The GOP are SCUM- Why do we pay for and allow our legislators to enjoy benefits they deny us ??? we need to make them have the same Healthcare(and retirement) benefits they want us to have- watch how fast tey change their tune. Also- why do we allow them to keep their benefits after being convicted of a felony ? Tom Delay has his ! We, the people, are all at fault
Wow what a great article. Now we know the real source of poor policy. I thought BO care robbed $700 billion from medicare and then said it was deficit neutral. Other question, why are we paying for BO care now and the benefits have not taken affect? Also how is it possible that a govt with $16 trillion of debt can insure 20 million more people and subsidize those making less than $50,000? If BO care is the saving grace for this country,why has my premium doubled and my deductible went from $100 to $2500 for the family during his tenure?
Since I’m on the subject of increased prices, why has milk and gas prices doubled in the past three years and the value of my house decreased?
I am not saying either party is right. However I do know that BO stinks as President and his policies are wrong for this nation!
You really have to love the Republicans and their ideas of “choice” and “efficiency.” Penalize financially anyone who commits the “sin” of being ill or having a serious medical condition because the health insurers are going to cherry-pick, leaving those less than medically perfect to pay egregious premiums for minimal coverage, at best. Take away the working person’s negotiating advantage of numbers present in the employer-provided health insurance model. Why not just herd anyone over 65 into camps and be done with it?
Thank you Mitt Romn…I mean, Rupert Murdoch for choosing Paul Ryan. The weinermobile driving, zombie-eyed granny killer. Evidently, he wants to add more Americans to the list of those he’d like to off. And to think, if it weren’t for social security (a government program mind you), Mr. Ryan might still very well be driving that weinermobile. Pretty awesome that Ryan’s favorite band, Rage Against The Machine, issued a cease and desist order against him, telling him, “You are the very machine we rage against.” Ouch!
Planet, I think your brain has atrophied or you have beginning Alzheimers and your attack on Ryan is in step with your wonderful leaders campaign. Let’s see, Romney is a wife killer and Ryan is a granny killer. Cute! You conveniently forgot to stay on topic and give a reasoned comment. Perhaps you forgot a key component of Obamacare which will raise the tax exemption threshold from the current $7,500 to over $10,000 for healthcare expenses. This bill has 7 new taxes in it for the middle class and somehow Ryan is the bad guy for wanting to fix the problem.
Um, I’m pretty sure it’s Obamacare that has a provision that allows doctors/hospitals/insurance companies to deny treatment to people who are elderly or terminally ill… Tell me again, Planet – who’s the granny-killer???
There is no provision in Obamacare that denies treatment to elderly or the terminally ill. That was a false statement made by Sarah Palin about “death panels” that was categorically not true. It’s amazing how many people actually believe it, though.
It’s not the “death panel.” It’s verbiage in the law that indicates that treatment needn’t be administered if the patient had no chance of recovery. There’s a difference. The “death panel” rumor stated that even chronically ill patients with a chance of recovery would be denied coverage. When this joke of an administration denied that they were telling the truth – there’s no death panel provision. What you’re evidently unaware of is the difference between chronically ill and terminally ill.
I think yours is a distinction with no difference. If no recovery is possible, what treatment would be needed???
August 21, 2012 at 9:00 am
sylvanchick says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, there very much is a difference. Terminally ill patients are those who are dying. Chronically ill patients are those who have long-term illnesses which are managed by medication, diet, exercise, etc. Diabetes is a chronic illness. Hodgkins lymphoma is a terminal illness. Do you understand the difference now?
August 21, 2012 at 9:01 am
sylvanchick says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
PS – The reason I hadn’t responded is because I’m busy moving… My husband is out of work because his employer is considering shutting down completely to avoid being penalized by Obamacare, and we can no longer afford our house payment. However, because we’re married, I’m working, and all of our kids have the same daddy, we don’t qualify for public assistance. Go figure.
August 21, 2012 at 9:03 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I would be interested to read that part of the law. Let me check it out and I’ll get back to you.
August 20, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
…None of these comments are relevant to anything, or any fact, in any way, and sounds a lot more like a highschool click insulting a nerd to feel better about themselves.
This is the very reason I mock the heck out of you and Libby. This style of comment is not appropriate at all. Debate their plans. Not their character.
I did not debate her character. What she said did not support her position. In fact, it made no sense. I asked a question for her to clarify, and big surprise, she did not respond.
If anyone attacks character, Bob, it is you. You have called me every name in the book and I find it totally unnecessary. We are all adult here and entitled to our opinions. Attack my “stupid” comments or “false” facts if you like, but not me. You sure are the pot calling the kettle black!
And your inability to understand the difference between a chronic (aka long-term) and a terminal (aka fatal) illness is what makes no sense.
August 21, 2012 at 9:05 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I understand the difference. No need to be insulting. I did not understand your post. And yes, I will check out your statement and get back to you.
August 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
She was busy being victimized by OBama. Right?
August 21, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
First of all, child, I was taking to planet’s disgusting comment. Second of all I call you stupid because you act like a highs school kid and your facts are nearly always incorrect. Third of all you are in need of being called what you think of and call republicans.
You are in need of a huge sock in the face, professor. What an arrogant piece of work, you are. You are the one with disgusting comments, including the one above. Just who do you think you are, other than a pompous ass that probably has no life because you are too busy trying to one-up everyone around you. I’m sure you have no friends and will die alone and lonely.
August 21, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You do not get to waltz in, and then accuse me of attacking character because I go after your B.S. and then pretend like you don’t do that with politics against others. It’s wrong. Deviating the topic doesn’t change that.
I am not arrogant, I’m confident in how to deal with little snot nosed kids like you. Grow up please. You run in here stating you may hate bush but you have Style! Then you proceed to insult him like a grade schooler. I proceed to insult you in kind. If you kind take it, don’t dish it out. You keep claiming how I’m the source of all this but again: When have you ever, once, on this post seen me say anything close about Obama in comparison to what you say of republicans and Bush? I insult you for your b.s. and rightfully so. I say his plans suck, and then I give an alternative. What is surprising, is that you don’t know many of these plans and then insult republicans for not having solutions (mocking their character as no idea people when they have plenty you just don’t agree with). It’s foolish. I don’t claim democrats don’t have ideas and have a war with anyone, women, gays, whatever. You however talk about this war all the time. It is partisan, and it is childish. It is arrogant, it is wrong. Now can we debate politics for once, rather than listen to your biased rants regarding what is wrong with republicans and the rich?
Good to see Romm and Ryan are busy attacking those nasty tax loop-holes of the super rich like tax deductions for health insurance and mortgage interest. At least you have to give Ryan credit for actually putting the plan out there in the open. How despirate are these guys? Actually giving specifics? Not a winning strategy in today’s politics.
“Many conservative policy experts favor the tax credit idea, in the belief that making consumers pay more of their healthcare expenses will curb health cost inflation.”
How does shifting more costs to me help curb the cost of health care inflation?? What does one thing have to do the other? Agent, your the economist out there. Explan that to me, please.
Libby, there are too many factors involved that contribute to healthcare expenses/cost. The more complicated the world is, the worse it gets. Had Obamacare addressed Tort Reform, that would have had an impact on cost because doctors and hospitals have been hosed on Malpractice claims for years. If insurors had been allowed to sell across state lines to create competition, that would have reduced costs as well. Neither one was addressed and we are stuck with a 2,700 page Progressive dream. Do you remember the President saying he would not add 1 cent of new taxes to the middle class? We only have 7 new taxes added to the middle class in this bill including raising the threshold for deduction of expenses on your return? Do you think that will help you or curb the rise of healthcare costs?
None of the tax increases in Obamacare would affect me in the least. Now, they do affect the wealthy and corporations which of course as we know, trickles down to affect me. That’s the only thing that trickles down. Any addtional tax/cost burden on the rich trickles down to the middle class. That’s why the middle class is shrinking. The rich get richer and the rest of us are screwed.
What Obamacare tax implications have directly affected your paycheck Sylvanchick? Maybe you ought to check out the taxes before you respond. Unless you make over $200k, uninsured, or a corporation or health insurance company, there are no additional taxes for you. Of course if making under $200k makes me dirt poor, then yes, I’m dirt poor.
My husband’s employer is going out of business to avoid being penalized by Obamacare. We’re moving in with my mother. There’s the pain. I realize that in a ghetto socialist society there’s nothing wrong with this… but in my world losing one’s home is a high price indeed to make sure the “less fortunate” have health care they don’t have to pay for.
August 21, 2012 at 9:21 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Your husband must work for a health insurance company or a large corporation that does not provide health benefits. It’s a little early to close down because of Obamacare, considering most on this blog seem to think Romney will win in November and repeal it. Maybe the company just wasn’t doing well as a whole?
In any case, I understand your pain and am sorry for your loss. I have had my wage cut by 2/3 over the last 5 years and am no longer able to have the standard of living I once had – including health care. But that had nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with greedy Wall Street types that profited from others misery.
August 21, 2012 at 9:54 am
sylvanchick says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No, he works for a GC who employs 150 people. He’s cutting back to 50. He’s never been able to afford to absorb the cost of health insurance, and the few times he’s offered it via payroll deduction no one has signed up due to the cost.
August 21, 2012 at 10:00 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I checked on chronic illness and Obamacare and according to the Obamacare website, it is covered.
I think you might be mistaken about chronic care not being covered under Obamacare. The only changed is a cap on flexible spending accounts.
August 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm
sylvanchick says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OK, you’re still confused, Libby. Chronic illness is what the death panel rumors said wouldn’t be covered. Terminal illness is what’s in question here. If I have Hodkin’s lymphoma, which is terminal, I will likely not be able to get the chemo treatment to extend my life under Obamacare. If I have diabetes, which is chronic, I will be able to get treatment under Obamacare.
August 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I can find no source that confirms this. Do you have one that is credible?
August 17, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Dave in KY says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
When was the last or first time anyone asked the doctor, how much is this going to cost, then called another doctor and asked the same thing. This is what is missing. We all check prices on other goods and services we buy and that’s what really fosters competition. Until everyone that buys health insurance starts asking for prices from the providers and shopping around, nothing is going to change, except the continual creep towards government control of our lives.
Are you in the insurance business? Do you always sell the lowest price? I don’t necessarily want to go to the cheapest health care provider. I want go to the best. If you start pricing health care like stereos or groceries, it’s the beginning of the decline in the level of care you will receive. They will have to lower costs somewhere. Like using needles more than once. Or not bothering to sterilize the equipment each and every time. That’s a really slippery slope.
I am in the business of insurance. I sell the best coverage a client can afford, which most times is not the best. We all want the best of everything, but we do not have the right to confiscate money and property from others to get the best of everything for ourselves. That’s how it is in a free society. You get to have what you work for, not what someone else worked for.
Since all doctors are licensed by the government and held to government standards, there really shouldn’t be much difference in care. The difference in cost could come from where the doctor is located and how much the doctor wants to make. Again, there’s that freedom thing we are supposed to be having in America.
Dave in KY – that’s spot on! I don’t want what I didn’t earn, and I don’t want anyone else to take what I did earn away from me!
August 17, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Excellent point, Libby! Of course, I do work with some agents that claim it’s all about price. They don’t seem to perform as well as the others that sell value-added services.
Great point Libby! It makes you wonder what they are going to do with medicare patients. The government paid less before and doctors limited the number of medicare patients they would take. With the huge decrease written into BOcare, what will be there next move. At least with Ryan’s plan, there was no impact to those currently on medicare or will be on medicare in the next 10 years. Then the changes will come. I have time to prepare. My parents who are on medicare today, don’t have time to prepare for the changes in BOcare
Question everyone. Do you not like what I said, or did I state something wrong? If I’m wrong, let me know. If I’m right and you don’t like it, then you also need to decide if BOcare is the right choice.
August 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Obamacare’s medicare cuts come mostly from the provider side. The benefits themselves don’t change. In fact they are adding preventive care at 100% and closing the gap in coverage for rx drugs. Ryan’s plan (with the same $700B in cuts) changes medicare to a voucher system that some say will not be able to keep up with inflation. I’m not well versed on where his cuts are coming from, though.
August 17, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh, by the way. $700B is only about 10% of the entire cost of medicare. Obamacare is not “gutting” the system as some people would have you believe.
August 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Nebraskan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I disagree with you, because cheaper doesn’t always mean worse. I have shopped pharmacies as of late and it is amazing the difference in price, but absolutely no difference in service. There is nothing wrong with calling and bartering with doctors over price. Especially if it is for something that is not terminal or chronic. But if you are a one and done kind of gal, I’ve got a car I can sell you. :) It’s the BEST car you will ever have and it will be worth not shopping. Promise!
Well, if you choose your health provider the same way you buy a car – more power to you!
August 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
All right, next time you’re having a heart attack, make sure to call around and get the best deal. Extreme example, I know. What abuot people who live in rurual areas that don’t have many options? It’s simply not realistic to think people are going to shop around for care, especially when the need is immediate. And for those stuck on the “death panels” (sylvanchick and Agent), that was Politifact’s #1 lie. Maybe you should try birth certificate or college transcripts or something else. If you throw enough crap, maybe some of it will stick, eh? Besides, the Romney/Ryan Campaign doesn’t want to get all wonky with details.
I hope they get, (if I understand the term correctly) “Wonky” with the details. The lack of details gave us the worst president in the history of the US! That includes Carter and he gave away the panama canal
Lack of details, lack of intelligence, lack of military service, lack of integrity, lack of truthfulness… I could go on, but it’s Friday afternoon and I’d be here until Monday morning.
August 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm
sylvanchick says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Nice – all of Libby’s “lack-ofs” can apply just as well to Obama as they do to Romney or Ryan. Hmmm…
August 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hardly! Obama is very intelligent. Bush was a big dumbass.
August 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
One thing is for sure. Your Manchurian Candidate was not vetted properly before 08. Thank George Soros for funding him all the way and we know what a nice guy he is. Obama is not qualified to run a lemonade stand and there he is trying to manage the largest economy in the world doing all the wrong things. Is it any wonder that small business is rebelling after he told them they didn’t do that and they didn’t build that? People are waking up big time now and we may have to thank Chick Fil A for standing up and being counted. I can’t even get into my local Chick Fil A for the crowds now.
August 20, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Drago says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You will take better care of yourself if you pay more instaed of the current mentality of I will just get fixed if I get diabities or obese.
What is missing from this argument is that doctors don’t get to decide what they charge for a procedure. Health insurance companies tell the doctor what they will reimburse him or her for a certain procedure.
If you have BCBS health insurance and a sore throat, it doesn’t matter what doctor you go to. BCBS will reimburse X amount of dollars for a strep throat test regardless of who the doctor is.
Healthcare is not a supply-and-demand free market.
That is back to the original point that if people had to pay out of pocket for sore throats, BCBS would be out of the equation. Looks like most of the replies on this are from people who really don’t understand what freedom, liberty, free market and individualism are. Seems a lot of people think they are born here and automatically have a right to the best of everything. Nothing is free. Government money comes from taxpayers, so all this so called free stuff is coming out of someone elses pocket. What a world we are now living in where everyone will be entitled to everything regardless of work ethic, risk appetite, perserverance, and individual desire and motivation. I am done here.
I want the best possible care I can afford. That does not mean the lowest price. It does not mean the highest price. That is one purpose of insurance carriers; to set rates for procedures so you may have the “freedom” to choose your health care provider without worrying you will bankrupt yourself or get treated by some schmuck. If I had to price every little procedure, test, lab work I might need I’d be in the nut house. Now how much would that cost??
I wasn’t going to comment further, but Libby the Liberal stooped again to the same old I don’t really have an argument so I going to call someone a name thing. Facts always get in the way of liberal arguments. Facts like current administration records: most deficit created by one president, longest stretch of 8%+ unemployment, highest unemployment for minorities, largest number of people on foodstamps and welfare programs, largest expansion in government, largest % of government spending of GDP. Name one federal government program that has worked…ever. Answer is there are none.
And yes, you should consider nut house, or grow up and help the rest of us get the government out of the way. Good day!
Dave, you are making a valiant effort, but it is no use with Libby and Planet. They are ingrained with the Progressive solution to everything and don’t listen to reason. Myself, Bob & Sargent Major tried to reason with them in the last big Healthcare blog and they resort to blaming Bush for everything gone wrong in this country and nothing Obama and his cohorts is bad or ill conceived. The only explanation is that Progressivism is a disease and they both have a terminal case of it. They don’t worry about it since they think it will be a covered condition.
August 17, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Dave, Libby & Planet do not care about our economy and the devastating effects of Obamacare on the citizens. They don’t care about $16 Trillion debt, they don’t care about all the additional taxes if it doesn’t affect them personally. They don’t care if the middle class net worth declined by 25% in 3+ years. They don’t care if unemployment keeps going up as long as they have their job. They certainly don’t care about small business which is suffering at the hands of this oppressive government and they are all for increasing every entitlement being offered to the ne’re do wells. In short, Progressives just don’t care what most folks care about and that is fiscal responsibility and restoration of the greatest country in the world. I like your last suggestion. She and Planet both need to be admitted to a mental facility for the permanently impaired. Perhaps their health coverage will pay for a number of treatments. I recommend shock treatments to change their brain waves.
August 17, 2012 at 3:45 pm
PM says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Help me out with this one. I always thought the price of healthcare was determined on a macro scale by doctors and insurance companies at very high levels. But now that I think about it that would be the same as unions, maybe it is. How does it work? Don’t tell me insurance companies drive the price without input from doctors unless you can provide support.
Stephen, the demand will be a lot greater than the supply when a large amount of doctors close their practice because of Obamacare and all the red tape and regulation and lower reimbursement hits them. Rationed care will be the norm. You are right about what Health carriers pay doctors. Whatever is billed is discounted in a network. If the carriers paid what hospitals and doctors billed, they would have already been broke. However, doctors and hospitals will be paid even less under the new guidelines of Medicare & Medicaid. That is one reason so many are thinking of giving up. Why would they work twice as hard for half the money?
Say what you will about the ACA. I just rec’d a check from BCBS of TX for ~ 9.2% of my annual premium for 2010 because BCBS of TX did not meet the 80/20 threshold. That is the first premium reduction I have rec’d on my (personally funded) heath insurance in over 12 years. I anticipate another return of premium from BCBS of TX once the calculation for 2011 is made. I suspect,however, cannot be sure that most of the people who are complaining about ACA receive it via employer subsidized programs. For the 25% of us that have to buy this coverage on our own, the provisions of the ACA phasing in looks pretty good. I know for a certainty that my Texas congressman will not be rejecting his Cadillac, government provided, health insurance.
Captain Planet said- “Lack of details gave us George Bush – exactly! He won because of Daddy.
I say I disagree. The lack of detail gave us Barry Soetoro/Obama, an unqualified, Chicago community organized who had no experience except a small bit (like 6 months) in the Senate where he failed to make any committee meetings.
You are right Sargent. This man was not vetted at all in 08 and had no qualifications to lead this great country. I knew we were in trouble early in the campaign when he told Joe the Plumber that we needed to spread the wealth around. That is classic Progressive Socialism. Now that he is getting vetted, the Progressives don’t like it much. Many of the liberals are distancing themselves from him. Even Newsweek has come out and said Obama must go. Obama has lied himself into a corner and all he will do is personal attacks because he has no record of achievement to run on.
Add the Washington Post, a noted in the tank newspaper for Obama for coming out with an article admitting a giant mistake had been made in 2008. That is quite an admission for them. I wonder how many more will follow in the coming weeks. He may be down to MSNBC, Media Matters and Moveon.org as the only support by the time the election rolls around.
“Obamacare’s medicare cuts come mostly from the provider side. The benefits themselves don’t change.
Obama’s cuts payments to hospitals, doctors etc. What is wrong with that? The quality of health care goes down for all. It is estimated that as many as 1 in 6 hospitals could fail with these cuts. Just like the two inner city hospitals have in my area. Those hospitals were primarily medicaid/medicare hospitals and some non paying walk ins. The hospital has to pay nurses what they themselves call “combat pay” to get nurses and the quality of healthcare is not good.
So, with less money and less payment, hospitals will reduce the number of Cat and MRI machines so that the one or two they keep will be busy all the time. That means it will be like Canada- people there die before they can get a CAT scan or MRI. Their alternative= They cross the border into Michigan and get the tests done.
Great plan Barry- you idiot
Libby Said- ” Ryan’s plan (with the same $700B in cuts) changes medicare to a voucher system that some say will not be able to keep up with inflation. I’m not well versed on where his cuts are coming from, though’.
Well Libby let me help you. I have done a little research and it was confirmed on Meet the Press Sunday. Here you go:
*Mitt Romney will put the $716 Billion Obama cut back into Medicare. The reason- Quality of healthcare for seniors and NOTHING changes for seniors now on Medicare- NOTHING.
* The voucher system does not go into effect until 2023. That is a little over 10 years from now and is designed for currently younger US CITIZENS.
* When 2023 gets here, people who decide to retire can take the vouchers or stay on traditional medicare. It is up to the individual.
As for me personally, if I were younger and maybe even now, I would take the voucher system and opt out of Medicare. Why, the quality of care will continue to deteriorate under Medicare.I will take the voucher, buy my own, better plan, and get better care and leave those who want a government plan to have it.
Now what is wrong with Romney/Ryan plan versus a dumbing down of quality care for all under Obama’s plan?
Read the post Al. We are talking about the difference between medicare plans, The Romney plan and the Obama plan, call it Obamacare (who cares what it is called)as it is in the post (fourth from the bottom including this post) and yes, it should be repealed- genius
“I think he was commenting on a paragraph in the article that made that statement…”
Yes, thanks for your reading comprehension skills Libby. They are not shared by all herein.
Obooba took $70B out of Medicare. There’s no denying it. All of it would have gone to providers, meaning that there is less money there for providers, meaning that people will have to leave Medicare and go to OboobaCare if they want treatment.
“As far as hate-filled remarks being the same as racism. I agree. And you are the biggest offender on this blog. Do us all a favor and just go away, Bob.”
Wrongo bucko. I love how you attempt to twist things so often, as if you believe yourself quite the clever person who can balance the world through your small concepts and make us all the same. Yes Libby I am clearly so very much the same as you, it’s me! Let us point fingers when all else fails and scream eh? I speak specifics dear, and comments like that do not fly with me. So let’s talk specifics.
Unedcuated comments and thereafter beliefs regarding someone’s character that are based on those uneducated comments which are filled with hate are the same as racist. Now, if you can point out one comment I’ve made about Obama that has been similar to believing he is pushing the elderly off a cliff, regarding medicare, or that those bastards are taking advantage of the U.S. and sending the world to war based on one man (which is impossible) and said “that man is the machine we rage against! SNAP!!” then you would win this debate against me. Have I hated against Obama? Hell no.
Now on the other hand, I have called you many names for your idiotic comments, filled with hate, as a result of your comments therein. If you do not understand why this is different you are the one who can go away. I have not included any comments calling Obama a bastard. Not one. I have not commented on his war with Libya being a self serving war that no one agrees with. I don’t agree with the war with Libya. However, I do not try to connect Obama with some Libya leader or enemy of Libya and then try to state he manipulated the public to go to war with Libya, while ignoring every fact that says otherwise all the while screaming about how much I hate Bush. I have not called him a liar or trickster to get us on Universal Care. I have instead said Universal Systems are bad. You look like an idiot when you claim I’m making hate filled comments because I happen to make you feel bad about your seriously ridiculous beliefs and hate against republicans in this blog. And I make a point of calling you out and insulting the hell out of you until you realize it is not ok.
First of all, your hate-filled comments are all directed at me. And, yes, I do view them as hate-filled. To call my ideas or comments stupid or asinine is one thing. To call me those names is hate-filled and just downright ugly.
You can make no such statements about Obama and Libya because they are not true. That is why you can not make them. I have provided many sources that support my comments about Bush and I stand by them. Do I hate Bush? Maybe. I think he, along with Cheney and his other cronies, is the one that started this country on the downslide it is on. I am entitled to that opinion and all the “facts” and numbers you throw out will not change that.
You are hate filled towards me because I will not “realize” that Bush was a wonderful president. That, dear Bob, is the epitome of childishness.
Kiddo, I smack you in line for running around screaming. You smack a kid, the kid hits back.
I’m reacting defensively, you are reacting offensively. If I were hate filled, I wouldn’t be doing this dance with you. I’m basically educating you it’s wrong. I bluntly don’t think you are an evil person. Do you hate Bush, maybe. Do I hate you? No.
My comments regarding you are harsh and with good reason. Wake up calls. You keep focusing on trying to state I’m some guy who mistreats the world. Then why do I not hate Obama? Why have I commented some of his ideas should be done? You’ve not done one comment to do with Bush that is the same and Boy howdy have I baited you. The Roth Ira comments, the tax deferred tax exempt IRA plans for the middle class, you refuse to admit they are good. This is the type of behavior which divides and destroys America.
Also: You are wrong regarding Bush with Iraq. And I’m getting sick of hearing your conspiracy theory hate filled comments regarding it. If your mind is so hate filled against Bush that you can state the democrats just didn’t know any better, and they totally went to war at Bush’s word despite Bush having more fights with congress than anyone in modern history other than Obama, then you are a hatred filled person justifying things just to hate Bush. Disagree with the war if you want. The reason we went was not for oil, it was not to siumultaneously complete his daddy’s war, it wasn’t because we were in bed with Saudis and Bin Laden at the same time. Do you have any idea it is to state any one of those, let alone all? They contradict Libby! You get something from people you are in bed with. A $50,000 dollar investment is not getting something. Similarly, I don’t believe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in bed with Obama, despite him getting the most donations from those companies which were bailed out. They clearly thought they would benefit from giving Obama money. But that does not mean Obama is tied with them. Similarly, the Saudis thought they would benefit from giving Bush $50,000 for an investment. They would get money. Guess what? They probably did. This is not however a connection. If you’re going to imply it’s a connection hold your president to the same standard.
August 21, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Old man, smacking a kid in the back of the head is the last way to get him to listen and learn. It may keep him in line out of fear, but you will not be respected, listened to, or heard. I have harsh words for Bush. They may seem hate filled, even. And I may be barking up a conspiracy theory that isn’t true. It is my opinion. You keep bringing it up, not me. I agree to disagree. You, on the other stubborn hand, will not. It’s not getting us anywhere.
August 21, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I bring it up Libby because of the fact that you scream it in these posts, and then I basically smack you up side the head.
No Libby, the old man smack on the head is absolutely necessary.
My father was a liberal, I have mentioned this before. I grew up thinking that Jimmy Carter was great, FDR was great, etc.
I have 6 siblings. Guess how many of them became better people without a smack upside the head? Pay attention Libby, every highschool kid who got into drugs, marijuana, relied on an injury for income, welfare, etc. It’s big where I live. Every single one of them has the mentlity that getting smacked up side the head is bad for them. They need support in order to find their way. Do you know how many do? Considering I was raised religious I was taught if someone needs something you give it. I am very active in my community when it comes to helping people. At the base of every single failure, is a father or mother who refused to tell a kid definitively that something was the way it was (not a literal smack up side the head, I mean a reminder that you are not the shit and you are indeed wrong). Being told you are a dumbass is a necessary part of life, one you don’t know how to handle.
Regarding your “opinions” when they bark up conspiracy theory and tie in for all republicans, they are not only wrong in theory, they are wrong morally. Again: I have never once made anything close to the arguments you have against republicans to democrats.
August 21, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And further, you look like an idiot when you say “I have not called him a liar or trickster to get us on Universal Care.” His plan is not a universal health care plan, it still uses the open and free market.
And we did not “go to war” with Libya. We had a military intervention which lasted only 5 months. Get YOUR facts straight.
Ah yes, when it’s Clinton Bombing Iraq or doing “military” operations which result in deaths it is “a military operation”. When Obama goes after a military leader, Ghadaffi and targets him for death to “aid a country” it’s a “military pure” action.
When Obama targets a more dangerous leader, Saddam, it’s “War”. Symantics Libby. You know what I meant. My facts are straight. Don’t act like a smart ass with me or we will start debating like we did before, and it won’t be pretty.
August 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I mean when “Bush” for the last one.
August 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Why are you the only one allowed to act like a smartass?
August 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
Get over the “unfair” aspect of debating. I was sarcastic after you made a comment that was absurd.
It doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. It doesn’t mean I’m a bad person.
