| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Ok. ( but when the laid off govt. workers come for you....like Greece...I'll be in a Van down by the river....ride down, we'll have some homebrews while the cities burn.  ) (Message edited by aesquire on March 07, 2010) | ||
| Sifo |
From here we have pain in our future. I have no doubt about that what so ever. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Either way, there will be laid off government workers. The difference is that at least shrinking the government will give us a fighting chance to rehire them in the private sector. Where are the purple shirts of Greece going to go? The first step is a reduction of benefits followed by layoffs. There will be no private sector employer to pick up the excess labor supply. | ||
| Blake |
Just cease replacing gov jobs vacated through retirements, firings with cause, and voluntary resignations. It won't take long to rid ourselves of the parasitic infection. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'd say that was sensible, but it fails to take care of the later problem. That's when every worker getting about average salary is gone, leaving nothing but very well paid management, who with a larger budget relative to manpower, will get real big raises, and have the same total costs, with zero work actually done. I know that leads to disaster in private industry but not right away, as managers announce company saving layoffs, get big bonus's then retire rich, leaving a shell of debt and .....hey, that sounds familiar! What's that company...GM? You have to cut upper echelons faster than the actual workers. The higher the cut the faster the savings. ( the same reality of math as supply side ) Firing Congress and not replacing them until the budget is balanced ( because there should be no increases using last years budget, over & over...and NO new spending, period.) would be the most effective way. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Cutting all programs not provided for under Article 1, Section 8 will reduce the need for government workers, period. When the tax rate for the top earners is less than 10%, there will be enough cash in the system to provide jobs for every former government worker and then some. Right now, the Federal Budget spends $11,667 per year for every man woman and child in the US. For my family of 4, that's $46,667. I don't know about you, but I could find MUCH better things to spend that money on. Even if the Federal Budget needed 1/3 of that amount, there would still be twice the amount needed for defense spending (expected to be the largest federal expense by the framers). We have come to accept a Federal burden that is unnecessarily large. Unless we correct this here, now, we will never again see the America of strength. | ||
| M2me |
Aesquire wrote at 3:41 pm March 7, 2010:
I am not arguing with shadows. Here is what Blake wrote at 5:10 pm on March 6, 2010:
So am I lying or am I easily confused? If I paid $5,000 in taxes in year A and $10,000 in taxes in year B, did my tax burden double from year A to year B? Blake says yes, it did. I say there is no way to tell from the information I've given you. You would need to know how much I made in year A and year B. That's my point. The fact is that for decades the tax burden has been going down for most Americans and especially so for the highest earners. The highest earners pay more in taxes in absolute dollars but that's because they make so much more, not because their tax burden is higher. Look at the share of income for the top 1% of earners thirty years ago compared today. The trickle down theory stated that a rising tide raises all ships but it didn't. It only raised the richest ships. The other ships sank lower. | ||
| M2me |
Anyone find it odd that the SEIU and AFL-CIO were excluded from the provisions of the Obamacare bill? I find it as odd as the death panels. I find it odd that some people want to waste time debating mythical provisions. If we're going to debate the health care reform bills then let's debate the actual bills. I'm not interested in debating the existence of unicorns and leprechauns. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
waste time debating mythical provisions Yep, mythical provisions. Unions will dodge O's health tax Democrats Downsize Cadillac Tax To Cement Union Support For Overhaul Labor's $60 Billion Payoff Unicorns and Leprechauns I tell you. Since those provisions are real, care to debate them? | ||
