nor am I a conservative. Social security should be shut down, as should medicare/caid. Unemployment insurance should be stopped as well as food stamps. This country was built on hard work, not on welfare programs and it should probably go back to that foundation if only to teach those with a GiMMEE mentality how to fend for themselves.
I want people to have to pay for all or part their own health insurance if they can. I want them to be penalized if they can and choose not to. That penalty will go towards paying for people who TRULY cannot pay. Those who can pay,yet choose not to, should be placed in a database that all hospitals have access to, and should be either denied service or be billed for the service without being able to discharge it in bankruptcy.
The country can afford the ACA, and all of the other social programs that benefit everyone. Reinstate the Bush era tax cuts, cut out all of the stupid deductions in the tax code, and get our military home and keep them here, and there would be enough money to cover everything, even education.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ed, Please read carefully,
Ed,
Please read carefully, the $1.6T number is yearly budget deficit, not from ACA. That is why I kept stressing …per year…, not per decade. So that part should be clear.
Second, my ACA estimates come directly from the CBO report:
"The net costs--specifically the combined effects on federal revenues and mandatory spending--reflect:
• Gross additional costs of $1.5 trillion for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), tax credits and other subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through the newly established exchanges and related costs, and tax credits for small employers,..."
I’m not sure how the Huffington post got its numbers, but the difference is about $400 Billion over a decade, still nothing to sneeze at.
The takeaway from my first and second comments is that the YEARLY budget deficit remains at about $1.6T. I stand by my comments.
Lastly, given that the government borrows $0.40 of every dollar spend per YEAR, this country CANNOT afford ACA. That my friend is where your math fails – you have to sum all expense and subtract all revenues, not a select few to make your number appear to balance. When you do, the number is still massively negative.
Better living through smaller government!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hard to disagree with well
Hard to disagree with well published numbers; perhaps SJ should add a “I’m in denial” button.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.