You seem to get mad when someone points out that you should be logically consistent. Unfortunately Libby, you can’t point out to someone that their logics are incosistent without appearing condescending. So, you show them exactly how it is incosistent. In that circumstance, there was no better way to show you how incosistent you were.
August 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Connecticut Patriot says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OMG, Libby…you are relentless!! You epitomize the fact that liberals cannot keep their mouths shut unless the other person shares their exact ideas/myths. Suffice it to say that people on my side of the aisle will never agree with liberal progressive agenda…never. No matter what your mythology is, you cannot argue the fact that our country (MY country anyway–not the country the way you liberals see it or want it to be)is and has always been, since 1776, based on open, free, capitalistic markets. A government of the people, for the people, by the people. I don’t want to the government get so big that it dictates every thing I do, where I go, how much money I can make, whether or not I can go to my own doctor and not some government appointed doctor on the day that I want to go and get the treatment that I need, how many children I can have, etc–because you know we’re headed in that direction if Obama gets reelected. My question to all liberals is this: WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU ALL GOING TO WAKE UP??!?!?!!
August 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have no more posts than the right-wing conservatives on this blog. Just because you guys are the majority within the insurance industry doesn’t mean I should just shut up and let you “guys” rule the roost. Not happening. So keep baiting me and I will keep posting…
August 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Where did you get your informatin Al? Every report I have seen is that around $717 Billion was taken out of Medicare to fund Obamacare. Can you say “rationed care”for the seniors in this country?
Actually, it’s not to fund Obamacare. The $716B number is explained in the following taken from Politifact:
The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?
First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.
Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.
What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.
Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.
Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries’ coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient.
Under the new law, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. So claims that Obama would “cut” Medicare need more explanation to be fully accurate. In the past, we’ve rated similar statements Half True or Mostly False, depending on the wording and context.
Because Medicare spending gets bigger every year, the cost-saving mechanisms in the health care law also get bigger. Also, it takes a few years for the health care law’s savings mechanisms to kick in. In fact, the effects of time are the main reason the $500 billion number has turned into $700 billion.
The CBO determined in 2011 that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimate released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.
So it’s timing that’s making the cuts bigger, not changes to Medicare.
Good try Planet. You seem to feel the need to write a book to justify this dog and pony show. Everytime Obamacare is scored by CBO, it goes up tremendously, the latest scoring by $1.4 Trillion. Wasn’t the first cost proposed around $490 Billion over 10 years? It is now projected to be $2.6 Trillion with no end in sight. I ask you, what is affordable about the Affordable Care Act? Affordable for whom? Certainly not for the country which is running a $1.4 Trillion annual deficit without even calculating in Obamacare.
Agent, I copied and pasted from Politifact and it is directly in response to your fabrication the $716B is pulled from Medicare and reallocated to funding the PPACA. That is not true as you can read from my post.
August 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I believe I have even read that Huffington post article. Do you read any sources that are not the liberal left equivalent of Fox News? It’s interesting to note that I would recognize the article at sight of it, which shows be comparison, one of us does much more balanced research. I bet you have not seen the counter article to this article from Forbes.
Moving forward: Vouchers for private insurance aren’t about cost. They are about coverage. As things stand now, Paul Ryan has shown that Medicare results in a decrease in quality in comparison to a private plan. In fact, Canadians often cite this as a reason to go national, because people on our medicare plan can’t pay as much as private, and often receive worse services as a result. I won’t go into the full argument as to why that argument is incorrect, but let’s just say I’ve researched it. In this case making medicare more cost effective, rather than giving an option for vouchers limits the elderly’s access to better quality care, and that on it’s own is technically cutting medicare. Besides dismissing that, giving a higher amount rather than reducing the overall cost could be spent on medicare increases to keep up with rising costs. Paul Ryan has spoken about how it is leading to worse care for the elderly, not better. He want to include them in private plans.
Medicare services and quality of care are suffering. If anything it needs to be increased or replaced. Paul Ryan seeks to replace it. You can’t make the argument that Medicare offers better quality than Private insurance. I find it funny that you would want to make essentially a fully government ran system, essentially medicare for all in consideration of that alone. I find it funny that you would be against elderly paying $6,000 more a year to receive better care. I doubt that $6,000 number as is, but in an effort to be non-partisan I am willing to give you that number which Huffington Post quoted.
Bob, I agree with what you are saying. With the impending cuts to Medicare beginning in 2013 of around 41%, I am sure the doctors and hospitals will be happy about that. Things are definitely getting worse for Medicare services. Also, premiums for Medicare through Social Security and Medicare Supplements will be rising astronomically in the next 2 years. Planet and Libby keep preaching that Healthcare is going to be better under what has been passed. It is nothing but a black hole from which the nation may not be able to recover unless it is changed soon.
August 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Publicus says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“You can’t make the argument that Medicare offers better quality than Private insurance. I find it funny that you would want to make essentially a fully government ran system, essentially medicare for all in consideration of that alone. I find it funny that you would be against elderly paying $6,000 more a year to receive better care.” Bullfeathers! The “better quality” argument is simple – your beloved private insurers would never write a policy on an elderly person with any kind of pre-existing condition, let alone a major problem like heart disease, diabetes or cancer. The premium, if there was one, would be so astronomical that it would be impossible to afford. Or, in our zeal for ideological purity, are we saying it is perfectly proper to make grandma chose between health care and eating dog food? Hospitals are hardly underpaid, especially those run on a for-profit basis. Cut back on the executive bonuses. The same applies to the health insurers – who spend an amount in denying claims and coverage equal to the amount that would be able to fund a single payor system.
August 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Publicus: My mother has such a policy, and seeing as we work in insurance you know you just made an untrue comment. The majority of Americans can buy them. If you’re making the prexisting conditions statment that is a different debate. Most people 60 plus have had insurance for some time, when they move to medicare on the other hand instead of insurance, they are moving to a system which cannot pay for quality heart issue care. Damned if you do, somewhat damned if you don’t in this case. I don’t believe we should get rid of medicare. However, keeping the option to buy more coverage would not reduce the amount of coverage received. Leave the person with the pre existing condition without insurance (the rarity at 60 plus) to medicare. Let the person 60 plus who has insurance get some assistance to keep a plan that gives them better care. Win win.
August 20, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
More importantly: When my mom turns 67 she has every intention of letting go of that policy for free medicare. As things stand now she can either have free coverage, or she can have a good plan.
What is the problem with allowing her the option and benefit to use her medicare funds to buy a better plan?
August 20, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey guys, as much as I do not like Planet’s posts let’s try either thumb upping it or not thumbing at all.
When I come on here I want to see everyone’s post. Especially theirs. We need to know what is driving the divide in more than just “liberal ideals” as a blanket comment. Rebuttals take years to build with people like Libby and Planet. I would rather they duke it out and have some swings then have their comments hidden.
I get thumbed down for everything I post, whether it’s controversial or not. I pointed out that someone was supporting Sarge and Agent’s position and got thumbed down! If they see Libby, it’s thumbs down. That just shows me people don’t vote based on content, only on who posts. So it’s meaningless and we should just not do it.
August 21, 2012 at 10:14 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
See! Thumbs down and I didn’t even make a controversial statement! My goodness, you people are haters.
August 31, 2012 at 10:10 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, Your statement that your mother turns 67 she is letting her health policy go for “free” Medicare is not true. Medicare does charge a premium and it is deducted from Social Security each month. It is less expensive than private policies and the insured should buy a good Supplemental and Rx plan to keep from being devastated by what Medicare does not pay for. There is not telling what Medicare will evolve to when Obama raids it to the tune of $716 Billion to pay for Obamacare. Can anyone say the word “Rationing”? Will there be any doctors left to treat seniors?
August 20, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
More importantly, the reason I do not want them down thumbed is that Planet is technically correct in how medicare is being changed by Obama. I think big picture though, and in the bigger picture we need to allow people the option, especially those on medicare, to get better coverage. This is more important than giving cheap bad coverage. The only other way is to increase medicare spending and revenues to increase the quality of medicare, which Obama has not done. He’s not fixing medicare. That in itself is destroying it at this point. When we give someone the option to get off a failing system, which Canadians quote as harming the elderly, we have two options: Universal healthcare (according to Canadians which is wrong) or paths to get those elderly better care through private insurance. There are no other options.
No time this morning to go into your numbers, Bob. Work to be done and I have to get my daughter at noon. But, I do think you are painting with a broad brush when you say “according to Canadians which is wrong.” I have close friends from Canada who have become US citizens. They have done so because their daughters and grandchildren are US citizens. They want to be closer to their family. One of the things they miss greatly is their Candian healthcare. They did not have to wait for operations or in long lines, as is the notion here. They never went across the border to receive care, except for now of course as they are citizens and live here in Des Moines. The process took them about 6 years and was expensive for them to become citizens. That is the reality of the process these days. They also think our 2 party system pretty much allows us to get nothing done. I’d have to agree.
I’ve made it no secret I’d like to have a single payer program here. I know that’s not going to happen tomorrow, so how about a public option? Can we work that into the conversation?
I don’t go to Huffington Post, by the way. I do look at Politifact and other than that, try to find unbiased sites. Outside of that, I get most of my information from listening to Thom Hartmann (yes, a liberal) but even more so, a local guy here named Chris Bradshaw. I take what I hear and do my own research. I also listen to Glenn Beck on occasion and for some reason, I find Michael Savage entertaining. So, I hear both sides. I’m actually registered independent but obviously currently, lean left. I voted for W. Bush the first term. So, yes, I have voted for a Republican.
August 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet,
The comment I noted as being a Canadian comment was Canadian government and media stated, also, they say it all the time to support their single payor system which they do support. I agree. Now rather than trying to pin an expression on me which labels me as a generalizing person to discredit me lets actually focus on details. If you don’t have time to look into numbers regarding Paul Ryan then don’t make the hate filled comments about republicans being the system and pushing elderly off a cliff as if you have the numbers to know that’s what they are doing. Comments like those are hate comments. As I have said before uneducated hate comments against a person are ignorance comparable to racism. Also, stating this is a republican thing to do away with Medicare is not only the politifact lie of 2011, it is also painting with a large brush, quite literally and falsely.
“Now rather than trying to pin an expression on me which labels me as a generalizing person to discredit me lets actually focus on details” Are you kidding me? You love to pin expressions on people on which to label them. You are the master.
As far as hate-filled remarks being the same as racism. I agree. And you are the biggest offender on this blog. Do us all a favor and just go away, Bob.
August 20, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Again Planet, what is affordable about the Affordable Care Act? You can try all you want and parse words and give the administrations viewpoint and it still doesn’t change the numbers on how much this is costing the taxpayers. There is not enough money in the world to pay for everything Progressives want from entitlements to Healthcare and you just breeze right through it like it is nothing. Oh, I forgot, debt is not important to you and there is nothing wrong with owing $16 Trillion and growing by the day.
I agree, Libby. Also, entitlements are about 8% of the total deficit. Yes, I think we should cut spending and I suggest we look at The Pentagon for a good chunk of it. We were actually charged for fuel for sailboats. What is this, The Lorax?
I do not disagree that the military budget should be cut in at least half, or pre 2000 levels. $600-900 billion is way too much to spend on DOD budgets.
Personally I think the best way of handling this situation would be to make retirement not only based on age, but also your amount in your 401k/Ira/Savings.
Consider the following: The nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington, which has a database of 20.7 million 401(k) participants, reported that in 2009, the average balance for people in their 60s was $162,522. Assume $30,000 a year of living expenses and give them their funds entirely tax free. This works out to 5 years. Rather than raise the age to 70, why don’t we take Obama’s plan from a while back to autmoatically have people invest into 401k’s and have to opt out to a percentage of their income in order to build up a 401k. Then, we can have a clause that at age 65, you can receive social security if you have no funds in your 401k. If you do, then you must wait until they drain or to age 70 to receive it. This way, people at 65 who require the funds will receive it. The next generation will be building a larger 401k. Only the truly in need will receive it at 65. In my mom’s case, she would have to waste darn near $1/m or reach 70 at that point to receive benefits. That would remove 5 years worth of spending for at least 75% of Americans. Considering the social security spending in 2011 was $730 billion that alone would remove nearly $550 billion. Cutting Military would remove about $350 billion. Unemployment spending was $571 billion in 2010. We should at least be able to cut that in half by the end of this recession. That’s another $275 billion. Adding that up would be $1.15 Trillion. Ending our stimulus funds would remove $792 billion over 2 years, or $395.5 billion a year. We are now at 1.57 trillion. We are now at a surplus.
I don’t forsee republicans cutting military. I do see republicans doing the social security method of we go Paul Ryan’s route, as well as ending temporary stimulus and or other temporary funds that are supposedly “helping” the economy. This is the way to go. Democrats will not do this. Republicans, well that depends on the people. Repubilcans won’t do it if people keep reacting like you claiming Paul Ryan is pushing old ladies off a cliff whenever they attempt modifications. I will never support that type of partisan politics, and it’s wrong planet.
On the positive side, when used correctly Obama’s opt out 401k plan is a good idea. Combine it with Paul Ryan and we have the right way to go.
I can’t speak for others, but I plan to use my 401k and pension to supplement my social security income. If I have to use it before I can qualify for SSI, my quality of life once it’s gone will go down.
Also, if people are in an uproar about having to buy health insurance or be taxed, what would they think of the government forcing you to put your money into a 401k? It’s my money and I should be able to do what I want with it.
August 21, 2012 at 2:04 pm
sylvanchick says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I on the other hand plan to use Social Security to supplement my 401K. I have no intentions of relying on Social Security. No one can live on that pittance.
August 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So do you want the government telling you you have to use up your 401k funds before you qualify for social security?
August 21, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
I don’t know if you missed this or not, but I said an age AND an amount. I said if you were out at 65 you could receive funds, from there you have until you are 70. That would raise the age to 70 EXCEPT for people who had no money.
This double tier method does NOT mean you have to wait until you are out.
I even showed you how it would be better with a combo of Obama’s past plan to make it automatic to take part in a 401k program. Again we are back to my section of showing good sections of liberal ideals. Are you arguing just for the sake of it? I have not once seen you try to come up with an idea other than through some other person’s idea from some source you are willing to trust more than thinking for yourself.
Combining a system where you can keep social security at 65 and raise it for people who don’t need it at first is a good idea, and it’s certainly better than an increase to 70 which will happen, whether it’s republicans or democrats.
August 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
If you’re going to comment about how much the rich pay, you should at least know the rich paid more under Bush than they did under Clinton’s tax plan, or any tax plan since the 80’s.
Question the rest of the article’s opinions if you want, the taxes paid by the wealthy went up, not down. Revenues as a whole went down, but that was seperate and clearly not due to the wealthy.
Bob, of course the rich pay more than the middle class. 15% of $10M is $1.5M, 15% of $35,000 is $5,250. My problem isn’t so much that the percentage should be higher, but that the rich have mechanisms available to avoid paying tax on much of their income. Mitt Romney said he has paid no less than 13% over the past 10 years. My question is, 13% of what? With off-shore and Swiss bank accounts, he is avoiding paying tax on at least part of his wealth. I don’t know about you, but when my measly savings account pays me .5%, Uncle Sam wants their fair share of it. I think Mitt Romney, who is campaigning to lead this country out of economic straits, should pay his fair share, too. On ALL of his income.
Libby, you seem to think Republicans are the only rich out there that aren’t paying their fair share. Why aren’t you protesting Kerry who has a fortune of over $300 million? He won’t even pay his yacht taxes in Massachusetts. Many of the leading Democrats are multi-millionaires like Reid, Pelosi, Wasserman-Shultz who have offshore bank accounts and have sheltered their income big time. They are also the biggest tax cheats such as Turbo Tax Tim, our wonderful Treasury Secretary, Charlie Rangel, the chasised but not removed Congressman who has yet to be sent to jail for tax evasion. How much do Democrats give to charity? Romney gives a big chunk to charity. Biden gives less than 1%. You are on the losing side of this argument Libby. The country needs to adopt the fair tax and remove loopholes in the code and those 50% who do not pay any federal income tax should have some skin in the game. The top 10% should not be paying 70% of the taxes in this country.
August 21, 2012 at 10:11 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t think I said all fat cats were Republican, although it does seem that most Wall Street types are conservative as that’s how they build their fortunes off the backs of the middle class working stiff (me). I’m against any wealthy person not paying their fair share, regardless of party. Please do not paint me with such a broad brush.
August 21, 2012 at 10:41 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And just to further my point:
VOTE BY INCOME……………….BUSH………KERRY
Under $15,000 (8%)…………..….36%……….….63%
$15-30,000 (15%)………………….42%……….….57%
$30-50,000 (22%)………………….49%……….….50%
$50-75,000 (23%)……………….…56%……….….43%
$75-100,000 (14%)…………….….55%……….….45%
$100-150,000 (11%))………….….57%……….….42%
$150-200,000 (4%)…………….….58%……….….42%
$200,000 or More (3%)…….….…63%……….….35%
August 21, 2012 at 11:20 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, The only name you mentioned in your post was Romney. That is keeping with your mantra of saying Republicans are the only fat cats around. How about Warren Buffet, the fundraising bundler for Obama? How about Bill Gates who also has left leanings? They make Romney look like a pauper. Buffet has been in arears on taxes with Berkshire Hathaway for nearly 10 years and has an army of tax attorneys helping him avoid paying taxes. Crony capitalists are among the worst at paying taxes and they are affiliated with your President, not Romney.
August 21, 2012 at 11:22 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are not running for president. Mitt Romney is.
August 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
You are talking one man and forgetting that Bain capital as an example pays a corporate tax rate befor Romney receives pay. Let’s say Romney owns 35% of Bain capital, and Bain is paying an effective 20% rate. Before Romney gets his share of the revenues it is taxed 20% which you receive and he does not, then he pays an additional 13%. Then he donates 13%. That is 33% in addition to 13% for charity. Like it or not when a rich man makes most his money from firms he owns the corporate tax rate is part of the tax against the owner’s income. It’s also a tax against your income. When we lowered capital gains and gave corporations tax breaks, as that article showed, revenues thrived. You cannot explain away FDR versus Clinton as tax evasion.
August 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just what does that have to do with him sheltering his income to avoid paying tax? All shareholders are affected by corporate tax rates, rich and poor. That is not what I’m talking about here.
August 21, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My comment had everything to do with it. If your arguement is revenues you will not get additional revenues by raising taxes on the rich. When it comes to offshore accounts I don’t care because Romney is paying an effective tax rate inclusive of his corporate tax rate that is above my own. Not all of us work for corporations. As Obama says, small businesses make up 60-80% of job creators. Corporate tax rates are not fair for anyone in a corporation, Romney included. Romney does pay that corporate tax rate. 1% of 1% of the public make us much as Romney, and studies show that the majority of the 1% do pay a fair rate. Studies also show that the wealthiest 1% earn less under more punitive plans. Some democrats use this as evidence that we should tax more. But under the 70% plan, what people don’t realize is the wealthiest 1% stopped earning past a point. When the wealthy don’t want to earn more, you have less income to tax, when you have less income to tax you have less revenues. This is why the 36.9% rate brought in equal revenues to the top 95%. It was not tax evasion. The amount paid by the rich went up, thus it could not have been tax evasion. The offshore accounts on a one to one basis are thus irrelavent. You say what about the offshore account of Romney, and the few, I say what about the revenues brought in going up. They were projected to go down, and yet they went up. So did the income of the wealthy, but if we all get more revenues as a result I would say that is better than their income going down and them paying less taxes as a result. Read the link I gave you and you will see everything I just said makes sense.
August 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I did read the article in the link. I understand his theories and numbers, but the article was written in 2007 when there was alot of “funny” money and smoke-and-mirrors in the financial world. Yes, the wealthy spent more during that time. We all did.
I am not proposing raising taxes on the wealthy. You say you don’t care about the off-shore sheltering, because of “his” effective corporate tax rate. The same corporate tax rate affects all shareholders proportionately. Yet the smaller shareholders (me) are not able to shelter our earnings. So I do not agree that the corporate tax burden is anymore in addition to income tax for Mitt Romney than it is for me. He should pay income tax on all of his earnings. Period.
August 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
All his earnings, and everyone else’s at the same time.
Good idea Libby! That’s what ends up happening when you have a capital gains rate as well as a corporate tax rate.
He pays his fair share. Sheltering the corporate tax rate is also sheltering your revenues technically, should I count that as your money Libby? You owe a hell of a lot of taxes my friend.
The only sheltered taxes he has is corporate tax revenues, which go offshore and usually are invested into offshore companies, they don’t go back directly to his pocket. As soon as he spends them, they get taxed at American rates. Sheltering does not work indefinitely, it gets taxed. If it isn’t here, it gets taxed in another country If the corporate tax rate were lower, he’d create those jobs here, and those corporations here. You know so little about economics on how this actually works it is insane. Every single person who shelters corporate revenues, and I am saying key phrase CORPORATE revenues, is essentially giving them to another country and business they run, not themselves.
On his income here he pays income on all his taxes. On money he brings back from those companies, that are offshore, he pays that country’s taxes, which they then apply against his tax rates here. Yet another fact that YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF. So other countries are even getting our tax revenues at that point. If it pisses you off, then lower the corporate tax rate, because that’s the only way it’s going to stop. Raising taxes will not fix it. If you want to say make them tax on top of other coutnry’s rates, then you will destroy global economy conidtions and global trade. So what is it that you want Libby? Where is your “big picture” here?
August 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The smaller share holder (you) pays the same capital gains rate.
The smaller share holder (you) and the larger share holder (Romney) cannot shelter capital gains revenues. The revenues he shelters are the corporate tax revenues which go over seas. That is why I intentionally put the corporate tax rate at 20% instead of 35%. If that rate were at 20% instead of 35% he wouldn’t have to shelter it out of country and it would instead be here.
As a side comment: 2 years ago republicans including Romney had a deal with corporations to bring all those revenues off shore (1 trillion) back to America if we made the corporate gains tax rate 15% (still higher than Canada). I agree. Off shoring is bad. So why do you support the President who has not set up a system to keep them here?
Doesn’t Romney also have personal finances in off-shore accounts?
August 20, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Or, if you prefer you can compare the top marginal rate of 95% from FDR, considering it brought in the same as Clinton’s top marginal rate of 36.9 percent. Higher tax rates for the rich do not equate to higher revenues. Both presidents had a 20% of gdp volume.
The economy was worse under Bush, so revenues as a whole went down, but regardless the rich still paid more. See my other link.
Bob, Libby and Planet subscribe to the formula that if you soak the rich by upping their taxes, more revenue will be generated. That has been proven false many times in history. Rich people will continue to shelter their money and do whatever is necessary to protect their assets. Republicans and Democrats have always done it. They can’t get it in their heads that the way to increase revenue is to lower the marginal rates so stimulate the economy by creating more jobs and more taxpayers. This has been proven to work many times over. The problem comes in when there is not spending cuts by government as we saw under Reagan and whatever the revenue was increased, Congress overspent on their disastrous legislation. They will deficit spend no matter how much revenue they have to work with. We now have the problem of fewer taxpayers and more leaches getting benefits, thus a $1.4 Trillion annual deficit which will only get worse unless something is done to put people back to work. We also have only 50% paying Federal Income Taxes. The deficit could be wiped out if we had fiscal responsibility and a fair or flat tax with everyone having skin in the game.
I understand your trickle-down theory of Economics, Agent. I never said up rich people’s taxes. I said quit offering them ways to avoid paying tax on all of their income. You call that “sheltering money”. At least they have some to shelter. The rest of us are living hand to mouth, while they “shelter” their income by avoiding paying their FAIR SHARE OF TAXES on it. Period. Try spinning it as increasing taxes on the poor rich people out there who pay the biggest percentage of tax. THEY SHOULD. That’s how percentages work. And the average income of the 50% you rail against for not paying taxes is $32,396 and below. That’s right. 50% of Americans make $32,396 or less and you think they don’t deserve a tax break? Give ME a break!
August 21, 2012 at 11:28 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I understand your theory of trickle-down Economics, Agent. I am not saying “up” the taxes of the rich. Stop offering them ways to avoid paying tax on their entire income. Rich people will continue to “shelter their money” to avoid paying their FAIR SHARE. At least they have some to shelter while the rest of us are living hand to mouth. The 50% of Americans you rail against make $32,396 or less. You don’t think they deserve a tax break but the rich should be able to “shelter” their income?? Give ME a break!
August 21, 2012 at 11:44 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I understand your theory of Trickle Up Poverty. The Middle Class has seen 25% of their wealth go away in 3 years due to the undisciplined fiscal policy of this government. Wealth for all Americans is created by sound monetary policy and straightening out the tax code so it will be fair for everyone. Redistribution of wealth is a failed theory that will make everyone equally poor. All you have to do is look at all countries that have tried it and failed miserably. It is going on in Europe currently and many of the countries there are imploding as we speak. If you want to eat rice and beans the rest of your life and continue to live from hand to mouth, keep on believing in this failed system and you may just get your wish. The rest of us will continue to pursue the American dream of a better life for ourselves and kids.
August 21, 2012 at 11:48 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, please stop putting words in my mouth to further your political position. I DID NOT say to “redistribute” wealth. I said the wealthy need to stop “sheltering” their income to avoid paying taxes. That is a BIG difference from taking from the rich to feed the poor. I have to pay tax on my gains, why shouldn’t they? I’m sure you’ll have an economically conservative explanation why they should be able to avoid paying the same taxes I have to pay.
August 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, As you admitted in another post, Economics was not your strong suit as it is apparent from your posts. Economics is my strong suit since I have a degree in it and made straight A’s. You believe in failed ideology that takes from the haves and redistributes it to the have nots. The “haves” are what makes this country go around because they are the employers who create jobs so you can earn money to support your family. By tearing them down and forcing them to bear an even greater burden than they are now is ludicrous. The top 10% already pay 70% of the taxes in this country. How is that not their “fair share”? Tax them more and they just shut it down and move their business offshore and liberals wonder where all the business went.
August 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
First of all, they already have shut it down and moved overseas. To make MORE money they can then shelter offshore. I don’t understand why you say it is an unfair burden to make them pay tax on all of their income. The rest of us have to. Why is it an unfair burden for them, but not for the rest of us? You think because they control the wealth, we are all beholding to them and should allow them to gain more wealth and power so they can “take care of us.” No thanks. I’ve seen how they take care of loyal workers and it sucks. Trickle down economics makes sense in theory, but it doesn’t take into account greed. And that, Agent, is what is wrong with your theory.
August 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Just guessing says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This – “Rich people will continue to shelter their money and do whatever is necessary to protect their assets.”
Is what makes the difference. As Rich people shelter their assets, it is often in tax sheltered spending…. Depending on the applicable code at the moment…. SO, if code says hiring US citizens in the us, now receives tax benefit – we will start seeing domestic investing.
Right now with shelters favoring holding, there is no trickling down happening. If the tax rates are upped and shelters are shifted to favor helpful spending, this gets greater benefit than the actual % increase.
August 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Very well said Just Guessing. That kind of remark gets my attention much more than name calling.
September 4, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just guessing:
This idea has been suggested many times by both parties. Obama had the chance in 2008-2010 and did not act.
Regarding repatriation which is what Romney and republicans talked about: There is 1.6 trillion in offshore accounts, as of 2011. The repatriation would be a 5.25% tax, which businesses agreed they would bring all of it back ot the U.S. of A. That’s a lot of money. As things stand now Obama will get zero of that back and Zero revenues, because he allows for a deduction based on payments to other governments for taxes. That will not go away, Obama has already stated that.
The corporate tax rate applies to all revenues. Businesses would much rather deduct all coprorate revenue than just payroll. Your method would only allow them to deduct payroll. The businesses will take the lower tax rate from paying another country’s rate and deduct all their revenues rather than deduct payroll. Unfortunately your plan would not work.
August 21, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
The age will be increased to 70 within our life times. It is inevitable. Both sides have talked about it. By keeping it at 65 and making an amount to have in your account you can make it available for those I’m the future in the lowest income bracket. At first, considering the average amount in a 401k plan is too low it will suck. After 30 years, the next generation with phase two of the plan would be set to an amount, so it would supplement most people. This is better than a full 70 increase. Mathematicians have already worked it out. At this rate by the time 20 years go by it will have to be almost 80. We either do something, or the system fails. And no amount of tax code revision will change that. We have never gone above 20% of GDP revenues even with a 95% top rate. The only other option would be a middle class tax increase for the bottom 50% and I think we both agree that would be unwise.