| Aesquire |
There will be no death panels. There will be worth panels. People will decide if you live or die based on your potential value to the state. See Rahm's bro. Read his words. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/07/26/ezekiel- emanuel-deny-coverage-to-elderly-and-disabled-for- the-greater-good.php Tax burden, as defined by how much ( amount) you pay....yep, double pay, double burden. Apples and you argue oranges. The fact is the burden ( what you pay )goes up for most Americans, but the rate (%) goes down, esp. the Regan & Kennedy tax cuts cut the highest most....since that's the most effective way to increase the economy & revenues, in the long run. Cutting my taxes will make me happier, but I just can't boost the economy with my pittance, as much as Bill Gates can. Bummer, but true. Let's debate Obama's bill. Since It didn't exist until 3 days before the P.R. stunt with the republicans a week + ago... it would be interesting to see what parts of the house & senate bill Obama's staffers took to make "his" bill. I bet if you read it, you will know more about what's actually in it than Obama. I really doubt he's read it. Why should he, it's not about health care. It's not about saving money. It's not about helping you. It's about 1/6 of the economy in govt. hands a a major step to socialized medicine, as stated by Obama. (Message edited by aesquire on March 08, 2010) | ||
| Sifo |
So am I lying or am I easily confused? If I paid $5,000 in taxes in year A and $10,000 in taxes in year B, did my tax burden double from year A to year B? Blake says yes, it did. I say there is no way to tell from the information I've given you.  Not only is Blake 100% correct that in that scenario the tax burden has doubled, but despite what you claim you could then go to the tax tables to figure out exactly what their taxable income was giving you the "unknown" information that you seem to feel is pertinent. | ||
| M2me |
Yep, mythical provisions. Yep, you're right. There are no such provisions in the bill. The only exceptions in the current bill are for high risk employees, no mention of unions and certainly no mention of SEIU or AFL-CIO.
I'm debating the bill, not the countless proposals that have been made over the past year, 99% of which are not in the bill. Obama's latest proposal does raise the limits on the Cadillac plans and does delay the imposition of the tax until 2018 but it does this across the board. Under Obama's proposal if you have a Cadillac health plan you will not have to pay the excise tax until 2018, it doesn't matter whether you are union or not. 60% of the people who have Cadillac plans are non-union, by the way. I believe Obama also dropped the exemption for dental and eye care coverage but the premiums on those plans are not very high so I don't know how much of a difference it makes. But still, all of this is speculation. The only concrete thing we have is the Senate bill as passed and none of these provisions are in it. The Senate bill says the Cadillac plan excise tax takes effect in 2013. It makes no mention of unions or delays until 2018. | ||
| M2me |
Not only is Blake 100% correct that in that scenario the tax burden has doubled, but despite what you claim you could then go to the tax tables to figure out exactly what their taxable income was giving you the "unknown" information that you seem to feel is pertinent. You've got a problem. You don't know which tax tables to look at. 1953? 1965? 2003? I didn't tell you the years. I only told you that in year A I paid $5,000 and in year B I paid $10,000. Now figure out my tax rate. You can't. There is no way to do it. I could have paid a 35% tax rate in year A and a 15% tax rate in year B. You say my tax burden doubled from year A to year B but I would consider a 35% tax rate a greater burden than a 15% tax rate. But maybe I'm just goofy that way. Tax burden is the rate at which you pay taxes. How much tax you pay on every dollar you earn. It's not the absolute dollar amount you pay. I could have had a heavier tax burden in year A than in year B even though the dollar amount I paid was less. | ||
| M2me |
See Rahm's bro. Read his words. I did and it's obvious that Kim Priestap did not.