Bob & Libby, I have read all the posts and bombs being thrown by both of you. Can we please leave the social issues alone. You both have the right to believe what you want. There is not a snow balls chance that Roe v Wade will be overturned or even a serious attempt at it by anyone including Romney & Ryan. The Gay issue will continue to fester and should be sent to the States to decide that. Leave the Feds out of it. This election is about the economy and who can best straigten out the colossal mess made by Progressives in both parties. We have seen one disastrous thing after another by this current administration. Small business where most of the jobs are created are not going to hire or expand operations as long as they have this most unfriendly administration in power. Obama has infuriated small business with everything he does including telling them “they didn’t build that” or “they didn’t do that”. Government is a major hindrance to business and it is much too large and overbearing with its taxation and regulation. We need a common sense approach and need to create 10-12 million new jobs and we don’t need to wait 4 more years to get there. We need to be energy independent and need a plan to get there within 10 years. I am willing to give Romney & Ryan a shot at it since we have a disaster before our eyes currently and it will be more of the same if we let it go.
Bob, there is a very good reason why the rich shelter their money and keep it offshore. If the tax code were not so punitive and if we didn’t have a President screaming at the top of his lungs that they aren’t paying their fair share, we might actually have business investing in America again instead of moving operations overseas. People like Buffet, Gates, Imelt and other big boys have a small legion of tax attorneys at work to limit their tax liability as much as possible and when they have an opportunity to make a buck offshore, they do it. Unlike politicians, they are not dumb. The only answer is a fair or flat tax and everyone should have some skin in the game instead of just half the folks. Couple that with some serious spending cuts in the government and this economy could recover and prosper.
I agree. We should not make it difficult to do business here and then demonize the companies who try to overcome that. These tax areas should be fairly simple to analyze if we stop thinking in terms of democrat and republican. The payroll tax cut path has been done suggested several times due to the ideological youngin’s who want to believe it would work. When one quickly thinks about it like I put above, it becomes clear a payroll tax deduction isn’t going to cut it when another country has a tax rate a third of ours (Canada). You could never deduct enough from payroll alone to make a dent through hiring. You’d also have to make it permanent which Obama has already refused to do when fighting with Boehner. I don’t think it makes any sense.
September 5, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, Have you ever wondered why so many companies have chosen to do business offshore rather than stay here and expand and hire? The answer is really pretty simple. Government in its worst form is an overtaxer, overregulator and labor costs particularly with union infested shops guarantee companies will look elsewhere to do business. Why does GM have 11 assembly plants in China currently and 7 out of 10 GM cars are made there now? Why did Hershey’s Chocolate move from Hershey, Pa to Mexico? Why can’t we buy clothes, shoes, sporting goods from anywhere but China? Our Balance of Payments from these countries is insane. Why, if we sit on the largest reserves of petroleum in the world are we still importing most of our oil from Shieks & Chavez? We simply don’t have any leadership from politicians and our current President has no clue how to get our economy rolling again. That is why we need to change out all these guys on both sides of the aisle until we get a combination which will look after our interests first.
September 10, 2012 at 8:22 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A flat tax will still not help if all the richy riches are sheltering income off-shore. They already supposedly have a higher tax bracket than we do and they are still not paying their fair share because so much of their income is sheltered. But that’s OK with you guys because the poor richy rich have to pay “so much”. Bulls**t!
August 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ah I get it Libby,
3 years of a temporary boom in the end of Clinton’s presidency which had a bust afterward is “real” and 3 years toward Bush’s middle which busted at the end is “fake”.
There is no such thing as 6 years of “fake” government revenues.
Further, had the housing bubble have not popped, none of that would have been smoke and mirrors. None. The stock market would have stayed the same, the revenues the same, etc. The revenues were real. If we had the same tax rate and the same stock market as well as a good economy they would bring in the same.
Libby, It is hard for me to find a place to reply to your numerous posts. The real reason why business is not expanding and hiring now is a real fear that business has of what the government is doing or will do to them in regulations, EPA, tax increases, Obamacare which has created so much uncertainty that business will not do anything until the government is changed out. They also are very offended that your President said “You didn’t build that” or “You didn’t do that” without government help. Government is the biggest hindrance to economic growth in this country. I blame politicians on both sides of the aisle. That is why we will have a big turnover in this coming election. Economic growth can flourish again, but we need a common sense approach and government needs to get out of the way.
August 21, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I hope you are right. (And my numerous posts are in response to a barrage of posts directed at me.)
August 21, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, I take it you agree with me since you said you hoped I was right. A wise man once said – Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The history of this country is rich with all the mistakes politicians have made trying to govern it. We have always come out of it and this great country has always recovered. The current period we are in is the gravest threat we have faced in at least the past 50 years. Economically speaking, if this ill conceived Progressive program is not stopped in November, we will descend rapidly into the abyss of economic doom.
August 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, I don’t know what the answer is anymore than anyone else. I am just tired of all the discord, greed, and gridlock. If you are right about Mitt Romney being the right choice, then I will be behind him. However, I do think Obama to be a noble and honest man and conservatives have done everything in their power to discredit him and ensure his failure. In doing so, they guaranteesd the continued failure of our economy. I find that un-American.
August 21, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My comment just now was not intended to insult Clinton for economics it was strictly revenue oriented. Keep on track Libby. We have booms, we have declines, each effects revenues. It’s the way it works.
You claimed we cannot rely on the tax system numbers because they were from a fake boom. I pointed out we always have booms then declines, it’s a matter of the size.
We should compare boom to boom, and the tax code in both. The tax code in Bush’s boom (which was a worse eceonomy than Clinton’s) brought in more than the boom under Clinton from the rich (which was a better boom). Therefore, Bush’s tax reduction made the rich pay more. Taxing the rich more like Clinton, will result in a decrease in revenues, not an increase. Taxing them like Bush, and continuing his tax plan will result in more revenues from the rich, not less. We already proved that in 2007 before the recession. Consdiering how severe the recession was, it’s amazing our revenues did not go lower than they did.
Get it now?
August 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Clinton went on Lettermen after his wife lost the primary to OBama and said the housing bust was his admins fault. He loosened the rules for lenders to make stupid (No Doc & Interest Only) loans.
August 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I know FFA. For some reason even though Libby claims that Clinton had a part in the collapse, she supports an extension of those policies. I don’t want to take the housing bubble argument with her. Even though she blames Clinton not well versed enough to know why it’s important considering she also blames our economic issues that came from that housing bubble bust on Bush, and tax cuts on the rich. She also has ignored my comments that Obama was the first to trigger CRA regulations to take effect when he started lawsuits in the 1990’s including the 1995 law suit against citibank which started banks into being forced to give bad loans. I’m aware the collapse was democrat oriented. I don’t want to have that debate with Libby a 50th time. I’d rather take an argument on revenues at this point.
August 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby’s done “debating” with you Bob. You take all the fun out of living for me. And life is too short for me to allow that. So have fun arguing with someone else who has a stronger stomach for you than I do.
August 24, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
I’m glad. You’ve lost nearly every argument you’ve had with me.
Revenues and tax increases? You lost. See my corporate tax explanation, showing what happens with offshore corporate revenues. The reason Romney’s taxes as a whole here are lower, is because his taxes in other countries are applied against his taxes here as deductions. You may state add the two taxes, then that will hurt our trade with other countries. If we want all the business here and all the revenues here, we must have a good tax rate here.
Increasing the top rate to 95% in the past did not get beyond a 36.9% tax rate in the 90’s. I think this shows doing the same now will not solve our debt crises, considering the amount of spending will far exceed 20% of GDP by 2020, a point made by Ryan often.
So your tax points are moot.
Your Clinton comments blame him for the collapse, then disregard his responsibility and blame Clinton for the economy overall. Huh? How could something which you admitted existed before Bush be Bush and Republican’s faults?
You honestly thought Osama was killed in Afghanistan. That’s a big one on your credibility.
I would go on, but I think I’ve made my point you don’t know what you’re talking about.
August 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
One thing I do know is you are an egotistical, arrogant, puffed-up little man with a big mouth. You are so busy trying to one-up everyone around you you don’t have no regard for others opinions or feelings. Try treating others with some manners and respect and you may find they respond differently. Until then you can go to hell.
August 24, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If you say so Libby. I am what you say I am.
I don’t tolerate a person like you who starts talking about how the republicans are women hating elderly killing people. When I debate with a woman who takes that style of debate, I will be hostile.
Have you seen me hostile with Agent? We do disagree and have disagreed in the past. I know he does not agree with my 401k comment regarding taking that from Obama’s plan. He knows it too. FFA and I have disagreed in the past as well. I’m not the issue here. In these postings I have been far kinder to you, than you have been to the people you are debating about. When you make an enemey out of the people you’re talking about, surely republicans must all be that way correct? Myself as well?
It’s egotystical and big mouthed to make that argument. It’s also morally wrong. You push, I push back. If your liberal solution here is that you can say people kill elderly, and have a war with women, and those same people can’t call you a moron for believing it and fight back, well then, everyone would agree with you.
Call me names if you want, you have not a leg to stand on for your debating tactics against republicans in this site. You will claim well neither do I. I have no responsibility to treat you failry when your start off method of debate is to call republicans middle class destroyers who are for the rich, screw people over somehow through taxes, have a war against women, are sick, disgusting bastards, etc. You’ve made your opinions there very clear. I have not called Obama sick. I’ve called you sick in the head. I’ve not insulted any liberal politicians the way you do. You come in debating the way you do, you should expect my foot firmly up your rear.
August 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – you attribute things to me that I did not say. That is why I refuse to debate with you. I called the 2 George Bush’s bastards, not every Republican. I never said Republicans were going to war against women. And never, ever did I say anything about killing the elderly. When you take things I say and blow them out of proportion or distort them to support your argument, you are double-dealing and less than honorable. There is nothing wrong with my morals, thank you very much. I suggest you take a look at your own. The way you speak to me is dispicable. You are not my daddy, my professor and certainly not my friend. You have only my contempt.
August 24, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You have contempt because you don’t like that I’m right. You have not even takled about whether or not I’ve been right. Merely how I debate with you.
Moving on: You have agreed with Planet, when he has made those posts. You don’t beileve that Paul Ryan is getting rid of medicare and is resulting in people dying? You don’t believe that lack of a universal plan is resulting in people dying? You’ve not made those arguments here? That is the same thing as what I put above regarding republicans killing the elderly.
We had a debate once regarding partial birth abortion. You clearly agreed with it. You think that not killing a baby from partial birth abortion is a war against women. You commented on it already, you have commented on Romney’s stance on abortion as your reason for disliking him. When you debate that style, you are making the clear statement that republicans are wrong because they have a war against the woman’s body, (which you yourself ulitmately said when we had that debate) and you yourself said people would die due to Romney regarding his and Paul Ryan’s health plans (which mostly involve medicare, so killing the elderly) etc.
Mind rephrasing your comment?
August 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There is no right and wrong. You state some facts. More than likely they are correct. You then extrapolate those facts into the future and say since things worked in the past, that they will work in the present. I don’t happen to agree. I do believe in pro-choice and gay rights. Those are beliefs. Not right or wrong and I won’t debate them with you. I am against any person that would want to take away those rights from women and gays. That doesn’t mean I hate them. It doesn’t mean I think they are wrong. It just means I don’t agree with it and I will vote against it. As an American, I am etitled to those beliefs. My feelings about Bush seem to rub you the wrong way. Too bad. Get over it. They will not change. They are feelings. Something you don’t have much experience with.
August 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What I do love about you Libby is how you perceive people should speak to you.
You seem to think you can throw out wild comments, and that’s just style. As long as you’re hating someone in a stylish way, that’s just great.
But when someone goes hardcore “style” back at you, regarding how your style is filled with “contempt” filled with inaccuracies, and is plain out wrong morally and wrong factually, then you have a cow. How dare I think of you the way you think of republicans. That’s dispicable!
It’s laughable is what it is Libby. Don’t try to back petal on your beliefs regarding republicans, don’t try to back petal on your posts here regarding what you believe their plans would do, and regarding Romney being some tax evading rich guy who wants to assault your body! You’ve said it. I already explained tax evasion in the case of corporate revenues.
You are attempting to believe republicans are evil (or bad, choose your intensity) as a premise for your debate. Oddly enough you want to believe the same as your own as a premise for your debate (your comments regarding Clinton). So your style is “F#@%R@ him, #@%@ him, I hate him, #@%! him, they don’t have any ideas, I hate that, that plan would never work, it favors the rich, #@% that plan, @%@ that plan it would make people die”.
That has been your debate style. I may be over exaggerating but it has been. Paul Ryan offers a solution, and says we don’t have the money for even social security, and then you state you can’t do without it. Well, you have no means to fix it. Tax revenues have never surpassed 20% of revenues, the costs icluding medicare and social security are closer to 40% of GDP just after 2020. How do you surmise we deal with that? Tax increases? You’re living in lala land, hating the republicans who tell you how things are going to be. And they will be that way. Obama’s plans have made no change to stop it.
So you get angry, and you complain, and blame those republicans.
It’s childish. I basically am then forced to treat you like a child. I’m not your daddy. You’re right. So then grow up and act like an adult Libby.
August 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I guess we’ll see in November pal.
August 24, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh. And last time I checked you are not the morality police. I answer to a much higher God than you, Bob.
August 24, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
AH HAHAHAHAHA.
Ok, before I remind you why gay rights you are wrong about, and before I take the debate on how abortion works federally, I’m going to quickly point out we have not debated about those topics here today and I did not list them as things you were wrong about. Universal healthcare was in my list, and you compared gay rights. Medicare was in my list, and you compared abortion?
I talk about very real facts and very real extrapolations. You are the one who takes facts and tries to extrapolate alternate realities. I want specifics, give me a specific of when I have extrapolated, and I will show you how my numbers are, for a fact, correct. The social security? Those are precise numbers. Medicare? Precise. Medicare spending? Precise. Tax revenues? Precise. If we raise taxes to rates which never surpassed 20% of GDP, they will continue to not surpass 20% GDP. You seem to think it will for some random reason. That’s called being “wrong”. It’s not an “opinion” that revenues under Obama’s plan will not surpass 20% and that if they are modeled after Clinton’s will result in a decrease in revenues from the rich. It’s a fact.
The very reason I treat you as a child is your prior comment.
But I will bite on the issues you brought up. I have already pointed out how gay rights has been advocated when done correctly by republicans. I already pointed out the law in Washington State, which was pushed through. The wording originally due to marriage wording and discrimination law being passed separately or together, cause marriage in law to assault religions. Republicans oppose that, and they actually had it modified and passed without that risk. They BELIEF wise BELIEVE being gay is wrong. That’s their opinion that YOU disrespect. The modern republican however, is willing to pass civil unions and to seperate the wording and give gays all the rights as a normal couple. It was rejected because gays want the word “marriage” however using that word opens up the possibility for religions to be sued based on discrimination with “marriage”. If it is given civil unions “seperately” they can never intermix in discrimination. If you are unaware, and oblivious of the force in the liberal movement’s reaoson behind using the word marriage you are a fool. They use it in order to force a religion to accept them. I don’t think morally they have the wrong intentions from their point of view. I do think that common sense says this is wrong.
You fail to see, that is the source of your hate. You just showed what I’m talking about. You believe republicans are anti gay because what, they hate them? They just want to deny them marriage? You are wrong. That is not an opinion.
Regarding pro-choice, those are not the areas we have debated in this article. Regardless, you use those areas to claim republicans are against your body. That’s YOUR opinion. From another point of view, that’s being FOR the baby’s body. Then you hate them for it. In fact, that’s YOUR arrogance. Regardless, I should inform you that Romney and Paul Ryan may be against abortion, and in their STATE law would pass laws against most froms of it, but FEDERAL laws are entirely different (you proved before you don’t know the difference in your comment about Romney’s state healthcare bill versus a federaql healthcare bill). Republicans have only one law they have passed since Bush or pushed for, and that’s partial birth abortion, done 6 months of age or later. It’s not an opinion that this is murder. That baby can survive on it’s own, and they crush the head, while ignoring that the shoulders are the hardest part to birth. If you’re opinion is that partial birth is good, you’re lacking morally.
The moral aspects of the above are opinions. The rest of that is correct, right, whatever you want to use for the word. I know you liberals like to state “right” is a high and mighty word so I’m choosing correct. The details above are correct. And your details, don’t extrapolate a future for this country today or tomorrow, they aren’t correct today or tomorrow, and won’t be.
Revenues won’t be pushed beyond 20%. Social security will not have funding as a result. Social security will have to be changed as well as medicare. Paul Ryan’s plan won’t result in the elderly not receiving care. Universal healthcare won’t save lives. Gay rights are not a FEDERAL republican issue. Regardless, Obama has not pushed any movement for them to date. Don’t ask don’t tell does not count, I’m talking about marriage, which he only just recently supposedly became supportive of. Lowering corporate tax rates will bring jobs home. We already had a deal with 1 trillion of revenues to do so. Raising taxes will send them over seas. We already have a tax rate (which was not from Bush) that has consistently proven this. Some new law won’t bring jobs home. Benefitial tax rates will.
All of these areas are tangible, and I actually have debated with you here. All are fact. When you debate with me, debate what I debate. When you rebuttal, rebuttal what I state.
August 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The morality police?
I cannot believe I have to say this to you…Really…How old are you?
But I’ll say it anyway: When someone tells you something is wrong, it could just be it’s wrong. Just a thought.
Moreover: I have heard people who think they are the end all to morality make that comment, and your goal is to push me off as that type of person?
Who do you answer to Libby? It certainly doesn’t involve facts. Do you know who I answer to? It isn’t god, and not even technically myself. I answer to logic. If I find a flaw, whether I have an opinion or not I go with the logic. If you find that you don’t answer to logic, and something based on the people you are intending to spread hate about, you are lacking moral values.
I don’t have to be the morality police to tell you what you do here and believe about republicans is wrong both morally and factually.
It’s wrong the same way it is and for the same reason it is to make fun of kids in highschool and label them. Just because you believe what you believe about them doesn’t mean it’s suddenly “stylish” to hate on them. Jesus Libby, again, grow up.
I love this style you have!
August 24, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Say What? says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I feel sorry for your kids.
August 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hidden in the recesses of the 2,700 page monstrocity known as Obamacare is a provision that will make it easier for the SEIU to organize 21 million Healthcare workers. A new book is coming out revealing this wonderful news. Since we know how unions have affected cost of everything they touch from cars to other manufactured goods in this country, I am sure they will be able to lower the cost of medical care with their excessive benefits and wage demands. Does anyone believe that doctor’s won’t close their practices when faced with union organizing in their offices? Will hospitals stay in business with these demands? Will medical devices manufacturing keep going with taxation from this bill plus union organizing? Numerous cities are going bankrupt as we speak. Most are in California, but they are also in other places, all because of unions and their retirement packages and wage and benefit packages. They are a disgrace.
Libby, I had hope for you for a moment until you pronounced Obama as a noble, honest man. This man doesn’t know what the truth is even if it hit him on the head. As a Conservative, I tried valiantly to find something I agreed with that he did in the first 2 years. The last year and a half have been confirmation that we don’t need anymore of this. Why do you think so many people disagree with his actions since he took office? I didn’t have anything personally against him, but disagree vehemently on the direction he took the country and it is a total disaster. He is the opposite of what this country needs as a leader.
I am speaking of him as a man. I think he honestly wants to change the direction of the country. How successful he has been is in question. Not his motives. At least as far as I’m concerned.
Libby, I agree with you that he honestly wants to change the direction of the country. He wants to change it to something most of us do not recognize as the United States of America. With everything he has done ruling by executive fiat through 30+Czars, going around Congress, that is not the country I grew up in. Libby, I question all his motives because it is very apparent he wants to install his version of Progressive Socialism. It has not worked in human history by any country that has tried it.
Bob, I seem to remember the last blog where Libby said you were right and she was wrong so just shut up. Looks like she has reconstituted her rage again. She cannot win a legitimate argument since her Progressive beliefs hold no water. Planet is now just resorting to character assassination against Ryan since their side has nothing to offer. The debates coming up should be great theater. I think there is a very clear choice this time. Do we want more of the same which is a total disaster or do we want to give fiscal responsibility and competance a chance? I have had it with Progressives and RINO’s and they just need to go away and let the adults straighten out this mess.
Libby said- ” I do think Obama to be a noble and honest man and conservatives have done everything in their power to discredit him and ensure his failure. In doing so, they guaranteesd the continued failure of our economy. I find that un-American.”
I was going to stop posting but after reading this I had to. I think libby has not been paying attention to Obama’s efforts to:
* polarize the US electorate more than any other president in history.
* play a quasi race card when around minorities. Let’s not forget Joe “They will put you in chains” Biden in that group.
* use a democratically controlled congress to pass the “affordable healthcare act” in the middle of the night without giving anyone a chance to read a bad piece of legislation.
* Not address many promises he made in 2008.
* start a third war with Syria
* alienate our strongest all in the middle east
etc, etc, etc.
I don’t think he is honest or noble. For the first 2 and 1/2 years he had a democrat house and senate so he did not even need conservative support and did nothing but add trillions in debt and fight with the house when it changed sides. Terrible.
Sargent, I am sure you were taken back by Libby’s pronouncement that Obama was a noble and honest man as I was. People of the Progressive persuasion look at things differently than we do and they find no fault with what this man has done for nearly 4 years now. I thought the Carter Presidency would never end since it was so bad. Obama makes Carter look good by comparison. At least Carter was just a do nothing and hope for the best President. He wasn’t a flaming ideologue proclaiming to fundamentally change America into his Progressive dream. He has also been a serial liar and does the exact opposite of what he says. That makes him neither noble or honest.
Libby, If you bothered to watch the Republican Convention, you would have seen the Republicans have a great plan to restore the economy by freeing up the private sector, not punishing success of entrepreneurs and small business. This country needs “JOBS”. Jobs will create revenue to the government and help balance the budget. Government needs to shrink substantially on all fronts and we have to stop borrowing $.40 of every dollar to pay for government. Your President has failed miserably and has no clue how free enterprise works. Clint Eastwoood put it best. You have failed so we will just have to let you go Mr. President.
Sorry, Agent. Didn’t see the point in watching a rah-rah session for a candidate that was already nominated. I will, however, watch the debates and will make up my mind then. I don’t take my voting cues from Hollywood stars.
I’m sorry, I forgot that Economics were not your strong suit. This convention had some Rah Rah to it for sure, but you missed seeing some very accomplished women like Susanna Martinez, G-NM, Nikki Hailey, G-SC, Mary Fallin, G-OK, Mia Love, mayor in Utah and running for Congress. These women all “get it” and all have sterling records in their states to prove it and know that Progressivism does not work. Nikki Hailey won her battle with the National Labor Relations Board and got the Boeing plant in South Carolina and now she has 6,000 proud new employees building planes there. This is how the economy will rebound and your side only thinks about redistribution of wealth and dragging the country down.
August 31, 2012 at 11:43 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You always have to get your digs in, don’t you? Admit a perceived weakness and the opposition just sticks it to you. I’m sure there are many things I do well that may not be your strong suit either. Good thing we are all different or this would be a boring world. Especially one filled with economists! Snore City!
August 31, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, I make no apologies for being strong on Economics and pointing out the fallacies of what you believe in. I am sure you do good work doing what you do, but you are misguided in believing that Progressivism is a valid way to govern this country. Every place it has ever been tried in human history has been an abysmal failure as has been shown by most of Europe and this current government. I am sorry Economics bore you. That is part of your problem since you still cannot see the light. I am glad that some on your side have seen it and realize the error of this belief system. Google Artur Davis, the former black Congressman who was a Democratic Obama supporter in 08. He stated that the Congressional Black Caucus ostracized him because he didn’t go along with their agenda and he was too Conservative to suit them. He switched over and was an eloquent speaker at the Republican Convention.
August 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I believe you are the misguided one. Man does not govern or live for money alone, which is all the conservative economists seemed to be concerned about. There is more to life and governing than making money. Government is not a for-profit industry and can not be run that way. So take your numbers and your corporate bit wigs and shove off. I’m tired of you thinking your way is the only way. You come off as arrogant fat cats concerned with no-one but yourself. I may be a liberal, but I am also kind and concerned with more than making money. In other words, I’m happy. Those that chase endlessly for the all-mighty dollar will never be content or happy. There is always one more deal to make and one more small business to crush under your giant corporate boot. Don’t pretend to look after the little guy or small business. We know what concerns Wall Street and the conservatives, and it ain’t Mom and Pop.
August 23, 2012 at 10:04 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Paul Ryan says he draws inspiration from St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Thomas tells us that private property is not natural, and this can be demonstrated by a simple example: If we consider any piece of land, there is nothing about it according to nature which would make it to belong to any one more than any other (God gave the world to all men). Therefore, no one can claim any exclusive right to any material good by nature. There is nothing in the nature of any particular dollar bill that makes it to be mine rather than yours. (ST II-II, q.57, a.3)
This is the fundamental reason why, if the claim private property comes into conflict with the common destination of goods (i.e. if a rich baker’s claim to the bread in his bakery is challenged by the poor man’s claim to that bread) the principle of commonality always triumphs. Private property is not natural, it is not part of the natural law.
Wow Planet, you had to dig deep for those idiotic statements. I am also very offended that you resorted to name calling. Paul Ryan is as far from being a Communist as a politician can be. I think your guy is a whole lot closer since he is ruling by Executive Fiat, nationalizing industries and doing other things that make the people very nervous. That is why he will lose and it may not even be close come November.
Agent, you take things too serious some times. I just thought it was funny he turns from Ayn Rand to St. Thomas, flip-flopping like the man he wants to serve under. And, I remembered from my Catholic high school upbringing what St. Thomas was really about. Didn’t take too long to put that post together and I didn’t have to dig deep at all. And, most would infer I don’t really think Ryan is a communist. I think most would find the parallel kind of funny and also think Ryan should do a little more research before backing away from Ayn Rand so quickly. Ryan doesn’t draw inspiration from St. Thomas. He draws inspiraction from Supply Side Jesus:
Planet, If you don’t really believe Ryan was a communist, you shouldn’t put it in print. I know you don’t like Ryan or any Conservative since they are all about fiscal responsibility and straightening out the mess that Progressives from both sides of the aisle have gotten this country into. I think I like his positions better than Trickle Up Poverty that your side believes in.
I think Paul Ryan can claim who he draws inspiration from. Not you Planet.
I further know that you cannot claim to know which area of inspiration he takes from St Thomas. I was also raised Catholic, enough to know that you are either not Catholic, or you are one of the ones who is no longer a Catholic and rebelled against it because it is so popular to do so. This may explain some of your comments. No one in their right mind would claim that St Thomas is not inspirational when it comes to philosophical experience who was raised Catholic. St. Thomas cannot sign off on everyone who draws inspiration from him and simultaneously does not share his socialist leaning beliefs. Any Catholic who is rasied Catholic knows the church itself tends to lean toward socialist ideals, whereas republicans lean toward capitalist ideas. Something worth noting is that the primary bulk of Catholics run as Democrats and have for some time due to this leaning. You would do well to remember how FDR won his election. Widely considered to be far and away the largest part is he won over the Catholics to the democrat party using socialist ideals. If your goal is to make the case that the democrat party is socialist, good job at proving it. Paul Ryan though, can choose his party and then choose against it’s socialist leanings by running republican. It’s not even comical the way you tried to portray it. It was a failed idealistic joke. It didn’t even border on to witty humor.
Bob, Planet can trot out his theories all he wants and pretend he knows what is in Ryan’s mind, but he has no clue. Ryan is a fine and decent man who is a sharp cookie and knows Progressivism is a failed concept. I am not sure the Degenerate Party can claim a big majority of Catholic voters since 22 Catholic organizations are suing them over the birth control/contraceptives issue. While it is true that Catholics have voted liberal for many elections, I think a lot of them don’t want the government telling them to provide these services if it is against their teachings. I, by the way am really looking forward to Ryan tearing Hairplug Joe a new one in their debate. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bite Me fails to show like he did in Tampa. He can always feign a sudden illness.
September 4, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
I have a lot of expereince on this one to share. The younger Catholic crowd really don’t care much on the contraceptives issue, the higher ups in the Church have seriously considered issuing a doctrine that would excuminicate Catholics supporting politicians who support abortion due to what they call a crises in the youth going on now. It’s the higher ups starting the suits.
Catholics do switch quite a bit in the elections. Hot items will sometimes cause that to happen. However, when it comes to economics Catholics nearly always support the democrats because they believe money from the more fortunate should go to the less, even when it comes to basic spending. They do not have any issues with taking from someone who earned a better life to give someone who did not earn it a better life. They don’t care for vanilla capitlism. Without some sort of redistribution of wealth they would never vote for a republican. This is why they voted Nixon when he offered affirmative action. This is why they voted FDR when he set up social security and medicare. This is why they voted Clinton when he talked about taxing the rich more. JFK I really don’t know what they were thinking, other than he was a Catholic. It’s normally some sort of social program that gets their attention.
August 31, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, I marvel at how your mind works and how distorted your views are. Almost, but not quite as bad as Planets. Do you really think Government is an industry? I think you have plagerized some of Planets previous posts. Who is being crushed under the giant boots? If you were to ask small businesses, I think the vast majority would say “GOVERNMENT”. You fall right into line with your President who proudly proclaimed to small business – You didn’t build that! You didn’t do that! Actually, myself and several million small businesses in this country in the past hundred years did build that and did do that and did it without help from the government. I, and many others are extremely offended by your remarks. No wonder Bob puts you down so much.
Believe me, Agent. I have my own mind and my own ideas. And while I enjoy Captain’s posts immensely, I did not plagerize his comments. No, I don’t think Government is an industry and that is exactly what I stated. It can’t be run one like one. As for the giant corporate boots, well, just watch out when they come gunning for you and your small business like they have many, many others. Gobbling them up or putting them out of business because they can’t compete. If you think corporate conservatives are for the little guy and small business, you’re out of your mind. But don’t worry, as soon as we have universal healthcare you can get treatment for that.
You may have your own mind and ideas, but they are lost in the sea of Progressive thought which has failed so miserably in this country. The small businesses that generate the majority of jobs in this economy have not failed, government has failed them and this administration in particular has failed them. Government doesn’t create jobs, they destroy them with taxes, burdensome over regulation by a gigantic bureaucracy and it is stifling business. I happen to insure a fair number of small businesses and they all tell me the same thing. They want the government to get off their back so they can hire and grow their business. I know this is a foreign concept to you. You want government to be Big Brother and control and regulate every aspect of our lives and every activity. This country has no chance to recover from the recession and get back on track unless the government is changed out. It will be come November and Progressivism will be rolled back for another 100 years.
You know what’s interesting Agent? You’re right about the ethics, and most young college kids don’t understand.
Here’s the issue: I can have the option to get a 4 year degree and work for Microsoft. If I have a wife working as let’s just say a school teacher the combined income after a few years will be $140,000.
Now here’s the problem for why small businesses don’t start which Planet doesn’t understand:
At that income I could put away $40,000 into stock investments, and then exhaust the $17,000 401k contribution limit for both me and my wife while still being able to pay all the bills for a $212,000 house (sound a little specific? That’s because it’s my scenario). Considering an 8% return rate on both the stocks and the Stocks, my wife and I combined would have 8.5 million each in a 401k, and 6.5 million in stocks, provided we start doing this by the time we are 27 (which I did.). That’s 23.5 million at retirement, and more importantly it’s safe planet.
Now let’s assume I try to start my own business: It’s hard. I have to take out loans. I may not be able to pay back those loans. So I’m more likely to work about 5-10 years and then put in an investment to a company (which is what I did for the board game). At the end of my attempts to start the business, unless I hit it big I will not exceed the amount I would have earned at Microsoft. So why in my right mind would I give up 23.5 million of safe income at retirement when odds are if my business doesn’t do well I’ll make the same amount if I am lucky, with a business that I have to manage the stress of. The fact is: Most people don’t want to.
Most kids would rather just rely on good ol’ going to college and working for someone else. They are perfectly fine with not taking the risk. The majority of young people do not. That’s not contributing to society. That’s relying on someone else to create society and working for them. That is our problem.
We have to be extremely business friendly to get companies going. And by that I would go so far as to say NO count that NO taxes at all for the first 5 years of a businesses operations, and NO count that NO regulations on required salaries while they start or benefits. After the business gets started and has a certain profit ratio then you can put those requirements in. This way youngin’s could help the start up companies who are unable to pay for the insurance, payroll taxes, etc for their employees or higher wages. Right now, we have millions who are not employed. Eating the bullet for a few years with start up companies who can’t give them benefits until they grow is better than no job at all. These youngin’s can take that risk for a company and possibly grow into a good company. Yet another reason why the healthcare mandate harms the economy.
We need to make there next to no possibility at all that a company might fail in the start up years.
September 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, most young people don’t have the knowledge or experience or the want to to start up a business. I worked for a large insurance company as a young man and when they wanted to start transferring me around, I decided I wanted to stay put so I joined an Independent Agency. I worked very hard building up a client base and increase my income and eventually I had the opportunity to buy the agency from the retiring owner. Unlike our progressive friends mantra, I did build that! I did do that! I had no help from the government, but they made sure I had plenty of taxes to pay on the self employment tax, payroll taxes etc. Even though there are plenty of headaches associated with ownership, I would much rather be in the position I am in rather than working for a company and facing a layoff and on the street looking for work. I have friends who were with a company and after 15-20 years, the company had a downsizing and they were caught up in it. We are survivors and will weather this storm and haven’t had to reduce staff, but we sure watch our expenses closely. I have equity in this agency and it should be valuable as the agency grows. The key is getting the economy squared away and more business friendly and we will thrive because we are good at what we do and have excellent insurance facilities.
September 6, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agreed Agent! Part of my note to you sounded like it was intended for you while some was in fact intended for Planet as well.
The caps were for him, not you. Just had to clarify.
I work very hard at what I do. I’d like to not have it get harder the more that I make. Progressive tax systems do not make sense fiscally or morally. They don’t bring in more tax revenues, and they don’t reward people who work. I wish things would change to a fair tax system rather than punishing success.
August 23, 2012 at 11:29 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Trickle up poverty? Huh?
The middle class also took a bigger hit on the pay front. While incomes across all class levels declined for the first time since World War II, the middle class saw the biggest decline, with a median income for a four person household declining to just under $70,000 in 2010 from about $73,000 in 2001, the report said. The median income for the lower class is $23,000 and about $113,000 for the upper class. THE MIDDLE CLASS IS ALSO GIVING UP MORE INCOME TO THE RICH. In 2010, the upper income group took in 46 percent of all income, up from 29 percent in 1970. The middle income group took in 45 percent of income, down significantly from 62 percent in 1970.
A shrinking but more diverse class: Just more than half – 51 percent – of the population was middle class in 2011 compared to 61 percent in 1971, according to the Pew Research Report. At the same time, the segments of the population who consider themselves lower or upper class have grown.
Who is to blame? The middle class blames Congress as the lead culprit for its demise, but blames itself least of all. While 62 percent of middle class respondents to the Pew survey blamed Congress for their worsening state, 54 percent blamed banks and financial institutions, 47 percent blamed corporations, 44 percent blamed the Bush administration, 39 percent blamed foreign competition and 34 percent blamed the Obama administration.
More like trickle-up wealth, Agent.
I kind of want Romney and Ryan to win. Should they, they will screw things up so badly, we may never see those types of policies prevailing ever again. The only problem is, this country will be broken for a long time and it will hurt my daughter in many ways. Especially if she is a lesbian or gets raped and becomes pregnant. Not to mention, just being a woman in general.
Planet, you make my point. The decline of the middle class, particularly is tied to Progressive policies, the sub prime mortgage mess, Obamacare, EPA which is running business off or at least making small business not hire or expand. Fewer workers, more leaches claiming benefits are leading to our demise. The Middle Class has lost 25% of their net worth in the past 3 years. Congress is to blame for their part and your President is to blame for the rest since he has no clue what makes this country work. He says the private sector is doing just “fine” and then insults business that “You didn’t do that or You didn’t build that”. That statement has infuriated business and it is going to take a big bite out of his behind in November.
I’ll give you credit, you sure know how to take things out of context to fit your narrative, Agent. Unless you think Reaganomics is progressive, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this. Even the Washington Generals got tired of the “fix-is-in beat down” they received night in and night out. Trickle down hasn’t worked but for some reason, we keep letting that philosophy prevail. We need to Washington General it and do something else.
I see our youth is fired up again. Something like over 50% of 18 – 29 year olds plan on voting this year. Looks like they are about to Occupy the Polls. I’ll see you and them there.
You are right Planet about one thing. We will not ever see eye to eye on the vision you believe in and what I believe in. Reaganomics as you call it would have worked fine had Congress not welched on their deal to cut spending in return for tax cuts. More jobs were created under Reagan than almost any President in recent history. Tax revenue increased tremendously with all the new taxpayers, but Progressives just had to keep deficit spending and just couldn’t keep their hands off our money. Your Trickle Up Poverty program is destroying the middle class month by month. From the reports I have seen, your 18-29 age voters are dropping by the wayside since College graduates can’t find a job and are living with Mom & Dad. There surely will be some of those OWS crazies out there trying to make trouble, but there are a lot more disillusioned young people out there that just see all the broken promises of this administration and they see their futures going down the tube. They will either vote for a change or not vote at all this time. We will see you at the polls and see who is right.
Quick question: How many wise 18-29 year olds do you know? By wise, I must preface this question with they actually know how things work.
My father hired college students at his work. He loved their book smarts. He hated their inability to apply real world situations. They failed. Daily. He had to correct their work.
Further to the point: No more rhetoric from you Planet. I want your definition of Trickle Up Poverty, and how you think that Clinton keeping the rate nearly the lowest it has been in history was not an advocate of trickle down economics.
When you don’t take all of a rich person’s money, the pay gap appears larger. Taking from them however does not increase revenues, does not increase the middle classes income increases, and does nothing for the middle class. Taking from them cannot increases jobs, while taxing them less can increase jobs.
I want your explanations. No more rhetoric. How do you explain this trickle up economics is occurring? What is your justification for Clinton and pay increasing with a lower rate, which clearly shows at least to the 36.9 percent tax rate, it is more effective than a 70% rate, which proves trickle down economics works. I want your explanation, explaining away how that increase in income happened despite being about half the rate of taxes prior to trickle down economics.
It worked Planet. Clinton benefited from it. Deal with it.
Bob, Don’t expect Planet to “get it”. He hasn’t yet and most Progressives think the only way to increase revenue to the government is by increasing the marginal tax rates. They don’t see that by taxing more actually retards revenue because employers will not hire or expand when their tax bill increases. You get revenue when more taxpayers are created and get them off the unemployment line. You are absolutely correct about the 18-29 crowd who don’t know the basics about how to work, don’t have the drive and ambition to succeed and want to start out at the top. Is it any wonder why they can’t get a job in this society? They want all the benefits without having the ability to get the job done. I have tried young producers and no matter how much training and support I gave them, they just couldn’t produce so we had to part ways. When I was young, I knew I had to bust my butt to support a family so I did it. Young people of today have had everything given to them and their mind is not right on the work ethic.
September 5, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They seem to not understand that a 70% rate, if it actually hits the rich leaves them with only the ability to reinvest 30% of the income they receive.
Let’s ponder that for a moment. 30 cents of each of the job builder’s dollars would go toward building more jobs. If they manage to grow that money from say a start up company to $5,000,000 in revenues, they would have operational costs, payroll, narrow profit margins, and literally practically nothing to reinvest into the economy. This is simple math. There’s a reason why Reagan’s lower rates jump started the economy. Over time people had more and more to invest. It exploded their income, and we had more to tax as a result.
This is why I told Planet who cares if the income gap became greater. They literally have more money, and are giving more revenues than they did with a 70% rate. The poor’s income grew with a 36.9% rate at a higher than average rate, so it’s not the tax rate that determines whether or not middle class incomes increase in line with the wealthy. The only reason it would determine that factor would be if you intentionally suffocate the rich, which as I pointed out above would suffocate the economy when it comes to reinvestment.
These guys just don’t connect the dots. At all.
September 5, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s nearly impossible to say it in a way that makes sense unless you get big picture…That’s why they don’t get it.
My last post to a liberal would make no sense but it’s very clear.
The math:
70% tax rate leaves the wealthy with 30% to reinvest (or less based on operational costs and payroll)
If you hit them with 70% rates, you do lower their income. You also lower their reinvestments and growth. This decreases the pay gap, but it also decreases revenues and economic capability to 30 cents of every dollar or less.
If you tax the rich at 20%, they have 80% to reinvest (minus operational costs and payroll) which they have proven they can grow. After that grows, the pay gap increses, the wealthy have more, the economy grows, there are more jobs, and more revenues.
As an example: If I make a board game which costs $20,000 to make (which I’m doing currently) if I have 80 cents of every dollar to reinvest as I grow larger I will move more money to make more board games or even a graphical online component to expand them further, and hire more graphical arts freelancers to design the cards (do some research into Peter Jackson Games as well as a few others). By the time my firm reaches $5,000,000 – $10,000,000 in revenues my income would likely be above $250,000 and at that point would be taxed past 70%. Now suddenly when I want to design new games, my costs are much higher. They are literally twice as much in cost to make, as I am being taxed at 70% instead of 35%. Morever, I have likely now grown large enough to be taxed at the corporate tax rate of 36.9 percent. As a board game company who pays others to manufacture and design the cards, my tax rate would be the 36.9 percent minus my operational costs. At a size of $10,000,000 my deductible expenses would not surpass $1,000,000 and my payroll could easilly be $3,000,000 as well. This means I may deduct $1,000,000 in costs making my taxable revenues $9,000,000 taxed at 36.9 is $1,500,000 dollars that I could have used to make a new board game or invest into more workers. That is a huge chunk of change considering that my payroll of $3,000,000 minus my costs of $1,000,000 minus my taxes of $1,500,000. I would then need to hire a team to do the websites and the video interfaces with only $2,500,000. But wait! Now assume I made my company public by that time. I’m now receiving capital in order to run the same company. My corporate tax rate would effectively be 15% after deducting the $1,000,000. But wait, if I have gains now those are taxed at the 40 some percent from Obama. Now I’m a $10,000,000 company, paying 1.5 million in taxes from corporate tax revenues, and if $1,000,000 of my company’s received capital public funds were used for an investment resulted in an increase of $2,000,000 in sales I now pay for $2,000,000 corporate revenues at 36.9 percent less deductions, in addition to the 40 some percent on $1,000,000 of gains. Now on that $1,000,000 investment, I’ve paid over $700,000 in taxes assuming the corporate tax rate after deductions maintains the 15% it was above. If it was actually effectively 36.9% I would be paying over $1,000,000 for $2,000,000 in actual revenues. Do the math. You’ll see I’m right.
This is the real world planet. Try coming up with those numbers.
September 10, 2012 at 8:31 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Man, you LOVE to hear yourself talk!
September 10, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yup Libby. That’s what it is. I love to listen to myself talk.
More like I love to put ideas out like a machine. I have heard no self made examples from you. I hear examples from someone you follow, someone you praise, as a source.
The fact is you don’t lead and you don’t know how. You want the entire world to provide for you, someone else will build the business, and you’ll get the education to work for that business, while making damn sure they pay as much taxes as possible for your well being.
Disregard the fact that you don’t want to do the same and haven’t done the same. THEY are the bad guy right? Business makers and corporations? They need more regulations and taxes right? That’ll fix it all!
And while you’re busy throwing out one liners, cliches, etc about how to fix the economy having never owned or operated a business in your life, I’ll continue trying to do my start up business and work the numbers to make sure it succeeds, which as I stated above, the democrats pose a serious threat to that for many businesses.
September 11, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – your above post is full of assumptions. And you know what that makes you. An ASS. I have owned my own business and did fairly well. I pay my fair share of taxes and then some. Because I am married with no children, I pay MORE taxes than you! And I am not using the services paid for by those taxes, such as schools and parks & rec. But I don’t mind paying MY SHARE for society. Unlike you, who begrudges every cent you may have to spend on the community and country in which you live.
I do happen to work for someone else at this time and I am a proven leader and excellent manager. I listen to people, attempt to understand where they are coming from, and motivate them in a way that is meaningful to them – NOT ME. What do you do? Pontificate, insult, and demean. I think the world is much better with people like me in it.
So go on and hear yourself talk. No-one else is interested. You big bag of wind.
September 11, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
Assumed? You “owned” a business, you failed.
I begrudge every cent I give to the community? No. I know how the world works. You believe that everyone who does not share YOUR perception of how the economy works is begrudging taxes because you don’t know how to interpret what I write.
If businesses fail, you fail. If businesses don’t have more money to reinvest, they have less capital. If they have less capital, the economy has less capital. The more you take from a business, the less you have for people. The more you tax, you do NOT get more revenues or services or community assistance for the middle class. I have talked about specifically how everyone would benefit. Don’t be a moron.
I have pointed this out many times. I am all about community and the middle class. And businesses build that.
You failed at your business, and therefore are now relying on someone else. Good to know I didn’t assume. I knew. I could tell in your sob story type of talking. Just like your prior emotional post.
Further: While you state it’s not about YOU you just said that the world is a better place with people like you.
Now let’s just inform you further on this: You’re wrong politically and on the economy. In life issues, I let anyone do, anything they want and inform them in terms of themselves. I very much so doubt that you do. Because it isn’t about me. With economic issues I don’t owe you telling you that you’re right. We don’t tell business owners they are right and buy from them when they are wrong out of pity, which you seem to think we should. You either perform in business, or you fail. There is no “well I feel it should work this way so I should just get business”. I’m sorry, you cannot take an emotional form of advice method (telling someone what they need to hear) and assume you can apply it to business and it will work. Sometimes I need to hear my business plan is wrong. And if I can’t take hearing that (like you) then I’ll go out of business.
You are incredibly condescending and assume people are stingy on the right (proven again in your last comment about my begrudging every dollar lost). The rich give more to society than anyone. Even Mitt gave 15% of his entire millions to society. Bill Gates does similar. The more you take from these guys the less they have to build, whether it’s charitable contributions, jobs, or more money from them to get profit off of. If they invest 3 dollars and earn 6, the government can tax the 6. If they invest 1 dollar and earn 3 then the government can only tax 3. And your man Obama wants to double their taxes. That will bring in equal revenues while ensuring they product less, which is less for everyone. Including you. I’ve said it enough. And I won’t have you attacking my social positions and kindness based on your whack job bull%@#% economics. Maybe if I give you a hug and tell you you’re right your business would have succeeded. Grow up. You failed because you are weak minded.
September 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
If you didn’t catch, in the beginning of my prior post: The fact that you failed makes my comment entirely correct.
I said you have not and will not do it. Meaning you will not build a business that provides for a community. You no longer run that business. You failed. You have not and cannot. Already proven in your failure. Assuming is not even close to why I drew my conclusion. I KNOW you do not know economics. I KNOW you do not know how to run a business. Otherwise my posts would make perfect sense to you, because I do know how these things work. I’m running a real estate rental agency as well as a card/board game company. I weigh costs. I know the effects of these tax plans on the small businesses. I know the effect of making start up costs high. For every additional $10,000 I have I could make $100,000 in revenues on a board game. Obama has every intention of taking between $10,000 and $30,000 from my business. This $100,000 could be taxed at the standard rate, and still bring in more over time than taxing me at a higher rate, and there would be about 2 additional jobs, or projects with me hiring another graphic designer. These are numbers Libby. Get over it.
September 11, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You get over it, Bob. I am not a failure. I chose a different path for my life. I am not “relying” on someone else. I work hard and I’m very good at what I do. You conservatives are all alike. First you complain about the “freeloaders” that want a hand-out. Then you insult others that work for a living by calling them failures and telling them they are relying on someone else because they are weak minded. The arrogance of it is laughable. Where would all these brilliant business owners be without people “relying” on them? No-where. It’s because we rely on each other. So go f*&k yourself. I understand trickle down economics. I understand taxation and regulation. I also understand tax loopholes, write-offs, and off-shore tax shelters. That’s why I am a liberal. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Because of people like you. You are not superior to us weak minded failures just because you own two businesses. I handle multi-million dollar international accounts and deal with CEO’s that could eat you for lunch. None of them act like you. You are one of the most despicable people I have ever had the pleasure of NOT meeting. A hug from you? No thanks!
September 11, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
Your business failed to take care of the community as needed. How many people does your tax dollar take care of? My business takes care of 10. If my business could expand an additional $10,000 of profit to reinvest I could employ an additional 2. Why is this relevant? It’s nothing to do with anything other than efficiency. The government taxing away two jobs makes two people need assistance. This is why raising taxes is harmful. We have the same revenues with a top 39.6 rate that we did with a 95%. You keep talking about how we need to raise taxes. Explain how that makes sense. How will raising taxes increase revenues? The average billionaire makes $106 million a year. There are 403 billionaires in the U.S. Taxing them at 70% (assuming it didn’t result in revenues decreasing to begin with) would bring in 30 billion. Moreover, getting that 30 billion means they don’t have $30 billion to re invest. Think about it, how big do you think 403 billionaires businesses are? If they take $30 billion and earn $60 billion you now have $60 billion to tax at the normal rate. This is why the lower rate of Clinton brought in as much as a 95% rate. NOT tax evasion. Even if the billionaires didn’t avoid taxes as I just showed they would only bring in 30 billion in revenues. This makes you WRONG. Millionaires do not have the ability to offshore revenues to create growth, which is the ONLY reason to offshore. You seem to think magically that offshoring somehow makes it so they never pay taxes. As soon as they spend that dollar it is taxed. It is taxed in the nation it is in. When you say our tax rates are low, why do you think a company would pay our tax rate less a deduction equal to another country’s taxes? That means by default, our taxes are higher. Offshore accounts are not tax exempt from other country taxes and are not exempt when used. You’re a fool with off shoring and have no clue how it works.
I have not once called people lazy in this site. I have said that youngin’s do not want to build a business, they do not do it, and that they rely on college to get a position under someone who built a job. That’s entirely accurate. And it’s entirely telling as to why we have a problem. We need to make start up costs essentially as low as possible. Business costs need to be as low as possible. Obama seeks to raise these costs.
You keep talking about off shore accounts, blah blah. What you don’t realize is off shore accounts only exist because they pay taxes in another country which are applied against their rate here. They are NOT avoiding taxes entirely. Their combined rate is a fair rate. Our tax rate here is unfair. The business is not the enemy, the tax code is. You are cluelss as to how taxes work. Moreover, the 1.6 trillion in offshore revenues taxed at 10% would bring in 160 billion. If we made our rate competitive businesses would bring that money back. Obama refuses. This is not about the crap you try to pretend it is about. I have given you tax numbers. And I am not despicable. In your post you three times made generalizations about republicans regarding bull crap stereotypes applied against me which I have never even come close to stating. I said it is better for ALL to go this route and have given numbers as to why.
September 11, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
1. “You keep talking about how we need to raise taxes”. I have never talked about raising taxes per se. I talk about how the rich do not pay their fair share because they shelter income off-shore. If they are paying taxes to Grand Cayman, that is not tax income to the U.S. That is cheating the American people.
2. “I have not once called people lazy in this site”. Where did I ever say you did?
3. “They are NOT avoiding taxes entirely”. See #1 above. I don’t care if they pay taxes to another country. They are not paying taxes on gains from income generated in the U.S. I understand it is legal. I think it is still wrong.
And your comment about “Even Mitt Romney paid 15% of his millions.” So what? He should! He doesn’t get a pat on the back because he paid his taxes. Any more than you or I do.
You mentioned the government is taxing away 2 jobs. How much is the net tax rate for your business? Or do you think you should pay NO tax?
September 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Screw it, I’ll show you something. Ignore the opinion parts of this article from MSNBC. As I once told you, I use liberal sources to show people how they are wrong.
On a gas cost of 2.33 taxes made up 44 cents. That’s 19 percent, not even including the effective tax rate of an Oil company. No coincidence New York’s gas costs follow that New York is above average in tax costs.
You will probaly claim you have a liberal source stating their effective rate is 17%. And that’s true. In the U.S. As they are multinational, oil companies pay rates in other countries which are applied against the rate in the U.S. Total, they pay what Forbes shows. Over 40%. And Obama wants it to be higher.
So 18% of your gas costs are direct government taxes, and potentially another 40% due to operational costs. This is what we call government driven inflation of costs.
You are completely clueless as to how offshoring works. Oil companies do it more than anyone. They have offered to bring back all revenues for a 10% tax rate. We would have lower costs, and we would have more revenues by doing this. It’s estimated 1 trillion comes from these firms alone with 1.6 trillion total.
September 11, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
1. “You keep talking about how we need to raise taxes”. I have never talked about raising taxes per se. I talk about how the rich do not pay their fair share because they shelter income off-shore. If they are paying taxes to Grand Cayman, that is not tax income to the U.S. That is cheating the American people.
Obama has not stated one plan to stop that from happening. Romney has. You have talked about how the rich don’t pay their fair share. You need to correct your wording then. In this case this comes back to what I’ve been saying: If rates are fair here, companies will do business here. A deduction will not bring revenues home.
2. “I have not once called people lazy in this site”. Where did I ever say you did?”
See your comment where you said I was arrogant like all other republicans who would call people lazy and then would go off on some other tangent. If you were not linking that to me why did you say it?
3. “They are NOT avoiding taxes entirely”. See #1 above. I don’t care if they pay taxes to another country. They are not paying taxes on gains from income generated in the U.S. I understand it is legal. I think it is still wrong.
I don’t care either. I want them to pay taxes here, and for the cost of making goods in the U.S. to be lower. The only way to do this is with a lower corporate tax rate. Obama does not do this. I’m glad you agree Romney is correct. Romney had a deal to bring all this offshore revenue back to the U.S. for a 10% tax rate. Glad that you missed that deal which would have done it for sure. While Obama tries to find another way for 4 years we lost those annual 1.6 trillion revenues for 4 years taxed at 10% which is 160 billion a year or over 4 it would have been 640 billion. I’m so glad you support Obama in that decision because we should just talk about how to bring back revenues, not actually do it right?
And your comment about “Even Mitt Romney paid 15% of his millions.” So what? He should! He doesn’t get a pat on the back because he paid his taxes. Any more than you or I do.
This comment makes no sense. I was commenting that the rich help the community and gave several examples of how. The lower his taxes are the more capital he can build. This is not an opinion. If each dollar he has he can make several dollars off of (which he can, ergo why he is a millionaire) it’s best to keep as many dollars in his hands as possible which will go towards jobs, and actually as his revenues increase so will government revenues.
“You mentioned the government is taxing away 2 jobs. How much is the net tax rate for your business? Or do you think you should pay NO tax?”
You don’t know how to read. I said he will easily add $10,000 to my business costs. $10,000 could make me $100,000 reinvested. It could be a downpayment on another house in Idaho, bringing in an annual $8,400 revenues a year for 30 years. It could give me the money to produce another prototype for a board game which would earn me about $100,000 in revenues. The bottom line is taxes for businesses must be low to ensure they have high profits and thus can expand (thus expanding jobs and the economy).
September 11, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You still didn’t answer my question. What is your net tax rate on your business?
And I don’t necessarily disagree that the corporate tax structure could be redesigned. But I do not agree that an individual business owner should pay any less taxes individually than anyone else. Freeing up income for Mitt Romney by lowering his personal income tax would not create any jobs. Freeing up income for any business owned by Mitt Romney would create jobs. Other than payroll taxes, payroll expense is deductible. So his income is not “double dipped” as you insinuated in another post. Many million/billionaires are no longer business owners. Giving them a tax break individually would only make them richer. It would not trickle down to create jobs. So let’s talk about adjusting corporate tax rates, but not individual tax rates. The rich need to pony up just as much as the rest of us working slobs or put-upon business owners like yourself.
September 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have no idea where you are going with your gasoline scenario. What in the heck does that have to do with what we were talking about. That 44 cents is directly charged to the consumer. It has nothing to do with the oil company paying corporate tax. What was you point?
September 6, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You are right Bob. I have been a big critic of the 2,000+ page tax code for years which is rife with loopholes. Politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to have no interest in reform of the code. They like the Progressive code that increases rates for those who are successful and then they turn around and give refunds to those who pay no federal taxes. It is just crazy. We should have a flat or fair tax for everyone, not just 50% of the folks. My tax bill is enormous and I am supporting too many deadbeats. Enough is enough. We may not get anything done unless their is a taxpayer revolt and politicians should be held accountable and changed out if they don’t get serious about taxation and spending money they don’t have.