Then Kim goes off on a tirade about how she is mom to a four year old girl with speech problems and how Emanuel "scares the living hell out of me", etc. Umm, Kim read it wrong. Emanuel is saying neuropsychological services should be guaranteed to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason. Got it now? | ||
| Aesquire |
Burden is what you carry. The chart in question was in average amount, per person, per year. That's all. "burden" was amount. Per the chart. Not my definition, not yours, the words of some guy who made the bar graph. You want to lay some psychological meaning on it, go ahead, but you're just looking at apples and complaining they are not good oranges. You argue shadows of your own making. And, oddly enough, you're losing, since all you are doing is seeming foolish. So, shake your own hands, tell yourself you've won, and move on, please. About the bill, since it looks more and more like the Senate Bill is going to be the only one. ( so you are correct to argue on that basis.) Not the house bill, not the semi-imaginary bill Obama's staff cobbled together just before his failed "let's get the stupid Republicans on tv so they can look bad & then they own any blame" stunt. I say failed, because no one awake & sane now thinks the Reps have anything to do with the nationalization of healthcare. ( they do, actually, since multiple R started amendments to the bill did go through, but I'm talking public perception. ) I haven't read much of it. It looked a month ago like a compromise bill was in the offing, and I saw no reason to like or dislike provisions that weren't going to be there in the end. So, what part of raising your taxes for years before major benefits do you like? | ||
| M2me |
I stand corrected. Obama did include the exemption for dental and vision plans. Premiums paid for those plans would be exempt from the Cadillac tax under Obama's latest proposal. | ||
| Aesquire |
Dr. zeke is a communitarian. a nice long word for authoritarian theft in the name of the collective. Resistance is fuedal. It's interesting, my cousin is a medical ethicist. Also a Pediatrician, and the stuff he says to torque people off at parties is just like Dr. Zeke. "We really can't afford all these old people. Doctor training is so expensive, it makes no sense to waste time trying to save the difficult cases, especially a child who may survive to be less capable of supporting themselves and contributing to society." ( that one gets em arguing....) In private he's horrified at the direction that nationalized health care has taken in other lands. In Holland, they are so very enlightened about euthanasia that it's not the odds of a good outcome, but the cost of the meds to get that outcome that become paramount in the decision process. In many cases, ( here, for example, in medicare cases ) a govt. appointed panel or individual drone, makes the decisions to operate, medicate, or abandon a patient to their fate. ( in Holland, they just turn up the morphine drip... a far more humane method of execution than "lethal injection" ) Now you may argue that the same thing happens in private health insurance companies. True. and for the same reasons, a doctors time is too valuable to waste making decisions "best made" by soulless accountants. ( no offense, accountants, you know who I mean ) I stand by my statement that no document of 2700+ pages is any good without hobbits. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism _and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnist s/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM;jsessionid=1951255F23C85B426F774A614F19C968 (Message edited by aesquire on March 08, 2010) | ||
| M2me |
The House bill is DOA. Feed it into the nearest shredder. Sadly, it's the better of the two bills. Oh, well. The plan now is for the House to adopt the Senate bill as is and send it to the President's desk for signature. This could be done tomorrow. Then "fix it" through reconciliation. That's the plan anyway. Sounds simple enough but it's not. | ||
| M2me |
So, what part of raising your taxes for years before major benefits do you like? What major benefits are you talking about? Do you currently have health care insurance? You can make an appointment to see your doctor tomorrow. Have your gallbladder removed! Why not? There is nothing stopping you from using your benefits right now. What are you waiting for? | ||
| Aesquire |
Heard Rush yammer about that today, his "warning to the house dems" was that IF they vote the Senate bill as stands, Obama would sign it in hours, and they'd never get the chance to "fix" anything. I do so hate it when he's right. He agrees with you on this one, the house version is toast. Why should Obama let them mess with it, once he gets his way? He can move on to legalizing a state religion in cap & trade, or another massive borrowing program to make an even bigger slush fund for the next election with a "jobs bill". Revisiting health care would be foolish... as it is, if you're right ( that the house will pass the senate bill ) Obama can call it a great victory, and hope that the months between now & Nov. people forget about the dems who voted for it. He's got a point, the public is short sighted, the media is on his side, and the argument about a green state religion might make the nationalization of health care bill ( part 1 ) fade into collective memory. It's not like the better than half the public that don't like Obama now are going to change their minds, and he's already been..."brave" about being a one term loser as long as he can make the Changes he wants. | ||