Bob, Planet & Libby have a hard time with facts and Libby admitted Economics was not her strong suit. When they are presented with facts and evidence, they just fall back to their factless Progressive nonsense since they mouth the talking points of the left. I think they both live in a cocoon and as long as they are not personally affected, they are most agreeable to the Progressive agenda. It is very easy to see that both have never owned or ran a business and had to make payroll, pay expenses and still try to make a profit somehow. Unlike them, “I did build this” and “I did do this” without government help. It is very difficult in this current environment, but we are survivors. We just need to make sure our government is changed out in November so business can be brought back and we can think about hiring and expanding again.
Agent – quit speaking out of your behind. I have owned my own business. You know nothing about me. I do work for someone else at this time, but all of you big, bad business owners have to have someone to work for you or YOU WOULDN’T HAVE A BUSINESS. We pay taxes too. You are not the only one in this country asked to pony up and pay when it hurts. So quit pointing fingers and bellyaching all the time. Progressive are people too and if you’d stop trying to sterotype me and put me in class with people you’ll never know, you might see I am not completely one-sided. Unlike you. No – economics is not my strong suit. So what. You bring that up in every other post. Just because economics is your strong suit doesn’t mean you opinions or beliefs are any more important than mine. That is arrogant and pompous. Watch out. You are sounding more and more like Bob. And that is NOT a good thing. Be a conservative economist. Fine. But don’t blanketly insult me and my opinions because I do not agree with all of yours. That is ignorant and very narrow-minded.
You are right about one thing Libby. I don’t want to know or associate with Progressives or listen to their name calling bluster when they are caught in a distortion or untruth. I am not a big, bad business owner. I am a small, good business owner who is very upset at what is going on in this country. The Progressive agenda is ruining the greatest country on earth. We will not be brow beaten into submission by people who think they are the smartest in the room and want to control, regulate and tax us all to death. We are in the beginning stages of a taxpayer revolt and politicians on both sides of the aisle had better beware because their days in office are numbered. What are we, less than 60 days before everything changes? I look forward to the adults stepping in and fixing the wrongs.
September 11, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, I see you and Libby are mixing it up again. I have a news flash for both of you. Some of our Progressive politicians like Jesse Jackson, Jr. among others are now proposing a 35% hike in the minimum wage to help the poor workers up to around $10 per hour. While it sounds good to help poorer workers, it is estimated to cost 786,000 jobs in the economy because small business will have to lay off workers to stay in business. This is just the opposite of what needs to be done to create jobs in this country. I had to laugh at another article about the Pizza store owner that gave Obama a big bear hug when he came to the store campaigning. Now, his store is being boycotted and he may not last long with little or no business. I wonder if Obama will bail him out.
“I look forward to the adults stepping in and fixing the wrongs.”
And it’s the Progressives who think we are the smartest people in the room??? That’s hilarious, Agent. I’d think you were kidding, but I remember you have no sense of humor.
Libby, I guess you don’t listen to your leaders very closely or you would hear how pompous and arrogant and downright stupid they sound. Your President famously said to Republicans at the famous Blair House meeting on Health Care – “We won, you lost”. He took none of their suggestions on how to fix healthcare and later said they could get on the back of the bus because he was going “forward” with his plan. This is just one of his smartest man in the room statements. He also thinks there are 57 states and we have Army Corpse Men. Does that sound like the smartest guy in the room? I know you think he is brilliant, but if his teleprompter were taken away, he has a tough time thinking on his feet.
I do think Obama is brilliant. (You may not like his politics, but please don’t try to say the man is not smart.) He made a few gaffes and probably chose some words poorly, as well. I doubt Romney is without his share. I don’t want a rich, white, corporate goon running the country. Sorry. Here is his corporate credo at Bain Capital:
I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation. … The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors.
Great motto for the President to the United States!
And here is his record as Governor of Massachusetts:
Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts promising more jobs, decreased debt, and smaller government. Here’s what Massachusetts got instead:
•Jobs: 47th out of 50 states in job creation
•Taxes and fees: Increased by $750 million per year
•Long-term debt: Increased more than $2.6 billion
I have decided he will not get my vote. See you at the polls!
September 11, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The only thing Obama is brilliant at is dividing the country along class & race and negative campaigning because he has absolutely no record of achievement to run on. The country has seriously declined and the middle class has seen 25% of their net worth go away. He is running business into the ground by taxation and over regulation and the threat of Obamacare looming on the near horizen. By the way, you should check the record of Duvall Patrick, the current governor of Massachusetts. Romney looks like a choir boy compared to how Patrick has governed. Romney did have a balanced budget and their schools were ranked at the top in the nation. They run a big budget deficit now and have declined noticeably under this Progressive Democratic governor.
August 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’ll vote for whom ever can get the job done. This guy from WI got was part of the crew that got the job done up there. OBama certianlly has not. Time for change – again! Jobless rate still too high. Taxxes too high. Health cost too high.
FFA, You and I see with clear eyes what needs to be done. Unfortunately, Planet & Libby have cataracts and can’t see what is right there in front of them. They actually think Obama is honest and noble. Perhaps their mom accidentally dropped them on their head when they were a baby to believe that nonsense. We have to stay the course and make sure we get the idiots out of office in November.
Hey FFA, I am sure you are in rapture that your esteemed mayor will be speaking at the Degenerate Convention. They have quite a line up of Pelosi, Reid, him, Jimmy Carter on video, the wicked witch Debbie Wasserman Shultz, among others of the same ilk. Top that off with 2 hours of Muslim prayers by their Imam brotherhood to open it up and it promises to produce a negative bump of 5-10 points. I am glad I have plenty of movies to watch next week.
You are right Bob. Progressives will never connect the dots because they don’t understand Economics and what makes the world go around. They are so invested in their ideology or Keysian theory or both, they have cataracts over their eyes. Frankly, I am surprised that any businesses are started up these days because the challenges are daunting, banks are hesitant about lending money even with a good business plan. Many fail in the first year despite all their sacrifices. We watch our expenses closely and watch our gross vs net profit and compare to last year at the same time. If something is out of line, we have to address it and make the needed adjustments. We are survivors and we mean to survive these times as well. After 30 years in business, I have not seen challenges like this even during the Carter years and that was bad.
Good try Bob! What you don’t realize is that the Progressive mind is one track. Punish success by taxing more! You didn’t build that! You didn’t do that! You haven’t paid your fair share. Never mind that you created jobs and more taxpayers. We want 70% of your money to fund our social programs. What, you say you will have to lay off people if we tax you more? Why can’t you just be satisfied with a pittance left over from your hard work? Bob, these are their arguments and it is useless to point out the errors of their ways. If I were Planet’s employer, he would be one of the first I would let go in a layoff because he doesn’t believe his employer should enjoy success.
THE PAUL RYAN SELECTION
The Koch Brothers Get Their Man – (from The Stone Zone)
I’ve waited a few days to lay out my analysis of the selection of Paul Ryan for the VP slot on the Romney ticket. Unlike politicos like Dick Morris who bad-mouths the selection privately and shills for it publicly, I’ll tell you what I really think. My sources tell me David Koch played a key role in Ryan’s selection and that Koch’s wife Julia had been quietly lobbying for Ryan. The selection was cemented at the July 22nd fundraiser Koch held for Romney at the former’s sumptuous Hamptons estate.
Koch pledged $100 million more to C-4 and Super PAC efforts for Romney for Ryan’s selection.
The upside of Ryan’s selection is clear. Romney, distrusted by party conservatives, won’t have to worry about his right flank or the base throughout the fall as John McCain did, theoretically leaving Romney free to seek independent swing voters in the middle. The downside is Ryan may be so tattooed by the Democrats for his “extreme” positions that Romney’s ability to win these votes may be limited. The shift of the debate from jobs and the economy to entitlement funding is not beneficial to the Republicans as it will allow the campaign to play out on the Democrats strong suit issue.
Meanwhile the idea of Ryan as a radical is laughable. Ryan put forth a budget proposal which did nothing to curtail Social Security and military spending. His famous budget allows the deficit to continue to grow. Ryan has worked almost his entire adult life (the last twenty years) cashing a government check in D.C. Ryan supported the auto and bank bailouts, voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2008 and for increasing the debt ceiling in 2011. Ryan voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002, keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely, against withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Balkans in 1999 and for the authorization for use of military force against Afghanistan in 2001. He also voted for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act in 2006 and 2011 and for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which allows the federal government to arrest and incarcerate a US citizen without bail, charges or a trial.
The idea of Paul Ryan as a libertarian is a joke. Ryan is a big government, Washington DC Republican who votes to fund foreign interventionism and the erosion of our civil liberties. Ryan began his political career as an acolyte of one of my heroes, Rep. Jack Kemp. Yet Ryan has wandered far from Kemp’s genuine concern about the poor and disadvantaged. Ryan has become more of a faux deficit hawk and less of a pro-growth proponent.
Then there is the question of Ryan’s clothes. I’m not sure if he gets his threads from the Salvation Army or the Goodwill. His suits are too large as are his dress shirts. He appears to be wearing a plastic belt. The Romney team should enlist supply-side guru Larry Kudlow to coach Ryan, not on economics but on how to dress. Shortly after his selection, Ryan headed to Las Vegas to kiss the ring of Las Vegas Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Problem is Adelson keeps his ring in his back pocket!
So, Planet, still up to slash and burn posts since your side has nothing to offer that will actually help the country. Your downgrading of Ryan cuts no ice with me. This man has a degree in Economics unlike your President and Biden. He has a fine family and the right values and actually has ideas that should be tried since Progressive ideas are the reason why the country is $16 Trillion in debt and has declined substantially in the past nearly 4 years. I look forward with relish to see his debate with gaffe a minute Hairplug Joe. I think the folks will see a stark difference in their viewpoints and Biden will be revealed as the lunatic that he is. Is this the best you got criticizing his wardrobe? I recall that Democrats critcized Sarah’s wardrobe saying Republicans were spending too much on her outfits. At least it wasn’t taxpayers money that was being spent.
Let’s look at what Paul Ryan has actually done and then compare it to what he says. He has requested funds from government to “create jobs” but then says “government doesn’t creat jobs”. He recently asked congressman Akin to withdraw from the Senate race in Missouri because of what Akin said about rape and abortion yet it exactly what Paul Ryan has statedin his attempt to get legislation on anti abortion passed and the Republicans have now put it in their platform. Could go on but this should be enough to show he can’t be trusted.
Another example of the need for Tort Reform that was left out of the oBumba Care – see the article of the knuckle head suing the Dallas Cowboys for sitting on a hot bench.
And yet, Obumba (and every other law maker for that matter) ignors the obvious.
You sue me and lose, you pay every nickle out of my pocket and then pay me what you were looking for out of me. See if that gets health care affordable.
I’m just a small business man and I can figure that out.
Hey FFA, most of us with brains all know the Trial Lawyers are among the biggest bundlers/contributors to the Obama campaign. That is why they didn’t put Tort Reform in the bill and the lawyers all know he will continue the gravy train for them if he is re-elected. Gee, I wonder why Obama and his wife gave up their law degrees if they like the lawyers that much.
Suppose Libby is an unemployed Lawyer? Hows your college degree working out for you these days Libby? Tired of the same old same old???? OBama isnt the answer for jobs. Hes proved it over the past three years. Sis in law losing her job she has been in since High School cuz she dont want to move to the Mid East. Daughter In Law lost her job since High School cuz she dont want to move to Mexico. Obama did not bring it on, but he sure could have stopped it. Instead, lets put more taxxes out there and by the way, increase Health Care Cost Dramatically. Lets not address one of the driving forces of the cost of it all – TORT REFORM!
OBama has done nothing for our country. Granted, he inherited a mess, but we are a bigger mess now then we were under Bush. Damn Dumberthencraps. Damn Republicans! Damn, another election of the lessor of two evils. This ship is sinking.
The GOP are SCUM- Why do we pay for and allow our legislators to enjoy benefits they deny us ??? we need to make them have the same Healthcare(and retirement) benefits they want us to have- watch how fast tey change their tune. Also- why do we allow them to keep their benefits after being convicted of a felony ? Tom Delay has his ! We, the people, are all at fault
Wow what a great article. Now we know the real source of poor policy. I thought BO care robbed $700 billion from medicare and then said it was deficit neutral. Other question, why are we paying for BO care now and the benefits have not taken affect? Also how is it possible that a govt with $16 trillion of debt can insure 20 million more people and subsidize those making less than $50,000? If BO care is the saving grace for this country,why has my premium doubled and my deductible went from $100 to $2500 for the family during his tenure?
Since I’m on the subject of increased prices, why has milk and gas prices doubled in the past three years and the value of my house decreased?
I am not saying either party is right. However I do know that BO stinks as President and his policies are wrong for this nation!
Do you even know why $716 is coming out of Medicare? If you don’t, you should look it up and then make a comment.
$716B – sorry.
Yep, to pay for obama care to subisidze the welfare state he wants where everybody is dependent on the Government.
And your point is?
That’s a no brainer, Captain. It’s to cover the cost of Obamacare. Just like a liberal to think everyone else is stupid.
You really have to love the Republicans and their ideas of “choice” and “efficiency.” Penalize financially anyone who commits the “sin” of being ill or having a serious medical condition because the health insurers are going to cherry-pick, leaving those less than medically perfect to pay egregious premiums for minimal coverage, at best. Take away the working person’s negotiating advantage of numbers present in the employer-provided health insurance model. Why not just herd anyone over 65 into camps and be done with it?
Thank you Mitt Romn…I mean, Rupert Murdoch for choosing Paul Ryan. The weinermobile driving, zombie-eyed granny killer. Evidently, he wants to add more Americans to the list of those he’d like to off. And to think, if it weren’t for social security (a government program mind you), Mr. Ryan might still very well be driving that weinermobile. Pretty awesome that Ryan’s favorite band, Rage Against The Machine, issued a cease and desist order against him, telling him, “You are the very machine we rage against.” Ouch!
Planet, I think your brain has atrophied or you have beginning Alzheimers and your attack on Ryan is in step with your wonderful leaders campaign. Let’s see, Romney is a wife killer and Ryan is a granny killer. Cute! You conveniently forgot to stay on topic and give a reasoned comment. Perhaps you forgot a key component of Obamacare which will raise the tax exemption threshold from the current $7,500 to over $10,000 for healthcare expenses. This bill has 7 new taxes in it for the middle class and somehow Ryan is the bad guy for wanting to fix the problem.
Um, I’m pretty sure it’s Obamacare that has a provision that allows doctors/hospitals/insurance companies to deny treatment to people who are elderly or terminally ill… Tell me again, Planet – who’s the granny-killer???
There is no provision in Obamacare that denies treatment to elderly or the terminally ill. That was a false statement made by Sarah Palin about “death panels” that was categorically not true. It’s amazing how many people actually believe it, though.
It’s not the “death panel.” It’s verbiage in the law that indicates that treatment needn’t be administered if the patient had no chance of recovery. There’s a difference. The “death panel” rumor stated that even chronically ill patients with a chance of recovery would be denied coverage. When this joke of an administration denied that they were telling the truth – there’s no death panel provision. What you’re evidently unaware of is the difference between chronically ill and terminally ill.
You’re welcome.
I think yours is a distinction with no difference. If no recovery is possible, what treatment would be needed???
Libby, there very much is a difference. Terminally ill patients are those who are dying. Chronically ill patients are those who have long-term illnesses which are managed by medication, diet, exercise, etc. Diabetes is a chronic illness. Hodgkins lymphoma is a terminal illness. Do you understand the difference now?
PS – The reason I hadn’t responded is because I’m busy moving… My husband is out of work because his employer is considering shutting down completely to avoid being penalized by Obamacare, and we can no longer afford our house payment. However, because we’re married, I’m working, and all of our kids have the same daddy, we don’t qualify for public assistance. Go figure.
I would be interested to read that part of the law. Let me check it out and I’ll get back to you.
…None of these comments are relevant to anything, or any fact, in any way, and sounds a lot more like a highschool click insulting a nerd to feel better about themselves.
This is the very reason I mock the heck out of you and Libby. This style of comment is not appropriate at all. Debate their plans. Not their character.
I did not debate her character. What she said did not support her position. In fact, it made no sense. I asked a question for her to clarify, and big surprise, she did not respond.
If anyone attacks character, Bob, it is you. You have called me every name in the book and I find it totally unnecessary. We are all adult here and entitled to our opinions. Attack my “stupid” comments or “false” facts if you like, but not me. You sure are the pot calling the kettle black!
Libby – did you see my response? It’s not that I didn’t bother; it’s that I’ve been rather busy.
And your inability to understand the difference between a chronic (aka long-term) and a terminal (aka fatal) illness is what makes no sense.
I understand the difference. No need to be insulting. I did not understand your post. And yes, I will check out your statement and get back to you.
She was busy being victimized by OBama. Right?
Libby,
First of all, child, I was taking to planet’s disgusting comment. Second of all I call you stupid because you act like a highs school kid and your facts are nearly always incorrect. Third of all you are in need of being called what you think of and call republicans.
You are in need of a huge sock in the face, professor. What an arrogant piece of work, you are. You are the one with disgusting comments, including the one above. Just who do you think you are, other than a pompous ass that probably has no life because you are too busy trying to one-up everyone around you. I’m sure you have no friends and will die alone and lonely.
You do not get to waltz in, and then accuse me of attacking character because I go after your B.S. and then pretend like you don’t do that with politics against others. It’s wrong. Deviating the topic doesn’t change that.
I am not arrogant, I’m confident in how to deal with little snot nosed kids like you. Grow up please. You run in here stating you may hate bush but you have Style! Then you proceed to insult him like a grade schooler. I proceed to insult you in kind. If you kind take it, don’t dish it out. You keep claiming how I’m the source of all this but again: When have you ever, once, on this post seen me say anything close about Obama in comparison to what you say of republicans and Bush? I insult you for your b.s. and rightfully so. I say his plans suck, and then I give an alternative. What is surprising, is that you don’t know many of these plans and then insult republicans for not having solutions (mocking their character as no idea people when they have plenty you just don’t agree with). It’s foolish. I don’t claim democrats don’t have ideas and have a war with anyone, women, gays, whatever. You however talk about this war all the time. It is partisan, and it is childish. It is arrogant, it is wrong. Now can we debate politics for once, rather than listen to your biased rants regarding what is wrong with republicans and the rich?
Maybe then I won’t insult the hell out of you.
Good to see Romm and Ryan are busy attacking those nasty tax loop-holes of the super rich like tax deductions for health insurance and mortgage interest. At least you have to give Ryan credit for actually putting the plan out there in the open. How despirate are these guys? Actually giving specifics? Not a winning strategy in today’s politics.
Hey, it’s a Reuters article. Reuters is as slimy as MSNBC.
“Many conservative policy experts favor the tax credit idea, in the belief that making consumers pay more of their healthcare expenses will curb health cost inflation.”
How does shifting more costs to me help curb the cost of health care inflation?? What does one thing have to do the other? Agent, your the economist out there. Explan that to me, please.
Libby, there are too many factors involved that contribute to healthcare expenses/cost. The more complicated the world is, the worse it gets. Had Obamacare addressed Tort Reform, that would have had an impact on cost because doctors and hospitals have been hosed on Malpractice claims for years. If insurors had been allowed to sell across state lines to create competition, that would have reduced costs as well. Neither one was addressed and we are stuck with a 2,700 page Progressive dream. Do you remember the President saying he would not add 1 cent of new taxes to the middle class? We only have 7 new taxes added to the middle class in this bill including raising the threshold for deduction of expenses on your return? Do you think that will help you or curb the rise of healthcare costs?
None of the tax increases in Obamacare would affect me in the least. Now, they do affect the wealthy and corporations which of course as we know, trickles down to affect me. That’s the only thing that trickles down. Any addtional tax/cost burden on the rich trickles down to the middle class. That’s why the middle class is shrinking. The rich get richer and the rest of us are screwed.
Are you dirt poor, Libby? Cause I’m lower middle class and I’m already feeling the pain of Obamacare every payday.
What Obamacare tax implications have directly affected your paycheck Sylvanchick? Maybe you ought to check out the taxes before you respond. Unless you make over $200k, uninsured, or a corporation or health insurance company, there are no additional taxes for you. Of course if making under $200k makes me dirt poor, then yes, I’m dirt poor.
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758
My husband’s employer is going out of business to avoid being penalized by Obamacare. We’re moving in with my mother. There’s the pain. I realize that in a ghetto socialist society there’s nothing wrong with this… but in my world losing one’s home is a high price indeed to make sure the “less fortunate” have health care they don’t have to pay for.
Your husband must work for a health insurance company or a large corporation that does not provide health benefits. It’s a little early to close down because of Obamacare, considering most on this blog seem to think Romney will win in November and repeal it. Maybe the company just wasn’t doing well as a whole?
In any case, I understand your pain and am sorry for your loss. I have had my wage cut by 2/3 over the last 5 years and am no longer able to have the standard of living I once had – including health care. But that had nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with greedy Wall Street types that profited from others misery.
No, he works for a GC who employs 150 people. He’s cutting back to 50. He’s never been able to afford to absorb the cost of health insurance, and the few times he’s offered it via payroll deduction no one has signed up due to the cost.
I checked on chronic illness and Obamacare and according to the Obamacare website, it is covered.
http://obamacarestories.com/show/post/chronic-illness-youre-covered/
If you have another source that says otherwise, please let me know.
And another:
http://workingwithchronicillness.com/2012/03/is-obamacare-good-for-you/
I think you might be mistaken about chronic care not being covered under Obamacare. The only changed is a cap on flexible spending accounts.
OK, you’re still confused, Libby. Chronic illness is what the death panel rumors said wouldn’t be covered. Terminal illness is what’s in question here. If I have Hodkin’s lymphoma, which is terminal, I will likely not be able to get the chemo treatment to extend my life under Obamacare. If I have diabetes, which is chronic, I will be able to get treatment under Obamacare.
I can find no source that confirms this. Do you have one that is credible?
When was the last or first time anyone asked the doctor, how much is this going to cost, then called another doctor and asked the same thing. This is what is missing. We all check prices on other goods and services we buy and that’s what really fosters competition. Until everyone that buys health insurance starts asking for prices from the providers and shopping around, nothing is going to change, except the continual creep towards government control of our lives.
Are you in the insurance business? Do you always sell the lowest price? I don’t necessarily want to go to the cheapest health care provider. I want go to the best. If you start pricing health care like stereos or groceries, it’s the beginning of the decline in the level of care you will receive. They will have to lower costs somewhere. Like using needles more than once. Or not bothering to sterilize the equipment each and every time. That’s a really slippery slope.
I am in the business of insurance. I sell the best coverage a client can afford, which most times is not the best. We all want the best of everything, but we do not have the right to confiscate money and property from others to get the best of everything for ourselves. That’s how it is in a free society. You get to have what you work for, not what someone else worked for.
Since all doctors are licensed by the government and held to government standards, there really shouldn’t be much difference in care. The difference in cost could come from where the doctor is located and how much the doctor wants to make. Again, there’s that freedom thing we are supposed to be having in America.
Dave in KY – that’s spot on! I don’t want what I didn’t earn, and I don’t want anyone else to take what I did earn away from me!
Excellent point, Libby! Of course, I do work with some agents that claim it’s all about price. They don’t seem to perform as well as the others that sell value-added services.
Great point Libby! It makes you wonder what they are going to do with medicare patients. The government paid less before and doctors limited the number of medicare patients they would take. With the huge decrease written into BOcare, what will be there next move. At least with Ryan’s plan, there was no impact to those currently on medicare or will be on medicare in the next 10 years. Then the changes will come. I have time to prepare. My parents who are on medicare today, don’t have time to prepare for the changes in BOcare
Question everyone. Do you not like what I said, or did I state something wrong? If I’m wrong, let me know. If I’m right and you don’t like it, then you also need to decide if BOcare is the right choice.
Obamacare’s medicare cuts come mostly from the provider side. The benefits themselves don’t change. In fact they are adding preventive care at 100% and closing the gap in coverage for rx drugs. Ryan’s plan (with the same $700B in cuts) changes medicare to a voucher system that some say will not be able to keep up with inflation. I’m not well versed on where his cuts are coming from, though.
Oh, by the way. $700B is only about 10% of the entire cost of medicare. Obamacare is not “gutting” the system as some people would have you believe.
I disagree with you, because cheaper doesn’t always mean worse. I have shopped pharmacies as of late and it is amazing the difference in price, but absolutely no difference in service. There is nothing wrong with calling and bartering with doctors over price. Especially if it is for something that is not terminal or chronic. But if you are a one and done kind of gal, I’ve got a car I can sell you. :) It’s the BEST car you will ever have and it will be worth not shopping. Promise!
Well, if you choose your health provider the same way you buy a car – more power to you!
All right, next time you’re having a heart attack, make sure to call around and get the best deal. Extreme example, I know. What abuot people who live in rurual areas that don’t have many options? It’s simply not realistic to think people are going to shop around for care, especially when the need is immediate. And for those stuck on the “death panels” (sylvanchick and Agent), that was Politifact’s #1 lie. Maybe you should try birth certificate or college transcripts or something else. If you throw enough crap, maybe some of it will stick, eh? Besides, the Romney/Ryan Campaign doesn’t want to get all wonky with details.
I hope they get, (if I understand the term correctly) “Wonky” with the details. The lack of details gave us the worst president in the history of the US! That includes Carter and he gave away the panama canal
Lack of details gave us George Bush – exactly! He won because of Daddy.
Wonky isn’t my term. It’s what Paul Ryan used:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/paul-ryan-to-brit-hume-i-dont-want-to-get-wonky-on-you/article/2504970
Lack of details, lack of intelligence, lack of military service, lack of integrity, lack of truthfulness… I could go on, but it’s Friday afternoon and I’d be here until Monday morning.
Nice – all of Libby’s “lack-ofs” can apply just as well to Obama as they do to Romney or Ryan. Hmmm…
Hardly! Obama is very intelligent. Bush was a big dumbass.
One thing is for sure. Your Manchurian Candidate was not vetted properly before 08. Thank George Soros for funding him all the way and we know what a nice guy he is. Obama is not qualified to run a lemonade stand and there he is trying to manage the largest economy in the world doing all the wrong things. Is it any wonder that small business is rebelling after he told them they didn’t do that and they didn’t build that? People are waking up big time now and we may have to thank Chick Fil A for standing up and being counted. I can’t even get into my local Chick Fil A for the crowds now.
You will take better care of yourself if you pay more instaed of the current mentality of I will just get fixed if I get diabities or obese.
What is missing from this argument is that doctors don’t get to decide what they charge for a procedure. Health insurance companies tell the doctor what they will reimburse him or her for a certain procedure.
If you have BCBS health insurance and a sore throat, it doesn’t matter what doctor you go to. BCBS will reimburse X amount of dollars for a strep throat test regardless of who the doctor is.
Healthcare is not a supply-and-demand free market.
Stephen,
That is back to the original point that if people had to pay out of pocket for sore throats, BCBS would be out of the equation. Looks like most of the replies on this are from people who really don’t understand what freedom, liberty, free market and individualism are. Seems a lot of people think they are born here and automatically have a right to the best of everything. Nothing is free. Government money comes from taxpayers, so all this so called free stuff is coming out of someone elses pocket. What a world we are now living in where everyone will be entitled to everything regardless of work ethic, risk appetite, perserverance, and individual desire and motivation. I am done here.
I want the best possible care I can afford. That does not mean the lowest price. It does not mean the highest price. That is one purpose of insurance carriers; to set rates for procedures so you may have the “freedom” to choose your health care provider without worrying you will bankrupt yourself or get treated by some schmuck. If I had to price every little procedure, test, lab work I might need I’d be in the nut house. Now how much would that cost??
I wasn’t going to comment further, but Libby the Liberal stooped again to the same old I don’t really have an argument so I going to call someone a name thing. Facts always get in the way of liberal arguments. Facts like current administration records: most deficit created by one president, longest stretch of 8%+ unemployment, highest unemployment for minorities, largest number of people on foodstamps and welfare programs, largest expansion in government, largest % of government spending of GDP. Name one federal government program that has worked…ever. Answer is there are none.
And yes, you should consider nut house, or grow up and help the rest of us get the government out of the way. Good day!
Dave, you are making a valiant effort, but it is no use with Libby and Planet. They are ingrained with the Progressive solution to everything and don’t listen to reason. Myself, Bob & Sargent Major tried to reason with them in the last big Healthcare blog and they resort to blaming Bush for everything gone wrong in this country and nothing Obama and his cohorts is bad or ill conceived. The only explanation is that Progressivism is a disease and they both have a terminal case of it. They don’t worry about it since they think it will be a covered condition.
Dave, Libby & Planet do not care about our economy and the devastating effects of Obamacare on the citizens. They don’t care about $16 Trillion debt, they don’t care about all the additional taxes if it doesn’t affect them personally. They don’t care if the middle class net worth declined by 25% in 3+ years. They don’t care if unemployment keeps going up as long as they have their job. They certainly don’t care about small business which is suffering at the hands of this oppressive government and they are all for increasing every entitlement being offered to the ne’re do wells. In short, Progressives just don’t care what most folks care about and that is fiscal responsibility and restoration of the greatest country in the world. I like your last suggestion. She and Planet both need to be admitted to a mental facility for the permanently impaired. Perhaps their health coverage will pay for a number of treatments. I recommend shock treatments to change their brain waves.
Help me out with this one. I always thought the price of healthcare was determined on a macro scale by doctors and insurance companies at very high levels. But now that I think about it that would be the same as unions, maybe it is. How does it work? Don’t tell me insurance companies drive the price without input from doctors unless you can provide support.
Stephen, the demand will be a lot greater than the supply when a large amount of doctors close their practice because of Obamacare and all the red tape and regulation and lower reimbursement hits them. Rationed care will be the norm. You are right about what Health carriers pay doctors. Whatever is billed is discounted in a network. If the carriers paid what hospitals and doctors billed, they would have already been broke. However, doctors and hospitals will be paid even less under the new guidelines of Medicare & Medicaid. That is one reason so many are thinking of giving up. Why would they work twice as hard for half the money?
Say what you will about the ACA. I just rec’d a check from BCBS of TX for ~ 9.2% of my annual premium for 2010 because BCBS of TX did not meet the 80/20 threshold. That is the first premium reduction I have rec’d on my (personally funded) heath insurance in over 12 years. I anticipate another return of premium from BCBS of TX once the calculation for 2011 is made. I suspect,however, cannot be sure that most of the people who are complaining about ACA receive it via employer subsidized programs. For the 25% of us that have to buy this coverage on our own, the provisions of the ACA phasing in looks pretty good. I know for a certainty that my Texas congressman will not be rejecting his Cadillac, government provided, health insurance.
Captain Planet said- “Lack of details gave us George Bush – exactly! He won because of Daddy.
I say I disagree. The lack of detail gave us Barry Soetoro/Obama, an unqualified, Chicago community organized who had no experience except a small bit (like 6 months) in the Senate where he failed to make any committee meetings.
You are right Sargent. This man was not vetted at all in 08 and had no qualifications to lead this great country. I knew we were in trouble early in the campaign when he told Joe the Plumber that we needed to spread the wealth around. That is classic Progressive Socialism. Now that he is getting vetted, the Progressives don’t like it much. Many of the liberals are distancing themselves from him. Even Newsweek has come out and said Obama must go. Obama has lied himself into a corner and all he will do is personal attacks because he has no record of achievement to run on.
Add the Washington Post, a noted in the tank newspaper for Obama for coming out with an article admitting a giant mistake had been made in 2008. That is quite an admission for them. I wonder how many more will follow in the coming weeks. He may be down to MSNBC, Media Matters and Moveon.org as the only support by the time the election rolls around.
He is an Illnois Politician that cut his teeth in Crook County under Blago
Who in their right miond expected anythng differnt?
That should be “community organizer”
Libby said
“Obamacare’s medicare cuts come mostly from the provider side. The benefits themselves don’t change.
Obama’s cuts payments to hospitals, doctors etc. What is wrong with that? The quality of health care goes down for all. It is estimated that as many as 1 in 6 hospitals could fail with these cuts. Just like the two inner city hospitals have in my area. Those hospitals were primarily medicaid/medicare hospitals and some non paying walk ins. The hospital has to pay nurses what they themselves call “combat pay” to get nurses and the quality of healthcare is not good.
So, with less money and less payment, hospitals will reduce the number of Cat and MRI machines so that the one or two they keep will be busy all the time. That means it will be like Canada- people there die before they can get a CAT scan or MRI. Their alternative= They cross the border into Michigan and get the tests done.
Great plan Barry- you idiot
Libby Said- ” Ryan’s plan (with the same $700B in cuts) changes medicare to a voucher system that some say will not be able to keep up with inflation. I’m not well versed on where his cuts are coming from, though’.
Well Libby let me help you. I have done a little research and it was confirmed on Meet the Press Sunday. Here you go:
*Mitt Romney will put the $716 Billion Obama cut back into Medicare. The reason- Quality of healthcare for seniors and NOTHING changes for seniors now on Medicare- NOTHING.
* The voucher system does not go into effect until 2023. That is a little over 10 years from now and is designed for currently younger US CITIZENS.
* When 2023 gets here, people who decide to retire can take the vouchers or stay on traditional medicare. It is up to the individual.
As for me personally, if I were younger and maybe even now, I would take the voucher system and opt out of Medicare. Why, the quality of care will continue to deteriorate under Medicare.I will take the voucher, buy my own, better plan, and get better care and leave those who want a government plan to have it.
Now what is wrong with Romney/Ryan plan versus a dumbing down of quality care for all under Obama’s plan?
“Most Republican lawmakers want to repeal that law, which they derisively call ‘Obamacare.’”
That’s what it’s called on the White House web site, genius.
Read the post Al. We are talking about the difference between medicare plans, The Romney plan and the Obama plan, call it Obamacare (who cares what it is called)as it is in the post (fourth from the bottom including this post) and yes, it should be repealed- genius
I think he was commenting on a paragraph in the article that made that statement…
Yes, that is what the Supreme Court said – it must be repealed. Oh, wait…
Sgt, still waiting for an answer, is President Obama a US citizen?
“I think he was commenting on a paragraph in the article that made that statement…”
Yes, thanks for your reading comprehension skills Libby. They are not shared by all herein.
Obooba took $70B out of Medicare. There’s no denying it. All of it would have gone to providers, meaning that there is less money there for providers, meaning that people will have to leave Medicare and go to OboobaCare if they want treatment.
Seems almost like a plan.
See, Sarge & Agent? Al’s on your side.
“As far as hate-filled remarks being the same as racism. I agree. And you are the biggest offender on this blog. Do us all a favor and just go away, Bob.”
Wrongo bucko. I love how you attempt to twist things so often, as if you believe yourself quite the clever person who can balance the world through your small concepts and make us all the same. Yes Libby I am clearly so very much the same as you, it’s me! Let us point fingers when all else fails and scream eh? I speak specifics dear, and comments like that do not fly with me. So let’s talk specifics.
Unedcuated comments and thereafter beliefs regarding someone’s character that are based on those uneducated comments which are filled with hate are the same as racist. Now, if you can point out one comment I’ve made about Obama that has been similar to believing he is pushing the elderly off a cliff, regarding medicare, or that those bastards are taking advantage of the U.S. and sending the world to war based on one man (which is impossible) and said “that man is the machine we rage against! SNAP!!” then you would win this debate against me. Have I hated against Obama? Hell no.
Now on the other hand, I have called you many names for your idiotic comments, filled with hate, as a result of your comments therein. If you do not understand why this is different you are the one who can go away. I have not included any comments calling Obama a bastard. Not one. I have not commented on his war with Libya being a self serving war that no one agrees with. I don’t agree with the war with Libya. However, I do not try to connect Obama with some Libya leader or enemy of Libya and then try to state he manipulated the public to go to war with Libya, while ignoring every fact that says otherwise all the while screaming about how much I hate Bush. I have not called him a liar or trickster to get us on Universal Care. I have instead said Universal Systems are bad. You look like an idiot when you claim I’m making hate filled comments because I happen to make you feel bad about your seriously ridiculous beliefs and hate against republicans in this blog. And I make a point of calling you out and insulting the hell out of you until you realize it is not ok.
First of all, your hate-filled comments are all directed at me. And, yes, I do view them as hate-filled. To call my ideas or comments stupid or asinine is one thing. To call me those names is hate-filled and just downright ugly.
You can make no such statements about Obama and Libya because they are not true. That is why you can not make them. I have provided many sources that support my comments about Bush and I stand by them. Do I hate Bush? Maybe. I think he, along with Cheney and his other cronies, is the one that started this country on the downslide it is on. I am entitled to that opinion and all the “facts” and numbers you throw out will not change that.
You are hate filled towards me because I will not “realize” that Bush was a wonderful president. That, dear Bob, is the epitome of childishness.
Kiddo, I smack you in line for running around screaming. You smack a kid, the kid hits back.
I’m reacting defensively, you are reacting offensively. If I were hate filled, I wouldn’t be doing this dance with you. I’m basically educating you it’s wrong. I bluntly don’t think you are an evil person. Do you hate Bush, maybe. Do I hate you? No.
My comments regarding you are harsh and with good reason. Wake up calls. You keep focusing on trying to state I’m some guy who mistreats the world. Then why do I not hate Obama? Why have I commented some of his ideas should be done? You’ve not done one comment to do with Bush that is the same and Boy howdy have I baited you. The Roth Ira comments, the tax deferred tax exempt IRA plans for the middle class, you refuse to admit they are good. This is the type of behavior which divides and destroys America.
Also: You are wrong regarding Bush with Iraq. And I’m getting sick of hearing your conspiracy theory hate filled comments regarding it. If your mind is so hate filled against Bush that you can state the democrats just didn’t know any better, and they totally went to war at Bush’s word despite Bush having more fights with congress than anyone in modern history other than Obama, then you are a hatred filled person justifying things just to hate Bush. Disagree with the war if you want. The reason we went was not for oil, it was not to siumultaneously complete his daddy’s war, it wasn’t because we were in bed with Saudis and Bin Laden at the same time. Do you have any idea it is to state any one of those, let alone all? They contradict Libby! You get something from people you are in bed with. A $50,000 dollar investment is not getting something. Similarly, I don’t believe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in bed with Obama, despite him getting the most donations from those companies which were bailed out. They clearly thought they would benefit from giving Obama money. But that does not mean Obama is tied with them. Similarly, the Saudis thought they would benefit from giving Bush $50,000 for an investment. They would get money. Guess what? They probably did. This is not however a connection. If you’re going to imply it’s a connection hold your president to the same standard.
Old man, smacking a kid in the back of the head is the last way to get him to listen and learn. It may keep him in line out of fear, but you will not be respected, listened to, or heard. I have harsh words for Bush. They may seem hate filled, even. And I may be barking up a conspiracy theory that isn’t true. It is my opinion. You keep bringing it up, not me. I agree to disagree. You, on the other stubborn hand, will not. It’s not getting us anywhere.
I bring it up Libby because of the fact that you scream it in these posts, and then I basically smack you up side the head.
No Libby, the old man smack on the head is absolutely necessary.
My father was a liberal, I have mentioned this before. I grew up thinking that Jimmy Carter was great, FDR was great, etc.
I have 6 siblings. Guess how many of them became better people without a smack upside the head? Pay attention Libby, every highschool kid who got into drugs, marijuana, relied on an injury for income, welfare, etc. It’s big where I live. Every single one of them has the mentlity that getting smacked up side the head is bad for them. They need support in order to find their way. Do you know how many do? Considering I was raised religious I was taught if someone needs something you give it. I am very active in my community when it comes to helping people. At the base of every single failure, is a father or mother who refused to tell a kid definitively that something was the way it was (not a literal smack up side the head, I mean a reminder that you are not the shit and you are indeed wrong). Being told you are a dumbass is a necessary part of life, one you don’t know how to handle.
Regarding your “opinions” when they bark up conspiracy theory and tie in for all republicans, they are not only wrong in theory, they are wrong morally. Again: I have never once made anything close to the arguments you have against republicans to democrats.
And further, you look like an idiot when you say “I have not called him a liar or trickster to get us on Universal Care.” His plan is not a universal health care plan, it still uses the open and free market.
And we did not “go to war” with Libya. We had a military intervention which lasted only 5 months. Get YOUR facts straight.
Ah yes, when it’s Clinton Bombing Iraq or doing “military” operations which result in deaths it is “a military operation”. When Obama goes after a military leader, Ghadaffi and targets him for death to “aid a country” it’s a “military pure” action.
When Obama targets a more dangerous leader, Saddam, it’s “War”. Symantics Libby. You know what I meant. My facts are straight. Don’t act like a smart ass with me or we will start debating like we did before, and it won’t be pretty.
I mean when “Bush” for the last one.
Why are you the only one allowed to act like a smartass?
Libby,
Get over the “unfair” aspect of debating. I was sarcastic after you made a comment that was absurd.
It doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. It doesn’t mean I’m a bad person.
You seem to get mad when someone points out that you should be logically consistent. Unfortunately Libby, you can’t point out to someone that their logics are incosistent without appearing condescending. So, you show them exactly how it is incosistent. In that circumstance, there was no better way to show you how incosistent you were.
OMG, Libby…you are relentless!! You epitomize the fact that liberals cannot keep their mouths shut unless the other person shares their exact ideas/myths. Suffice it to say that people on my side of the aisle will never agree with liberal progressive agenda…never. No matter what your mythology is, you cannot argue the fact that our country (MY country anyway–not the country the way you liberals see it or want it to be)is and has always been, since 1776, based on open, free, capitalistic markets. A government of the people, for the people, by the people. I don’t want to the government get so big that it dictates every thing I do, where I go, how much money I can make, whether or not I can go to my own doctor and not some government appointed doctor on the day that I want to go and get the treatment that I need, how many children I can have, etc–because you know we’re headed in that direction if Obama gets reelected. My question to all liberals is this: WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU ALL GOING TO WAKE UP??!?!?!!
I have no more posts than the right-wing conservatives on this blog. Just because you guys are the majority within the insurance industry doesn’t mean I should just shut up and let you “guys” rule the roost. Not happening. So keep baiting me and I will keep posting…
Where did you get your informatin Al? Every report I have seen is that around $717 Billion was taken out of Medicare to fund Obamacare. Can you say “rationed care”for the seniors in this country?
Actually, it’s not to fund Obamacare. The $716B number is explained in the following taken from Politifact:
The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?
First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.
Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.
What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.
Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.
Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries’ coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient.
Under the new law, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. So claims that Obama would “cut” Medicare need more explanation to be fully accurate. In the past, we’ve rated similar statements Half True or Mostly False, depending on the wording and context.
Because Medicare spending gets bigger every year, the cost-saving mechanisms in the health care law also get bigger. Also, it takes a few years for the health care law’s savings mechanisms to kick in. In fact, the effects of time are the main reason the $500 billion number has turned into $700 billion.
The CBO determined in 2011 that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimate released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.
So it’s timing that’s making the cuts bigger, not changes to Medicare.
Good try Planet. You seem to feel the need to write a book to justify this dog and pony show. Everytime Obamacare is scored by CBO, it goes up tremendously, the latest scoring by $1.4 Trillion. Wasn’t the first cost proposed around $490 Billion over 10 years? It is now projected to be $2.6 Trillion with no end in sight. I ask you, what is affordable about the Affordable Care Act? Affordable for whom? Certainly not for the country which is running a $1.4 Trillion annual deficit without even calculating in Obamacare.
Agent, I copied and pasted from Politifact and it is directly in response to your fabrication the $716B is pulled from Medicare and reallocated to funding the PPACA. That is not true as you can read from my post.
I believe I have even read that Huffington post article. Do you read any sources that are not the liberal left equivalent of Fox News? It’s interesting to note that I would recognize the article at sight of it, which shows be comparison, one of us does much more balanced research. I bet you have not seen the counter article to this article from Forbes.
Moving forward: Vouchers for private insurance aren’t about cost. They are about coverage. As things stand now, Paul Ryan has shown that Medicare results in a decrease in quality in comparison to a private plan. In fact, Canadians often cite this as a reason to go national, because people on our medicare plan can’t pay as much as private, and often receive worse services as a result. I won’t go into the full argument as to why that argument is incorrect, but let’s just say I’ve researched it. In this case making medicare more cost effective, rather than giving an option for vouchers limits the elderly’s access to better quality care, and that on it’s own is technically cutting medicare. Besides dismissing that, giving a higher amount rather than reducing the overall cost could be spent on medicare increases to keep up with rising costs. Paul Ryan has spoken about how it is leading to worse care for the elderly, not better. He want to include them in private plans.
Medicare services and quality of care are suffering. If anything it needs to be increased or replaced. Paul Ryan seeks to replace it. You can’t make the argument that Medicare offers better quality than Private insurance. I find it funny that you would want to make essentially a fully government ran system, essentially medicare for all in consideration of that alone. I find it funny that you would be against elderly paying $6,000 more a year to receive better care. I doubt that $6,000 number as is, but in an effort to be non-partisan I am willing to give you that number which Huffington Post quoted.
Bob, I agree with what you are saying. With the impending cuts to Medicare beginning in 2013 of around 41%, I am sure the doctors and hospitals will be happy about that. Things are definitely getting worse for Medicare services. Also, premiums for Medicare through Social Security and Medicare Supplements will be rising astronomically in the next 2 years. Planet and Libby keep preaching that Healthcare is going to be better under what has been passed. It is nothing but a black hole from which the nation may not be able to recover unless it is changed soon.
“You can’t make the argument that Medicare offers better quality than Private insurance. I find it funny that you would want to make essentially a fully government ran system, essentially medicare for all in consideration of that alone. I find it funny that you would be against elderly paying $6,000 more a year to receive better care.” Bullfeathers! The “better quality” argument is simple – your beloved private insurers would never write a policy on an elderly person with any kind of pre-existing condition, let alone a major problem like heart disease, diabetes or cancer. The premium, if there was one, would be so astronomical that it would be impossible to afford. Or, in our zeal for ideological purity, are we saying it is perfectly proper to make grandma chose between health care and eating dog food? Hospitals are hardly underpaid, especially those run on a for-profit basis. Cut back on the executive bonuses. The same applies to the health insurers – who spend an amount in denying claims and coverage equal to the amount that would be able to fund a single payor system.
Publicus: My mother has such a policy, and seeing as we work in insurance you know you just made an untrue comment. The majority of Americans can buy them. If you’re making the prexisting conditions statment that is a different debate. Most people 60 plus have had insurance for some time, when they move to medicare on the other hand instead of insurance, they are moving to a system which cannot pay for quality heart issue care. Damned if you do, somewhat damned if you don’t in this case. I don’t believe we should get rid of medicare. However, keeping the option to buy more coverage would not reduce the amount of coverage received. Leave the person with the pre existing condition without insurance (the rarity at 60 plus) to medicare. Let the person 60 plus who has insurance get some assistance to keep a plan that gives them better care. Win win.
More importantly: When my mom turns 67 she has every intention of letting go of that policy for free medicare. As things stand now she can either have free coverage, or she can have a good plan.
What is the problem with allowing her the option and benefit to use her medicare funds to buy a better plan?
Hey guys, as much as I do not like Planet’s posts let’s try either thumb upping it or not thumbing at all.
When I come on here I want to see everyone’s post. Especially theirs. We need to know what is driving the divide in more than just “liberal ideals” as a blanket comment. Rebuttals take years to build with people like Libby and Planet. I would rather they duke it out and have some swings then have their comments hidden.
I get thumbed down for everything I post, whether it’s controversial or not. I pointed out that someone was supporting Sarge and Agent’s position and got thumbed down! If they see Libby, it’s thumbs down. That just shows me people don’t vote based on content, only on who posts. So it’s meaningless and we should just not do it.
See! Thumbs down and I didn’t even make a controversial statement! My goodness, you people are haters.
Bob, Your statement that your mother turns 67 she is letting her health policy go for “free” Medicare is not true. Medicare does charge a premium and it is deducted from Social Security each month. It is less expensive than private policies and the insured should buy a good Supplemental and Rx plan to keep from being devastated by what Medicare does not pay for. There is not telling what Medicare will evolve to when Obama raids it to the tune of $716 Billion to pay for Obamacare. Can anyone say the word “Rationing”? Will there be any doctors left to treat seniors?
More importantly, the reason I do not want them down thumbed is that Planet is technically correct in how medicare is being changed by Obama. I think big picture though, and in the bigger picture we need to allow people the option, especially those on medicare, to get better coverage. This is more important than giving cheap bad coverage. The only other way is to increase medicare spending and revenues to increase the quality of medicare, which Obama has not done. He’s not fixing medicare. That in itself is destroying it at this point. When we give someone the option to get off a failing system, which Canadians quote as harming the elderly, we have two options: Universal healthcare (according to Canadians which is wrong) or paths to get those elderly better care through private insurance. There are no other options.
No time this morning to go into your numbers, Bob. Work to be done and I have to get my daughter at noon. But, I do think you are painting with a broad brush when you say “according to Canadians which is wrong.” I have close friends from Canada who have become US citizens. They have done so because their daughters and grandchildren are US citizens. They want to be closer to their family. One of the things they miss greatly is their Candian healthcare. They did not have to wait for operations or in long lines, as is the notion here. They never went across the border to receive care, except for now of course as they are citizens and live here in Des Moines. The process took them about 6 years and was expensive for them to become citizens. That is the reality of the process these days. They also think our 2 party system pretty much allows us to get nothing done. I’d have to agree.
I’ve made it no secret I’d like to have a single payer program here. I know that’s not going to happen tomorrow, so how about a public option? Can we work that into the conversation?
I don’t go to Huffington Post, by the way. I do look at Politifact and other than that, try to find unbiased sites. Outside of that, I get most of my information from listening to Thom Hartmann (yes, a liberal) but even more so, a local guy here named Chris Bradshaw. I take what I hear and do my own research. I also listen to Glenn Beck on occasion and for some reason, I find Michael Savage entertaining. So, I hear both sides. I’m actually registered independent but obviously currently, lean left. I voted for W. Bush the first term. So, yes, I have voted for a Republican.
Planet,
The comment I noted as being a Canadian comment was Canadian government and media stated, also, they say it all the time to support their single payor system which they do support. I agree. Now rather than trying to pin an expression on me which labels me as a generalizing person to discredit me lets actually focus on details. If you don’t have time to look into numbers regarding Paul Ryan then don’t make the hate filled comments about republicans being the system and pushing elderly off a cliff as if you have the numbers to know that’s what they are doing. Comments like those are hate comments. As I have said before uneducated hate comments against a person are ignorance comparable to racism. Also, stating this is a republican thing to do away with Medicare is not only the politifact lie of 2011, it is also painting with a large brush, quite literally and falsely.
“Now rather than trying to pin an expression on me which labels me as a generalizing person to discredit me lets actually focus on details” Are you kidding me? You love to pin expressions on people on which to label them. You are the master.
As far as hate-filled remarks being the same as racism. I agree. And you are the biggest offender on this blog. Do us all a favor and just go away, Bob.
Again Planet, what is affordable about the Affordable Care Act? You can try all you want and parse words and give the administrations viewpoint and it still doesn’t change the numbers on how much this is costing the taxpayers. There is not enough money in the world to pay for everything Progressives want from entitlements to Healthcare and you just breeze right through it like it is nothing. Oh, I forgot, debt is not important to you and there is nothing wrong with owing $16 Trillion and growing by the day.
There might be enough money if we change the tax code that favors fat cats and taxes the middle class until we are choking.
I agree, Libby. Also, entitlements are about 8% of the total deficit. Yes, I think we should cut spending and I suggest we look at The Pentagon for a good chunk of it. We were actually charged for fuel for sailboats. What is this, The Lorax?
I do not disagree that the military budget should be cut in at least half, or pre 2000 levels. $600-900 billion is way too much to spend on DOD budgets.
Personally I think the best way of handling this situation would be to make retirement not only based on age, but also your amount in your 401k/Ira/Savings.
Consider the following: The nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington, which has a database of 20.7 million 401(k) participants, reported that in 2009, the average balance for people in their 60s was $162,522. Assume $30,000 a year of living expenses and give them their funds entirely tax free. This works out to 5 years. Rather than raise the age to 70, why don’t we take Obama’s plan from a while back to autmoatically have people invest into 401k’s and have to opt out to a percentage of their income in order to build up a 401k. Then, we can have a clause that at age 65, you can receive social security if you have no funds in your 401k. If you do, then you must wait until they drain or to age 70 to receive it. This way, people at 65 who require the funds will receive it. The next generation will be building a larger 401k. Only the truly in need will receive it at 65. In my mom’s case, she would have to waste darn near $1/m or reach 70 at that point to receive benefits. That would remove 5 years worth of spending for at least 75% of Americans. Considering the social security spending in 2011 was $730 billion that alone would remove nearly $550 billion. Cutting Military would remove about $350 billion. Unemployment spending was $571 billion in 2010. We should at least be able to cut that in half by the end of this recession. That’s another $275 billion. Adding that up would be $1.15 Trillion. Ending our stimulus funds would remove $792 billion over 2 years, or $395.5 billion a year. We are now at 1.57 trillion. We are now at a surplus.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-stimulus-spending-2010-9?op=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
I don’t forsee republicans cutting military. I do see republicans doing the social security method of we go Paul Ryan’s route, as well as ending temporary stimulus and or other temporary funds that are supposedly “helping” the economy. This is the way to go. Democrats will not do this. Republicans, well that depends on the people. Repubilcans won’t do it if people keep reacting like you claiming Paul Ryan is pushing old ladies off a cliff whenever they attempt modifications. I will never support that type of partisan politics, and it’s wrong planet.
On the positive side, when used correctly Obama’s opt out 401k plan is a good idea. Combine it with Paul Ryan and we have the right way to go.
I can’t speak for others, but I plan to use my 401k and pension to supplement my social security income. If I have to use it before I can qualify for SSI, my quality of life once it’s gone will go down.
Also, if people are in an uproar about having to buy health insurance or be taxed, what would they think of the government forcing you to put your money into a 401k? It’s my money and I should be able to do what I want with it.
I on the other hand plan to use Social Security to supplement my 401K. I have no intentions of relying on Social Security. No one can live on that pittance.
So do you want the government telling you you have to use up your 401k funds before you qualify for social security?
Libby,
I don’t know if you missed this or not, but I said an age AND an amount. I said if you were out at 65 you could receive funds, from there you have until you are 70. That would raise the age to 70 EXCEPT for people who had no money.
This double tier method does NOT mean you have to wait until you are out.
I even showed you how it would be better with a combo of Obama’s past plan to make it automatic to take part in a 401k program. Again we are back to my section of showing good sections of liberal ideals. Are you arguing just for the sake of it? I have not once seen you try to come up with an idea other than through some other person’s idea from some source you are willing to trust more than thinking for yourself.
Combining a system where you can keep social security at 65 and raise it for people who don’t need it at first is a good idea, and it’s certainly better than an increase to 70 which will happen, whether it’s republicans or democrats.
Libby:
If you’re going to comment about how much the rich pay, you should at least know the rich paid more under Bush than they did under Clinton’s tax plan, or any tax plan since the 80’s.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
Question the rest of the article’s opinions if you want, the taxes paid by the wealthy went up, not down. Revenues as a whole went down, but that was seperate and clearly not due to the wealthy.
Bob, of course the rich pay more than the middle class. 15% of $10M is $1.5M, 15% of $35,000 is $5,250. My problem isn’t so much that the percentage should be higher, but that the rich have mechanisms available to avoid paying tax on much of their income. Mitt Romney said he has paid no less than 13% over the past 10 years. My question is, 13% of what? With off-shore and Swiss bank accounts, he is avoiding paying tax on at least part of his wealth. I don’t know about you, but when my measly savings account pays me .5%, Uncle Sam wants their fair share of it. I think Mitt Romney, who is campaigning to lead this country out of economic straits, should pay his fair share, too. On ALL of his income.