| Aesquire |
What major benefits are you talking about? You know! the great & wonderful Obama Plan! or--- the really bad results of same. In any case both House & Senate bills tax your for years before the bulk of the "spending & changes" take place. It's like he wanted to be out of town when reality finally shows what he hath wrought. | ||
| M2me |
You want to lay some psychological meaning on it, go ahead, but you're just looking at apples and complaining they are not good oranges. But what about the Fair Tax that is supposed to be our salvation. Do you realize that under the Fair Tax if you buy something for $100 and later buy something for $200 your tax burden doubles? Aren't you furious at the Fair Tax now? Well, if you're not furious now I'll let you in on a little unknown secret about the Fair Tax. If you buy something for $400 your tax burden is quadruple that of a $100 purchase! A $10,000 purchase? You don't even want to know what your tax burden is for that. It's super high! It's like waaay more than a $100 purchase! Sheesh, guys! Use some common sense!  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Obama's latest proposal does raise the limits on the Cadillac plans and does delay the imposition of the tax until 2018 but it does this across the board. Under Obama's proposal if you have a Cadillac health plan you will not have to pay the excise tax until 2018, it doesn't matter whether you are union or not. 60% of the people who have Cadillac plans are non-union, by the way. This isn't what EVERY news outlet is reporting. I wouldn't be as irritated were that the case, but it simply isn't. Collectively bargained plans received special treatment. This special treatment adds up to $60B on behalf of the unions. We DON'T have this specific language in any bill because the specific bill being voted on by the Senate isn't being released for public view until AFTER the vote. You can bet, though, that the SEIU and AFL-CIO don't celebrate benefits everyone else is getting. The "60%" of folks NOT covered by this provision MUST be taxed because this is one of the central funding mechanisms of the Senate bill. They can't waive the Excise Tax for ALL from 2013 to 2018 because they must collect this tax to help pay for the bill. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
| ||
| Blake |
Only a moron would imagine characterizing individual per item sales taxes in a comparative basis as tax burden. The total tax paid per fiscal period (year) is the tax burden. | ||
| M2me |
Only a moron would imagine characterizing individual per item sales taxes in a comparative basis as tax burden. The total tax paid per fiscal period (year) is the tax burden. Okey dokey. Last year the Fair Tax was enacted in my mythical country. I paid a total of $3,231.56 in Fair Tax taxes last year. What was the Fair Tax rate last year in my mythical country? I'll wait patiently for your answer. | ||
| M2me |
Oh, here is an extra credit question. Jim, a mythical friend of mine in my mythical country, paid $1,615.78 in Fair Tax taxes last year. Why was Jim's tax burden half of mine? Is Jim a union member and got special exemptions? That's the only explanation I can think of. Can you think of another one? | ||
| Aesquire |
Thank you M2me. for conceding that you are a spoiled brat with no logic or willingness to answer a straight question. I appreciate that you are without shame or honor. Bye. Correction, I was wrong to say he has no logic. Is unwilling to conceed to logic would be more accurate. (Message edited by aesquire on March 08, 2010) | ||
| Aesquire |
Ft, What I love is how the evil drug companies, and the evil doctors ( you know, the ones that the President said cut people up without good medical reasons to get rich? ) know that the longer you keep those wretched oooold folks alive the more money they will make, so they keep coming up with new drugs & therapies to make them live longer more productive lives! The Bastards! The most popular drug in the world is one to make your pecker hard! THOSE EVIL BASTARDS!!!!! Not the biggest seller, that's Lipitor. One of those evil keep you alive longer drugs.(that happens to be one I'm still trying to recover from...  sucks when you can't get your leg over the saddle because of a wonder drug.... but hey, Some people are allergic to beer. Could be worse.) Now in socialized medicine countries, there's no incentive to keep people alive, because it doesn't pay.....so they don't. | ||
| M2me |
Thank you M2me. for conceding that you are a spoiled brat with no logic or willingness to answer a straight question. I appreciate that you are without shame or honor. Bye. What was your question? I'm willing to answer any question. I'm sorry, if I missed your question but ask it again and I'll try my best to answer it. |