Libby, you seem to think Republicans are the only rich out there that aren’t paying their fair share. Why aren’t you protesting Kerry who has a fortune of over $300 million? He won’t even pay his yacht taxes in Massachusetts. Many of the leading Democrats are multi-millionaires like Reid, Pelosi, Wasserman-Shultz who have offshore bank accounts and have sheltered their income big time. They are also the biggest tax cheats such as Turbo Tax Tim, our wonderful Treasury Secretary, Charlie Rangel, the chasised but not removed Congressman who has yet to be sent to jail for tax evasion. How much do Democrats give to charity? Romney gives a big chunk to charity. Biden gives less than 1%. You are on the losing side of this argument Libby. The country needs to adopt the fair tax and remove loopholes in the code and those 50% who do not pay any federal income tax should have some skin in the game. The top 10% should not be paying 70% of the taxes in this country.
I don’t think I said all fat cats were Republican, although it does seem that most Wall Street types are conservative as that’s how they build their fortunes off the backs of the middle class working stiff (me). I’m against any wealthy person not paying their fair share, regardless of party. Please do not paint me with such a broad brush.
And just to further my point:
VOTE BY INCOME……………….BUSH………KERRY
Under $15,000 (8%)…………..….36%……….….63%
$15-30,000 (15%)………………….42%……….….57%
$30-50,000 (22%)………………….49%……….….50%
$50-75,000 (23%)……………….…56%……….….43%
$75-100,000 (14%)…………….….55%……….….45%
$100-150,000 (11%))………….….57%……….….42%
$150-200,000 (4%)…………….….58%……….….42%
$200,000 or More (3%)…….….…63%……….….35%
Libby, The only name you mentioned in your post was Romney. That is keeping with your mantra of saying Republicans are the only fat cats around. How about Warren Buffet, the fundraising bundler for Obama? How about Bill Gates who also has left leanings? They make Romney look like a pauper. Buffet has been in arears on taxes with Berkshire Hathaway for nearly 10 years and has an army of tax attorneys helping him avoid paying taxes. Crony capitalists are among the worst at paying taxes and they are affiliated with your President, not Romney.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are not running for president. Mitt Romney is.
Libby,
You are talking one man and forgetting that Bain capital as an example pays a corporate tax rate befor Romney receives pay. Let’s say Romney owns 35% of Bain capital, and Bain is paying an effective 20% rate. Before Romney gets his share of the revenues it is taxed 20% which you receive and he does not, then he pays an additional 13%. Then he donates 13%. That is 33% in addition to 13% for charity. Like it or not when a rich man makes most his money from firms he owns the corporate tax rate is part of the tax against the owner’s income. It’s also a tax against your income. When we lowered capital gains and gave corporations tax breaks, as that article showed, revenues thrived. You cannot explain away FDR versus Clinton as tax evasion.
Just what does that have to do with him sheltering his income to avoid paying tax? All shareholders are affected by corporate tax rates, rich and poor. That is not what I’m talking about here.
My comment had everything to do with it. If your arguement is revenues you will not get additional revenues by raising taxes on the rich. When it comes to offshore accounts I don’t care because Romney is paying an effective tax rate inclusive of his corporate tax rate that is above my own. Not all of us work for corporations. As Obama says, small businesses make up 60-80% of job creators. Corporate tax rates are not fair for anyone in a corporation, Romney included. Romney does pay that corporate tax rate. 1% of 1% of the public make us much as Romney, and studies show that the majority of the 1% do pay a fair rate. Studies also show that the wealthiest 1% earn less under more punitive plans. Some democrats use this as evidence that we should tax more. But under the 70% plan, what people don’t realize is the wealthiest 1% stopped earning past a point. When the wealthy don’t want to earn more, you have less income to tax, when you have less income to tax you have less revenues. This is why the 36.9% rate brought in equal revenues to the top 95%. It was not tax evasion. The amount paid by the rich went up, thus it could not have been tax evasion. The offshore accounts on a one to one basis are thus irrelavent. You say what about the offshore account of Romney, and the few, I say what about the revenues brought in going up. They were projected to go down, and yet they went up. So did the income of the wealthy, but if we all get more revenues as a result I would say that is better than their income going down and them paying less taxes as a result. Read the link I gave you and you will see everything I just said makes sense.
I did read the article in the link. I understand his theories and numbers, but the article was written in 2007 when there was alot of “funny” money and smoke-and-mirrors in the financial world. Yes, the wealthy spent more during that time. We all did.
I am not proposing raising taxes on the wealthy. You say you don’t care about the off-shore sheltering, because of “his” effective corporate tax rate. The same corporate tax rate affects all shareholders proportionately. Yet the smaller shareholders (me) are not able to shelter our earnings. So I do not agree that the corporate tax burden is anymore in addition to income tax for Mitt Romney than it is for me. He should pay income tax on all of his earnings. Period.
All his earnings, and everyone else’s at the same time.
Good idea Libby! That’s what ends up happening when you have a capital gains rate as well as a corporate tax rate.
He pays his fair share. Sheltering the corporate tax rate is also sheltering your revenues technically, should I count that as your money Libby? You owe a hell of a lot of taxes my friend.
The only sheltered taxes he has is corporate tax revenues, which go offshore and usually are invested into offshore companies, they don’t go back directly to his pocket. As soon as he spends them, they get taxed at American rates. Sheltering does not work indefinitely, it gets taxed. If it isn’t here, it gets taxed in another country If the corporate tax rate were lower, he’d create those jobs here, and those corporations here. You know so little about economics on how this actually works it is insane. Every single person who shelters corporate revenues, and I am saying key phrase CORPORATE revenues, is essentially giving them to another country and business they run, not themselves.
On his income here he pays income on all his taxes. On money he brings back from those companies, that are offshore, he pays that country’s taxes, which they then apply against his tax rates here. Yet another fact that YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF. So other countries are even getting our tax revenues at that point. If it pisses you off, then lower the corporate tax rate, because that’s the only way it’s going to stop. Raising taxes will not fix it. If you want to say make them tax on top of other coutnry’s rates, then you will destroy global economy conidtions and global trade. So what is it that you want Libby? Where is your “big picture” here?
The smaller share holder (you) pays the same capital gains rate.
The smaller share holder (you) and the larger share holder (Romney) cannot shelter capital gains revenues. The revenues he shelters are the corporate tax revenues which go over seas. That is why I intentionally put the corporate tax rate at 20% instead of 35%. If that rate were at 20% instead of 35% he wouldn’t have to shelter it out of country and it would instead be here.
As a side comment: 2 years ago republicans including Romney had a deal with corporations to bring all those revenues off shore (1 trillion) back to America if we made the corporate gains tax rate 15% (still higher than Canada). I agree. Off shoring is bad. So why do you support the President who has not set up a system to keep them here?
Doesn’t Romney also have personal finances in off-shore accounts?
Or, if you prefer you can compare the top marginal rate of 95% from FDR, considering it brought in the same as Clinton’s top marginal rate of 36.9 percent. Higher tax rates for the rich do not equate to higher revenues. Both presidents had a 20% of gdp volume.
The economy was worse under Bush, so revenues as a whole went down, but regardless the rich still paid more. See my other link.
Bob, Libby and Planet subscribe to the formula that if you soak the rich by upping their taxes, more revenue will be generated. That has been proven false many times in history. Rich people will continue to shelter their money and do whatever is necessary to protect their assets. Republicans and Democrats have always done it. They can’t get it in their heads that the way to increase revenue is to lower the marginal rates so stimulate the economy by creating more jobs and more taxpayers. This has been proven to work many times over. The problem comes in when there is not spending cuts by government as we saw under Reagan and whatever the revenue was increased, Congress overspent on their disastrous legislation. They will deficit spend no matter how much revenue they have to work with. We now have the problem of fewer taxpayers and more leaches getting benefits, thus a $1.4 Trillion annual deficit which will only get worse unless something is done to put people back to work. We also have only 50% paying Federal Income Taxes. The deficit could be wiped out if we had fiscal responsibility and a fair or flat tax with everyone having skin in the game.
I understand your trickle-down theory of Economics, Agent. I never said up rich people’s taxes. I said quit offering them ways to avoid paying tax on all of their income. You call that “sheltering money”. At least they have some to shelter. The rest of us are living hand to mouth, while they “shelter” their income by avoiding paying their FAIR SHARE OF TAXES on it. Period. Try spinning it as increasing taxes on the poor rich people out there who pay the biggest percentage of tax. THEY SHOULD. That’s how percentages work. And the average income of the 50% you rail against for not paying taxes is $32,396 and below. That’s right. 50% of Americans make $32,396 or less and you think they don’t deserve a tax break? Give ME a break!
I understand your theory of trickle-down Economics, Agent. I am not saying “up” the taxes of the rich. Stop offering them ways to avoid paying tax on their entire income. Rich people will continue to “shelter their money” to avoid paying their FAIR SHARE. At least they have some to shelter while the rest of us are living hand to mouth. The 50% of Americans you rail against make $32,396 or less. You don’t think they deserve a tax break but the rich should be able to “shelter” their income?? Give ME a break!
I understand your theory of Trickle Up Poverty. The Middle Class has seen 25% of their wealth go away in 3 years due to the undisciplined fiscal policy of this government. Wealth for all Americans is created by sound monetary policy and straightening out the tax code so it will be fair for everyone. Redistribution of wealth is a failed theory that will make everyone equally poor. All you have to do is look at all countries that have tried it and failed miserably. It is going on in Europe currently and many of the countries there are imploding as we speak. If you want to eat rice and beans the rest of your life and continue to live from hand to mouth, keep on believing in this failed system and you may just get your wish. The rest of us will continue to pursue the American dream of a better life for ourselves and kids.
Agent, please stop putting words in my mouth to further your political position. I DID NOT say to “redistribute” wealth. I said the wealthy need to stop “sheltering” their income to avoid paying taxes. That is a BIG difference from taking from the rich to feed the poor. I have to pay tax on my gains, why shouldn’t they? I’m sure you’ll have an economically conservative explanation why they should be able to avoid paying the same taxes I have to pay.
Libby, As you admitted in another post, Economics was not your strong suit as it is apparent from your posts. Economics is my strong suit since I have a degree in it and made straight A’s. You believe in failed ideology that takes from the haves and redistributes it to the have nots. The “haves” are what makes this country go around because they are the employers who create jobs so you can earn money to support your family. By tearing them down and forcing them to bear an even greater burden than they are now is ludicrous. The top 10% already pay 70% of the taxes in this country. How is that not their “fair share”? Tax them more and they just shut it down and move their business offshore and liberals wonder where all the business went.
First of all, they already have shut it down and moved overseas. To make MORE money they can then shelter offshore. I don’t understand why you say it is an unfair burden to make them pay tax on all of their income. The rest of us have to. Why is it an unfair burden for them, but not for the rest of us? You think because they control the wealth, we are all beholding to them and should allow them to gain more wealth and power so they can “take care of us.” No thanks. I’ve seen how they take care of loyal workers and it sucks. Trickle down economics makes sense in theory, but it doesn’t take into account greed. And that, Agent, is what is wrong with your theory.
This – “Rich people will continue to shelter their money and do whatever is necessary to protect their assets.”
Is what makes the difference. As Rich people shelter their assets, it is often in tax sheltered spending…. Depending on the applicable code at the moment…. SO, if code says hiring US citizens in the us, now receives tax benefit – we will start seeing domestic investing.
Right now with shelters favoring holding, there is no trickling down happening. If the tax rates are upped and shelters are shifted to favor helpful spending, this gets greater benefit than the actual % increase.
Very well said Just Guessing. That kind of remark gets my attention much more than name calling.
Just guessing:
This idea has been suggested many times by both parties. Obama had the chance in 2008-2010 and did not act.
Regarding repatriation which is what Romney and republicans talked about: There is 1.6 trillion in offshore accounts, as of 2011. The repatriation would be a 5.25% tax, which businesses agreed they would bring all of it back ot the U.S. of A. That’s a lot of money. As things stand now Obama will get zero of that back and Zero revenues, because he allows for a deduction based on payments to other governments for taxes. That will not go away, Obama has already stated that.
The corporate tax rate applies to all revenues. Businesses would much rather deduct all coprorate revenue than just payroll. Your method would only allow them to deduct payroll. The businesses will take the lower tax rate from paying another country’s rate and deduct all their revenues rather than deduct payroll. Unfortunately your plan would not work.
Libby,
The age will be increased to 70 within our life times. It is inevitable. Both sides have talked about it. By keeping it at 65 and making an amount to have in your account you can make it available for those I’m the future in the lowest income bracket. At first, considering the average amount in a 401k plan is too low it will suck. After 30 years, the next generation with phase two of the plan would be set to an amount, so it would supplement most people. This is better than a full 70 increase. Mathematicians have already worked it out. At this rate by the time 20 years go by it will have to be almost 80. We either do something, or the system fails. And no amount of tax code revision will change that. We have never gone above 20% of GDP revenues even with a 95% top rate. The only other option would be a middle class tax increase for the bottom 50% and I think we both agree that would be unwise.
Bob & Libby, I have read all the posts and bombs being thrown by both of you. Can we please leave the social issues alone. You both have the right to believe what you want. There is not a snow balls chance that Roe v Wade will be overturned or even a serious attempt at it by anyone including Romney & Ryan. The Gay issue will continue to fester and should be sent to the States to decide that. Leave the Feds out of it. This election is about the economy and who can best straigten out the colossal mess made by Progressives in both parties. We have seen one disastrous thing after another by this current administration. Small business where most of the jobs are created are not going to hire or expand operations as long as they have this most unfriendly administration in power. Obama has infuriated small business with everything he does including telling them “they didn’t build that” or “they didn’t do that”. Government is a major hindrance to business and it is much too large and overbearing with its taxation and regulation. We need a common sense approach and need to create 10-12 million new jobs and we don’t need to wait 4 more years to get there. We need to be energy independent and need a plan to get there within 10 years. I am willing to give Romney & Ryan a shot at it since we have a disaster before our eyes currently and it will be more of the same if we let it go.
Bob, there is a very good reason why the rich shelter their money and keep it offshore. If the tax code were not so punitive and if we didn’t have a President screaming at the top of his lungs that they aren’t paying their fair share, we might actually have business investing in America again instead of moving operations overseas. People like Buffet, Gates, Imelt and other big boys have a small legion of tax attorneys at work to limit their tax liability as much as possible and when they have an opportunity to make a buck offshore, they do it. Unlike politicians, they are not dumb. The only answer is a fair or flat tax and everyone should have some skin in the game instead of just half the folks. Couple that with some serious spending cuts in the government and this economy could recover and prosper.
Agent,
I agree. We should not make it difficult to do business here and then demonize the companies who try to overcome that. These tax areas should be fairly simple to analyze if we stop thinking in terms of democrat and republican. The payroll tax cut path has been done suggested several times due to the ideological youngin’s who want to believe it would work. When one quickly thinks about it like I put above, it becomes clear a payroll tax deduction isn’t going to cut it when another country has a tax rate a third of ours (Canada). You could never deduct enough from payroll alone to make a dent through hiring. You’d also have to make it permanent which Obama has already refused to do when fighting with Boehner. I don’t think it makes any sense.
Bob, Have you ever wondered why so many companies have chosen to do business offshore rather than stay here and expand and hire? The answer is really pretty simple. Government in its worst form is an overtaxer, overregulator and labor costs particularly with union infested shops guarantee companies will look elsewhere to do business. Why does GM have 11 assembly plants in China currently and 7 out of 10 GM cars are made there now? Why did Hershey’s Chocolate move from Hershey, Pa to Mexico? Why can’t we buy clothes, shoes, sporting goods from anywhere but China? Our Balance of Payments from these countries is insane. Why, if we sit on the largest reserves of petroleum in the world are we still importing most of our oil from Shieks & Chavez? We simply don’t have any leadership from politicians and our current President has no clue how to get our economy rolling again. That is why we need to change out all these guys on both sides of the aisle until we get a combination which will look after our interests first.
A flat tax will still not help if all the richy riches are sheltering income off-shore. They already supposedly have a higher tax bracket than we do and they are still not paying their fair share because so much of their income is sheltered. But that’s OK with you guys because the poor richy rich have to pay “so much”. Bulls**t!
Ah I get it Libby,
3 years of a temporary boom in the end of Clinton’s presidency which had a bust afterward is “real” and 3 years toward Bush’s middle which busted at the end is “fake”.
There is no such thing as 6 years of “fake” government revenues.
Further, had the housing bubble have not popped, none of that would have been smoke and mirrors. None. The stock market would have stayed the same, the revenues the same, etc. The revenues were real. If we had the same tax rate and the same stock market as well as a good economy they would bring in the same.
Clinton also contributed to the disaster. I did not say otherwise.
Libby, It is hard for me to find a place to reply to your numerous posts. The real reason why business is not expanding and hiring now is a real fear that business has of what the government is doing or will do to them in regulations, EPA, tax increases, Obamacare which has created so much uncertainty that business will not do anything until the government is changed out. They also are very offended that your President said “You didn’t build that” or “You didn’t do that” without government help. Government is the biggest hindrance to economic growth in this country. I blame politicians on both sides of the aisle. That is why we will have a big turnover in this coming election. Economic growth can flourish again, but we need a common sense approach and government needs to get out of the way.
I hope you are right. (And my numerous posts are in response to a barrage of posts directed at me.)
Libby, I take it you agree with me since you said you hoped I was right. A wise man once said – Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The history of this country is rich with all the mistakes politicians have made trying to govern it. We have always come out of it and this great country has always recovered. The current period we are in is the gravest threat we have faced in at least the past 50 years. Economically speaking, if this ill conceived Progressive program is not stopped in November, we will descend rapidly into the abyss of economic doom.
Agent, I don’t know what the answer is anymore than anyone else. I am just tired of all the discord, greed, and gridlock. If you are right about Mitt Romney being the right choice, then I will be behind him. However, I do think Obama to be a noble and honest man and conservatives have done everything in their power to discredit him and ensure his failure. In doing so, they guaranteesd the continued failure of our economy. I find that un-American.
My comment just now was not intended to insult Clinton for economics it was strictly revenue oriented. Keep on track Libby. We have booms, we have declines, each effects revenues. It’s the way it works.
You claimed we cannot rely on the tax system numbers because they were from a fake boom. I pointed out we always have booms then declines, it’s a matter of the size.
We should compare boom to boom, and the tax code in both. The tax code in Bush’s boom (which was a worse eceonomy than Clinton’s) brought in more than the boom under Clinton from the rich (which was a better boom). Therefore, Bush’s tax reduction made the rich pay more. Taxing the rich more like Clinton, will result in a decrease in revenues, not an increase. Taxing them like Bush, and continuing his tax plan will result in more revenues from the rich, not less. We already proved that in 2007 before the recession. Consdiering how severe the recession was, it’s amazing our revenues did not go lower than they did.
Get it now?
Clinton went on Lettermen after his wife lost the primary to OBama and said the housing bust was his admins fault. He loosened the rules for lenders to make stupid (No Doc & Interest Only) loans.
I know FFA. For some reason even though Libby claims that Clinton had a part in the collapse, she supports an extension of those policies. I don’t want to take the housing bubble argument with her. Even though she blames Clinton not well versed enough to know why it’s important considering she also blames our economic issues that came from that housing bubble bust on Bush, and tax cuts on the rich. She also has ignored my comments that Obama was the first to trigger CRA regulations to take effect when he started lawsuits in the 1990’s including the 1995 law suit against citibank which started banks into being forced to give bad loans. I’m aware the collapse was democrat oriented. I don’t want to have that debate with Libby a 50th time. I’d rather take an argument on revenues at this point.
Libby’s done “debating” with you Bob. You take all the fun out of living for me. And life is too short for me to allow that. So have fun arguing with someone else who has a stronger stomach for you than I do.
Libby:
I’m glad. You’ve lost nearly every argument you’ve had with me.
Revenues and tax increases? You lost. See my corporate tax explanation, showing what happens with offshore corporate revenues. The reason Romney’s taxes as a whole here are lower, is because his taxes in other countries are applied against his taxes here as deductions. You may state add the two taxes, then that will hurt our trade with other countries. If we want all the business here and all the revenues here, we must have a good tax rate here.
Increasing the top rate to 95% in the past did not get beyond a 36.9% tax rate in the 90’s. I think this shows doing the same now will not solve our debt crises, considering the amount of spending will far exceed 20% of GDP by 2020, a point made by Ryan often.
So your tax points are moot.
Your Clinton comments blame him for the collapse, then disregard his responsibility and blame Clinton for the economy overall. Huh? How could something which you admitted existed before Bush be Bush and Republican’s faults?
You honestly thought Osama was killed in Afghanistan. That’s a big one on your credibility.
I would go on, but I think I’ve made my point you don’t know what you’re talking about.
One thing I do know is you are an egotistical, arrogant, puffed-up little man with a big mouth. You are so busy trying to one-up everyone around you you don’t have no regard for others opinions or feelings. Try treating others with some manners and respect and you may find they respond differently. Until then you can go to hell.
If you say so Libby. I am what you say I am.
I don’t tolerate a person like you who starts talking about how the republicans are women hating elderly killing people. When I debate with a woman who takes that style of debate, I will be hostile.
Have you seen me hostile with Agent? We do disagree and have disagreed in the past. I know he does not agree with my 401k comment regarding taking that from Obama’s plan. He knows it too. FFA and I have disagreed in the past as well. I’m not the issue here. In these postings I have been far kinder to you, than you have been to the people you are debating about. When you make an enemey out of the people you’re talking about, surely republicans must all be that way correct? Myself as well?
It’s egotystical and big mouthed to make that argument. It’s also morally wrong. You push, I push back. If your liberal solution here is that you can say people kill elderly, and have a war with women, and those same people can’t call you a moron for believing it and fight back, well then, everyone would agree with you.
Call me names if you want, you have not a leg to stand on for your debating tactics against republicans in this site. You will claim well neither do I. I have no responsibility to treat you failry when your start off method of debate is to call republicans middle class destroyers who are for the rich, screw people over somehow through taxes, have a war against women, are sick, disgusting bastards, etc. You’ve made your opinions there very clear. I have not called Obama sick. I’ve called you sick in the head. I’ve not insulted any liberal politicians the way you do. You come in debating the way you do, you should expect my foot firmly up your rear.
Bob – you attribute things to me that I did not say. That is why I refuse to debate with you. I called the 2 George Bush’s bastards, not every Republican. I never said Republicans were going to war against women. And never, ever did I say anything about killing the elderly. When you take things I say and blow them out of proportion or distort them to support your argument, you are double-dealing and less than honorable. There is nothing wrong with my morals, thank you very much. I suggest you take a look at your own. The way you speak to me is dispicable. You are not my daddy, my professor and certainly not my friend. You have only my contempt.
You have contempt because you don’t like that I’m right. You have not even takled about whether or not I’ve been right. Merely how I debate with you.
Moving on: You have agreed with Planet, when he has made those posts. You don’t beileve that Paul Ryan is getting rid of medicare and is resulting in people dying? You don’t believe that lack of a universal plan is resulting in people dying? You’ve not made those arguments here? That is the same thing as what I put above regarding republicans killing the elderly.
We had a debate once regarding partial birth abortion. You clearly agreed with it. You think that not killing a baby from partial birth abortion is a war against women. You commented on it already, you have commented on Romney’s stance on abortion as your reason for disliking him. When you debate that style, you are making the clear statement that republicans are wrong because they have a war against the woman’s body, (which you yourself ulitmately said when we had that debate) and you yourself said people would die due to Romney regarding his and Paul Ryan’s health plans (which mostly involve medicare, so killing the elderly) etc.
Mind rephrasing your comment?
There is no right and wrong. You state some facts. More than likely they are correct. You then extrapolate those facts into the future and say since things worked in the past, that they will work in the present. I don’t happen to agree. I do believe in pro-choice and gay rights. Those are beliefs. Not right or wrong and I won’t debate them with you. I am against any person that would want to take away those rights from women and gays. That doesn’t mean I hate them. It doesn’t mean I think they are wrong. It just means I don’t agree with it and I will vote against it. As an American, I am etitled to those beliefs. My feelings about Bush seem to rub you the wrong way. Too bad. Get over it. They will not change. They are feelings. Something you don’t have much experience with.
What I do love about you Libby is how you perceive people should speak to you.
You seem to think you can throw out wild comments, and that’s just style. As long as you’re hating someone in a stylish way, that’s just great.
But when someone goes hardcore “style” back at you, regarding how your style is filled with “contempt” filled with inaccuracies, and is plain out wrong morally and wrong factually, then you have a cow. How dare I think of you the way you think of republicans. That’s dispicable!
It’s laughable is what it is Libby. Don’t try to back petal on your beliefs regarding republicans, don’t try to back petal on your posts here regarding what you believe their plans would do, and regarding Romney being some tax evading rich guy who wants to assault your body! You’ve said it. I already explained tax evasion in the case of corporate revenues.
You are attempting to believe republicans are evil (or bad, choose your intensity) as a premise for your debate. Oddly enough you want to believe the same as your own as a premise for your debate (your comments regarding Clinton). So your style is “F#@%R@ him, #@%@ him, I hate him, #@%! him, they don’t have any ideas, I hate that, that plan would never work, it favors the rich, #@% that plan, @%@ that plan it would make people die”.
That has been your debate style. I may be over exaggerating but it has been. Paul Ryan offers a solution, and says we don’t have the money for even social security, and then you state you can’t do without it. Well, you have no means to fix it. Tax revenues have never surpassed 20% of revenues, the costs icluding medicare and social security are closer to 40% of GDP just after 2020. How do you surmise we deal with that? Tax increases? You’re living in lala land, hating the republicans who tell you how things are going to be. And they will be that way. Obama’s plans have made no change to stop it.
So you get angry, and you complain, and blame those republicans.
It’s childish. I basically am then forced to treat you like a child. I’m not your daddy. You’re right. So then grow up and act like an adult Libby.
I guess we’ll see in November pal.
Oh. And last time I checked you are not the morality police. I answer to a much higher God than you, Bob.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
AH HAHAHAHAHA.
Ok, before I remind you why gay rights you are wrong about, and before I take the debate on how abortion works federally, I’m going to quickly point out we have not debated about those topics here today and I did not list them as things you were wrong about. Universal healthcare was in my list, and you compared gay rights. Medicare was in my list, and you compared abortion?
I talk about very real facts and very real extrapolations. You are the one who takes facts and tries to extrapolate alternate realities. I want specifics, give me a specific of when I have extrapolated, and I will show you how my numbers are, for a fact, correct. The social security? Those are precise numbers. Medicare? Precise. Medicare spending? Precise. Tax revenues? Precise. If we raise taxes to rates which never surpassed 20% of GDP, they will continue to not surpass 20% GDP. You seem to think it will for some random reason. That’s called being “wrong”. It’s not an “opinion” that revenues under Obama’s plan will not surpass 20% and that if they are modeled after Clinton’s will result in a decrease in revenues from the rich. It’s a fact.
The very reason I treat you as a child is your prior comment.
But I will bite on the issues you brought up. I have already pointed out how gay rights has been advocated when done correctly by republicans. I already pointed out the law in Washington State, which was pushed through. The wording originally due to marriage wording and discrimination law being passed separately or together, cause marriage in law to assault religions. Republicans oppose that, and they actually had it modified and passed without that risk. They BELIEF wise BELIEVE being gay is wrong. That’s their opinion that YOU disrespect. The modern republican however, is willing to pass civil unions and to seperate the wording and give gays all the rights as a normal couple. It was rejected because gays want the word “marriage” however using that word opens up the possibility for religions to be sued based on discrimination with “marriage”. If it is given civil unions “seperately” they can never intermix in discrimination. If you are unaware, and oblivious of the force in the liberal movement’s reaoson behind using the word marriage you are a fool. They use it in order to force a religion to accept them. I don’t think morally they have the wrong intentions from their point of view. I do think that common sense says this is wrong.
You fail to see, that is the source of your hate. You just showed what I’m talking about. You believe republicans are anti gay because what, they hate them? They just want to deny them marriage? You are wrong. That is not an opinion.
Regarding pro-choice, those are not the areas we have debated in this article. Regardless, you use those areas to claim republicans are against your body. That’s YOUR opinion. From another point of view, that’s being FOR the baby’s body. Then you hate them for it. In fact, that’s YOUR arrogance. Regardless, I should inform you that Romney and Paul Ryan may be against abortion, and in their STATE law would pass laws against most froms of it, but FEDERAL laws are entirely different (you proved before you don’t know the difference in your comment about Romney’s state healthcare bill versus a federaql healthcare bill). Republicans have only one law they have passed since Bush or pushed for, and that’s partial birth abortion, done 6 months of age or later. It’s not an opinion that this is murder. That baby can survive on it’s own, and they crush the head, while ignoring that the shoulders are the hardest part to birth. If you’re opinion is that partial birth is good, you’re lacking morally.
The moral aspects of the above are opinions. The rest of that is correct, right, whatever you want to use for the word. I know you liberals like to state “right” is a high and mighty word so I’m choosing correct. The details above are correct. And your details, don’t extrapolate a future for this country today or tomorrow, they aren’t correct today or tomorrow, and won’t be.
Revenues won’t be pushed beyond 20%. Social security will not have funding as a result. Social security will have to be changed as well as medicare. Paul Ryan’s plan won’t result in the elderly not receiving care. Universal healthcare won’t save lives. Gay rights are not a FEDERAL republican issue. Regardless, Obama has not pushed any movement for them to date. Don’t ask don’t tell does not count, I’m talking about marriage, which he only just recently supposedly became supportive of. Lowering corporate tax rates will bring jobs home. We already had a deal with 1 trillion of revenues to do so. Raising taxes will send them over seas. We already have a tax rate (which was not from Bush) that has consistently proven this. Some new law won’t bring jobs home. Benefitial tax rates will.
All of these areas are tangible, and I actually have debated with you here. All are fact. When you debate with me, debate what I debate. When you rebuttal, rebuttal what I state.
The morality police?
I cannot believe I have to say this to you…Really…How old are you?
But I’ll say it anyway: When someone tells you something is wrong, it could just be it’s wrong. Just a thought.
Moreover: I have heard people who think they are the end all to morality make that comment, and your goal is to push me off as that type of person?
Who do you answer to Libby? It certainly doesn’t involve facts. Do you know who I answer to? It isn’t god, and not even technically myself. I answer to logic. If I find a flaw, whether I have an opinion or not I go with the logic. If you find that you don’t answer to logic, and something based on the people you are intending to spread hate about, you are lacking moral values.
I don’t have to be the morality police to tell you what you do here and believe about republicans is wrong both morally and factually.
It’s wrong the same way it is and for the same reason it is to make fun of kids in highschool and label them. Just because you believe what you believe about them doesn’t mean it’s suddenly “stylish” to hate on them. Jesus Libby, again, grow up.
I love this style you have!
I feel sorry for your kids.
Hidden in the recesses of the 2,700 page monstrocity known as Obamacare is a provision that will make it easier for the SEIU to organize 21 million Healthcare workers. A new book is coming out revealing this wonderful news. Since we know how unions have affected cost of everything they touch from cars to other manufactured goods in this country, I am sure they will be able to lower the cost of medical care with their excessive benefits and wage demands. Does anyone believe that doctor’s won’t close their practices when faced with union organizing in their offices? Will hospitals stay in business with these demands? Will medical devices manufacturing keep going with taxation from this bill plus union organizing? Numerous cities are going bankrupt as we speak. Most are in California, but they are also in other places, all because of unions and their retirement packages and wage and benefit packages. They are a disgrace.
Libby, I had hope for you for a moment until you pronounced Obama as a noble, honest man. This man doesn’t know what the truth is even if it hit him on the head. As a Conservative, I tried valiantly to find something I agreed with that he did in the first 2 years. The last year and a half have been confirmation that we don’t need anymore of this. Why do you think so many people disagree with his actions since he took office? I didn’t have anything personally against him, but disagree vehemently on the direction he took the country and it is a total disaster. He is the opposite of what this country needs as a leader.
I am speaking of him as a man. I think he honestly wants to change the direction of the country. How successful he has been is in question. Not his motives. At least as far as I’m concerned.
Libby, I agree with you that he honestly wants to change the direction of the country. He wants to change it to something most of us do not recognize as the United States of America. With everything he has done ruling by executive fiat through 30+Czars, going around Congress, that is not the country I grew up in. Libby, I question all his motives because it is very apparent he wants to install his version of Progressive Socialism. It has not worked in human history by any country that has tried it.
You don’t like him. I get it.
Bob, I seem to remember the last blog where Libby said you were right and she was wrong so just shut up. Looks like she has reconstituted her rage again. She cannot win a legitimate argument since her Progressive beliefs hold no water. Planet is now just resorting to character assassination against Ryan since their side has nothing to offer. The debates coming up should be great theater. I think there is a very clear choice this time. Do we want more of the same which is a total disaster or do we want to give fiscal responsibility and competance a chance? I have had it with Progressives and RINO’s and they just need to go away and let the adults straighten out this mess.
I have had it with pompous a-holes.
What are you blogger going to do after the election? Get a job? Ride Unemployment?
No doubt! Lots of posts about nothing!
Libby said- ” I do think Obama to be a noble and honest man and conservatives have done everything in their power to discredit him and ensure his failure. In doing so, they guaranteesd the continued failure of our economy. I find that un-American.”
I was going to stop posting but after reading this I had to. I think libby has not been paying attention to Obama’s efforts to:
* polarize the US electorate more than any other president in history.
* play a quasi race card when around minorities. Let’s not forget Joe “They will put you in chains” Biden in that group.
* use a democratically controlled congress to pass the “affordable healthcare act” in the middle of the night without giving anyone a chance to read a bad piece of legislation.
* Not address many promises he made in 2008.
* start a third war with Syria
* alienate our strongest all in the middle east
etc, etc, etc.
I don’t think he is honest or noble. For the first 2 and 1/2 years he had a democrat house and senate so he did not even need conservative support and did nothing but add trillions in debt and fight with the house when it changed sides. Terrible.
Sargent, I am sure you were taken back by Libby’s pronouncement that Obama was a noble and honest man as I was. People of the Progressive persuasion look at things differently than we do and they find no fault with what this man has done for nearly 4 years now. I thought the Carter Presidency would never end since it was so bad. Obama makes Carter look good by comparison. At least Carter was just a do nothing and hope for the best President. He wasn’t a flaming ideologue proclaiming to fundamentally change America into his Progressive dream. He has also been a serial liar and does the exact opposite of what he says. That makes him neither noble or honest.
Just Guessing- You are right on the money, forget the pun.
Dont you guys have jobs???/
No. The economy sucks. Haven’t you heard?
Libby, If you bothered to watch the Republican Convention, you would have seen the Republicans have a great plan to restore the economy by freeing up the private sector, not punishing success of entrepreneurs and small business. This country needs “JOBS”. Jobs will create revenue to the government and help balance the budget. Government needs to shrink substantially on all fronts and we have to stop borrowing $.40 of every dollar to pay for government. Your President has failed miserably and has no clue how free enterprise works. Clint Eastwoood put it best. You have failed so we will just have to let you go Mr. President.
Sorry, Agent. Didn’t see the point in watching a rah-rah session for a candidate that was already nominated. I will, however, watch the debates and will make up my mind then. I don’t take my voting cues from Hollywood stars.
I’m sorry, I forgot that Economics were not your strong suit. This convention had some Rah Rah to it for sure, but you missed seeing some very accomplished women like Susanna Martinez, G-NM, Nikki Hailey, G-SC, Mary Fallin, G-OK, Mia Love, mayor in Utah and running for Congress. These women all “get it” and all have sterling records in their states to prove it and know that Progressivism does not work. Nikki Hailey won her battle with the National Labor Relations Board and got the Boeing plant in South Carolina and now she has 6,000 proud new employees building planes there. This is how the economy will rebound and your side only thinks about redistribution of wealth and dragging the country down.
You always have to get your digs in, don’t you? Admit a perceived weakness and the opposition just sticks it to you. I’m sure there are many things I do well that may not be your strong suit either. Good thing we are all different or this would be a boring world. Especially one filled with economists! Snore City!
Libby, I make no apologies for being strong on Economics and pointing out the fallacies of what you believe in. I am sure you do good work doing what you do, but you are misguided in believing that Progressivism is a valid way to govern this country. Every place it has ever been tried in human history has been an abysmal failure as has been shown by most of Europe and this current government. I am sorry Economics bore you. That is part of your problem since you still cannot see the light. I am glad that some on your side have seen it and realize the error of this belief system. Google Artur Davis, the former black Congressman who was a Democratic Obama supporter in 08. He stated that the Congressional Black Caucus ostracized him because he didn’t go along with their agenda and he was too Conservative to suit them. He switched over and was an eloquent speaker at the Republican Convention.
I believe you are the misguided one. Man does not govern or live for money alone, which is all the conservative economists seemed to be concerned about. There is more to life and governing than making money. Government is not a for-profit industry and can not be run that way. So take your numbers and your corporate bit wigs and shove off. I’m tired of you thinking your way is the only way. You come off as arrogant fat cats concerned with no-one but yourself. I may be a liberal, but I am also kind and concerned with more than making money. In other words, I’m happy. Those that chase endlessly for the all-mighty dollar will never be content or happy. There is always one more deal to make and one more small business to crush under your giant corporate boot. Don’t pretend to look after the little guy or small business. We know what concerns Wall Street and the conservatives, and it ain’t Mom and Pop.
Paul Ryan says he draws inspiration from St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Thomas tells us that private property is not natural, and this can be demonstrated by a simple example: If we consider any piece of land, there is nothing about it according to nature which would make it to belong to any one more than any other (God gave the world to all men). Therefore, no one can claim any exclusive right to any material good by nature. There is nothing in the nature of any particular dollar bill that makes it to be mine rather than yours. (ST II-II, q.57, a.3)
This is the fundamental reason why, if the claim private property comes into conflict with the common destination of goods (i.e. if a rich baker’s claim to the bread in his bakery is challenged by the poor man’s claim to that bread) the principle of commonality always triumphs. Private property is not natural, it is not part of the natural law.
Paul Ryan is a communist.
Wow Planet, you had to dig deep for those idiotic statements. I am also very offended that you resorted to name calling. Paul Ryan is as far from being a Communist as a politician can be. I think your guy is a whole lot closer since he is ruling by Executive Fiat, nationalizing industries and doing other things that make the people very nervous. That is why he will lose and it may not even be close come November.
Agent, you take things too serious some times. I just thought it was funny he turns from Ayn Rand to St. Thomas, flip-flopping like the man he wants to serve under. And, I remembered from my Catholic high school upbringing what St. Thomas was really about. Didn’t take too long to put that post together and I didn’t have to dig deep at all. And, most would infer I don’t really think Ryan is a communist. I think most would find the parallel kind of funny and also think Ryan should do a little more research before backing away from Ayn Rand so quickly. Ryan doesn’t draw inspiration from St. Thomas. He draws inspiraction from Supply Side Jesus:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html
Planet, If you don’t really believe Ryan was a communist, you shouldn’t put it in print. I know you don’t like Ryan or any Conservative since they are all about fiscal responsibility and straightening out the mess that Progressives from both sides of the aisle have gotten this country into. I think I like his positions better than Trickle Up Poverty that your side believes in.
I think Paul Ryan can claim who he draws inspiration from. Not you Planet.
I further know that you cannot claim to know which area of inspiration he takes from St Thomas. I was also raised Catholic, enough to know that you are either not Catholic, or you are one of the ones who is no longer a Catholic and rebelled against it because it is so popular to do so. This may explain some of your comments. No one in their right mind would claim that St Thomas is not inspirational when it comes to philosophical experience who was raised Catholic. St. Thomas cannot sign off on everyone who draws inspiration from him and simultaneously does not share his socialist leaning beliefs. Any Catholic who is rasied Catholic knows the church itself tends to lean toward socialist ideals, whereas republicans lean toward capitalist ideas. Something worth noting is that the primary bulk of Catholics run as Democrats and have for some time due to this leaning. You would do well to remember how FDR won his election. Widely considered to be far and away the largest part is he won over the Catholics to the democrat party using socialist ideals. If your goal is to make the case that the democrat party is socialist, good job at proving it. Paul Ryan though, can choose his party and then choose against it’s socialist leanings by running republican. It’s not even comical the way you tried to portray it. It was a failed idealistic joke. It didn’t even border on to witty humor.
Bob, Planet can trot out his theories all he wants and pretend he knows what is in Ryan’s mind, but he has no clue. Ryan is a fine and decent man who is a sharp cookie and knows Progressivism is a failed concept. I am not sure the Degenerate Party can claim a big majority of Catholic voters since 22 Catholic organizations are suing them over the birth control/contraceptives issue. While it is true that Catholics have voted liberal for many elections, I think a lot of them don’t want the government telling them to provide these services if it is against their teachings. I, by the way am really looking forward to Ryan tearing Hairplug Joe a new one in their debate. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bite Me fails to show like he did in Tampa. He can always feign a sudden illness.
Agent,
I have a lot of expereince on this one to share. The younger Catholic crowd really don’t care much on the contraceptives issue, the higher ups in the Church have seriously considered issuing a doctrine that would excuminicate Catholics supporting politicians who support abortion due to what they call a crises in the youth going on now. It’s the higher ups starting the suits.
Catholics do switch quite a bit in the elections. Hot items will sometimes cause that to happen. However, when it comes to economics Catholics nearly always support the democrats because they believe money from the more fortunate should go to the less, even when it comes to basic spending. They do not have any issues with taking from someone who earned a better life to give someone who did not earn it a better life. They don’t care for vanilla capitlism. Without some sort of redistribution of wealth they would never vote for a republican. This is why they voted Nixon when he offered affirmative action. This is why they voted FDR when he set up social security and medicare. This is why they voted Clinton when he talked about taxing the rich more. JFK I really don’t know what they were thinking, other than he was a Catholic. It’s normally some sort of social program that gets their attention.
Libby, I marvel at how your mind works and how distorted your views are. Almost, but not quite as bad as Planets. Do you really think Government is an industry? I think you have plagerized some of Planets previous posts. Who is being crushed under the giant boots? If you were to ask small businesses, I think the vast majority would say “GOVERNMENT”. You fall right into line with your President who proudly proclaimed to small business – You didn’t build that! You didn’t do that! Actually, myself and several million small businesses in this country in the past hundred years did build that and did do that and did it without help from the government. I, and many others are extremely offended by your remarks. No wonder Bob puts you down so much.
Believe me, Agent. I have my own mind and my own ideas. And while I enjoy Captain’s posts immensely, I did not plagerize his comments. No, I don’t think Government is an industry and that is exactly what I stated. It can’t be run one like one. As for the giant corporate boots, well, just watch out when they come gunning for you and your small business like they have many, many others. Gobbling them up or putting them out of business because they can’t compete. If you think corporate conservatives are for the little guy and small business, you’re out of your mind. But don’t worry, as soon as we have universal healthcare you can get treatment for that.
You may have your own mind and ideas, but they are lost in the sea of Progressive thought which has failed so miserably in this country. The small businesses that generate the majority of jobs in this economy have not failed, government has failed them and this administration in particular has failed them. Government doesn’t create jobs, they destroy them with taxes, burdensome over regulation by a gigantic bureaucracy and it is stifling business. I happen to insure a fair number of small businesses and they all tell me the same thing. They want the government to get off their back so they can hire and grow their business. I know this is a foreign concept to you. You want government to be Big Brother and control and regulate every aspect of our lives and every activity. This country has no chance to recover from the recession and get back on track unless the government is changed out. It will be come November and Progressivism will be rolled back for another 100 years.
You know what’s interesting Agent? You’re right about the ethics, and most young college kids don’t understand.
Here’s the issue: I can have the option to get a 4 year degree and work for Microsoft. If I have a wife working as let’s just say a school teacher the combined income after a few years will be $140,000.
Now here’s the problem for why small businesses don’t start which Planet doesn’t understand:
At that income I could put away $40,000 into stock investments, and then exhaust the $17,000 401k contribution limit for both me and my wife while still being able to pay all the bills for a $212,000 house (sound a little specific? That’s because it’s my scenario). Considering an 8% return rate on both the stocks and the Stocks, my wife and I combined would have 8.5 million each in a 401k, and 6.5 million in stocks, provided we start doing this by the time we are 27 (which I did.). That’s 23.5 million at retirement, and more importantly it’s safe planet.
Now let’s assume I try to start my own business: It’s hard. I have to take out loans. I may not be able to pay back those loans. So I’m more likely to work about 5-10 years and then put in an investment to a company (which is what I did for the board game). At the end of my attempts to start the business, unless I hit it big I will not exceed the amount I would have earned at Microsoft. So why in my right mind would I give up 23.5 million of safe income at retirement when odds are if my business doesn’t do well I’ll make the same amount if I am lucky, with a business that I have to manage the stress of. The fact is: Most people don’t want to.
Most kids would rather just rely on good ol’ going to college and working for someone else. They are perfectly fine with not taking the risk. The majority of young people do not. That’s not contributing to society. That’s relying on someone else to create society and working for them. That is our problem.
We have to be extremely business friendly to get companies going. And by that I would go so far as to say NO count that NO taxes at all for the first 5 years of a businesses operations, and NO count that NO regulations on required salaries while they start or benefits. After the business gets started and has a certain profit ratio then you can put those requirements in. This way youngin’s could help the start up companies who are unable to pay for the insurance, payroll taxes, etc for their employees or higher wages. Right now, we have millions who are not employed. Eating the bullet for a few years with start up companies who can’t give them benefits until they grow is better than no job at all. These youngin’s can take that risk for a company and possibly grow into a good company. Yet another reason why the healthcare mandate harms the economy.
We need to make there next to no possibility at all that a company might fail in the start up years.
Bob, most young people don’t have the knowledge or experience or the want to to start up a business. I worked for a large insurance company as a young man and when they wanted to start transferring me around, I decided I wanted to stay put so I joined an Independent Agency. I worked very hard building up a client base and increase my income and eventually I had the opportunity to buy the agency from the retiring owner. Unlike our progressive friends mantra, I did build that! I did do that! I had no help from the government, but they made sure I had plenty of taxes to pay on the self employment tax, payroll taxes etc. Even though there are plenty of headaches associated with ownership, I would much rather be in the position I am in rather than working for a company and facing a layoff and on the street looking for work. I have friends who were with a company and after 15-20 years, the company had a downsizing and they were caught up in it. We are survivors and will weather this storm and haven’t had to reduce staff, but we sure watch our expenses closely. I have equity in this agency and it should be valuable as the agency grows. The key is getting the economy squared away and more business friendly and we will thrive because we are good at what we do and have excellent insurance facilities.
Agreed Agent! Part of my note to you sounded like it was intended for you while some was in fact intended for Planet as well.
The caps were for him, not you. Just had to clarify.
I work very hard at what I do. I’d like to not have it get harder the more that I make. Progressive tax systems do not make sense fiscally or morally. They don’t bring in more tax revenues, and they don’t reward people who work. I wish things would change to a fair tax system rather than punishing success.
Trickle up poverty? Huh?
The middle class also took a bigger hit on the pay front. While incomes across all class levels declined for the first time since World War II, the middle class saw the biggest decline, with a median income for a four person household declining to just under $70,000 in 2010 from about $73,000 in 2001, the report said. The median income for the lower class is $23,000 and about $113,000 for the upper class. THE MIDDLE CLASS IS ALSO GIVING UP MORE INCOME TO THE RICH. In 2010, the upper income group took in 46 percent of all income, up from 29 percent in 1970. The middle income group took in 45 percent of income, down significantly from 62 percent in 1970.
A shrinking but more diverse class: Just more than half – 51 percent – of the population was middle class in 2011 compared to 61 percent in 1971, according to the Pew Research Report. At the same time, the segments of the population who consider themselves lower or upper class have grown.
Who is to blame? The middle class blames Congress as the lead culprit for its demise, but blames itself least of all. While 62 percent of middle class respondents to the Pew survey blamed Congress for their worsening state, 54 percent blamed banks and financial institutions, 47 percent blamed corporations, 44 percent blamed the Bush administration, 39 percent blamed foreign competition and 34 percent blamed the Obama administration.
More like trickle-up wealth, Agent.
I kind of want Romney and Ryan to win. Should they, they will screw things up so badly, we may never see those types of policies prevailing ever again. The only problem is, this country will be broken for a long time and it will hurt my daughter in many ways. Especially if she is a lesbian or gets raped and becomes pregnant. Not to mention, just being a woman in general.
Planet, you make my point. The decline of the middle class, particularly is tied to Progressive policies, the sub prime mortgage mess, Obamacare, EPA which is running business off or at least making small business not hire or expand. Fewer workers, more leaches claiming benefits are leading to our demise. The Middle Class has lost 25% of their net worth in the past 3 years. Congress is to blame for their part and your President is to blame for the rest since he has no clue what makes this country work. He says the private sector is doing just “fine” and then insults business that “You didn’t do that or You didn’t build that”. That statement has infuriated business and it is going to take a big bite out of his behind in November.
I’ll give you credit, you sure know how to take things out of context to fit your narrative, Agent. Unless you think Reaganomics is progressive, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this. Even the Washington Generals got tired of the “fix-is-in beat down” they received night in and night out. Trickle down hasn’t worked but for some reason, we keep letting that philosophy prevail. We need to Washington General it and do something else.
I see our youth is fired up again. Something like over 50% of 18 – 29 year olds plan on voting this year. Looks like they are about to Occupy the Polls. I’ll see you and them there.
You are right Planet about one thing. We will not ever see eye to eye on the vision you believe in and what I believe in. Reaganomics as you call it would have worked fine had Congress not welched on their deal to cut spending in return for tax cuts. More jobs were created under Reagan than almost any President in recent history. Tax revenue increased tremendously with all the new taxpayers, but Progressives just had to keep deficit spending and just couldn’t keep their hands off our money. Your Trickle Up Poverty program is destroying the middle class month by month. From the reports I have seen, your 18-29 age voters are dropping by the wayside since College graduates can’t find a job and are living with Mom & Dad. There surely will be some of those OWS crazies out there trying to make trouble, but there are a lot more disillusioned young people out there that just see all the broken promises of this administration and they see their futures going down the tube. They will either vote for a change or not vote at all this time. We will see you at the polls and see who is right.
Quick question: How many wise 18-29 year olds do you know? By wise, I must preface this question with they actually know how things work.
My father hired college students at his work. He loved their book smarts. He hated their inability to apply real world situations. They failed. Daily. He had to correct their work.
Further to the point: No more rhetoric from you Planet. I want your definition of Trickle Up Poverty, and how you think that Clinton keeping the rate nearly the lowest it has been in history was not an advocate of trickle down economics.
When you don’t take all of a rich person’s money, the pay gap appears larger. Taking from them however does not increase revenues, does not increase the middle classes income increases, and does nothing for the middle class. Taking from them cannot increases jobs, while taxing them less can increase jobs.
I want your explanations. No more rhetoric. How do you explain this trickle up economics is occurring? What is your justification for Clinton and pay increasing with a lower rate, which clearly shows at least to the 36.9 percent tax rate, it is more effective than a 70% rate, which proves trickle down economics works. I want your explanation, explaining away how that increase in income happened despite being about half the rate of taxes prior to trickle down economics.
It worked Planet. Clinton benefited from it. Deal with it.
Bob, Don’t expect Planet to “get it”. He hasn’t yet and most Progressives think the only way to increase revenue to the government is by increasing the marginal tax rates. They don’t see that by taxing more actually retards revenue because employers will not hire or expand when their tax bill increases. You get revenue when more taxpayers are created and get them off the unemployment line. You are absolutely correct about the 18-29 crowd who don’t know the basics about how to work, don’t have the drive and ambition to succeed and want to start out at the top. Is it any wonder why they can’t get a job in this society? They want all the benefits without having the ability to get the job done. I have tried young producers and no matter how much training and support I gave them, they just couldn’t produce so we had to part ways. When I was young, I knew I had to bust my butt to support a family so I did it. Young people of today have had everything given to them and their mind is not right on the work ethic.
They seem to not understand that a 70% rate, if it actually hits the rich leaves them with only the ability to reinvest 30% of the income they receive.
Let’s ponder that for a moment. 30 cents of each of the job builder’s dollars would go toward building more jobs. If they manage to grow that money from say a start up company to $5,000,000 in revenues, they would have operational costs, payroll, narrow profit margins, and literally practically nothing to reinvest into the economy. This is simple math. There’s a reason why Reagan’s lower rates jump started the economy. Over time people had more and more to invest. It exploded their income, and we had more to tax as a result.
This is why I told Planet who cares if the income gap became greater. They literally have more money, and are giving more revenues than they did with a 70% rate. The poor’s income grew with a 36.9% rate at a higher than average rate, so it’s not the tax rate that determines whether or not middle class incomes increase in line with the wealthy. The only reason it would determine that factor would be if you intentionally suffocate the rich, which as I pointed out above would suffocate the economy when it comes to reinvestment.
These guys just don’t connect the dots. At all.
It’s nearly impossible to say it in a way that makes sense unless you get big picture…That’s why they don’t get it.
My last post to a liberal would make no sense but it’s very clear.
The math:
70% tax rate leaves the wealthy with 30% to reinvest (or less based on operational costs and payroll)
If you hit them with 70% rates, you do lower their income. You also lower their reinvestments and growth. This decreases the pay gap, but it also decreases revenues and economic capability to 30 cents of every dollar or less.
If you tax the rich at 20%, they have 80% to reinvest (minus operational costs and payroll) which they have proven they can grow. After that grows, the pay gap increses, the wealthy have more, the economy grows, there are more jobs, and more revenues.
As an example: If I make a board game which costs $20,000 to make (which I’m doing currently) if I have 80 cents of every dollar to reinvest as I grow larger I will move more money to make more board games or even a graphical online component to expand them further, and hire more graphical arts freelancers to design the cards (do some research into Peter Jackson Games as well as a few others). By the time my firm reaches $5,000,000 – $10,000,000 in revenues my income would likely be above $250,000 and at that point would be taxed past 70%. Now suddenly when I want to design new games, my costs are much higher. They are literally twice as much in cost to make, as I am being taxed at 70% instead of 35%. Morever, I have likely now grown large enough to be taxed at the corporate tax rate of 36.9 percent. As a board game company who pays others to manufacture and design the cards, my tax rate would be the 36.9 percent minus my operational costs. At a size of $10,000,000 my deductible expenses would not surpass $1,000,000 and my payroll could easilly be $3,000,000 as well. This means I may deduct $1,000,000 in costs making my taxable revenues $9,000,000 taxed at 36.9 is $1,500,000 dollars that I could have used to make a new board game or invest into more workers. That is a huge chunk of change considering that my payroll of $3,000,000 minus my costs of $1,000,000 minus my taxes of $1,500,000. I would then need to hire a team to do the websites and the video interfaces with only $2,500,000. But wait! Now assume I made my company public by that time. I’m now receiving capital in order to run the same company. My corporate tax rate would effectively be 15% after deducting the $1,000,000. But wait, if I have gains now those are taxed at the 40 some percent from Obama. Now I’m a $10,000,000 company, paying 1.5 million in taxes from corporate tax revenues, and if $1,000,000 of my company’s received capital public funds were used for an investment resulted in an increase of $2,000,000 in sales I now pay for $2,000,000 corporate revenues at 36.9 percent less deductions, in addition to the 40 some percent on $1,000,000 of gains. Now on that $1,000,000 investment, I’ve paid over $700,000 in taxes assuming the corporate tax rate after deductions maintains the 15% it was above. If it was actually effectively 36.9% I would be paying over $1,000,000 for $2,000,000 in actual revenues. Do the math. You’ll see I’m right.
This is the real world planet. Try coming up with those numbers.
Man, you LOVE to hear yourself talk!
Yup Libby. That’s what it is. I love to listen to myself talk.
More like I love to put ideas out like a machine. I have heard no self made examples from you. I hear examples from someone you follow, someone you praise, as a source.
The fact is you don’t lead and you don’t know how. You want the entire world to provide for you, someone else will build the business, and you’ll get the education to work for that business, while making damn sure they pay as much taxes as possible for your well being.
Disregard the fact that you don’t want to do the same and haven’t done the same. THEY are the bad guy right? Business makers and corporations? They need more regulations and taxes right? That’ll fix it all!
And while you’re busy throwing out one liners, cliches, etc about how to fix the economy having never owned or operated a business in your life, I’ll continue trying to do my start up business and work the numbers to make sure it succeeds, which as I stated above, the democrats pose a serious threat to that for many businesses.
Bob – your above post is full of assumptions. And you know what that makes you. An ASS. I have owned my own business and did fairly well. I pay my fair share of taxes and then some. Because I am married with no children, I pay MORE taxes than you! And I am not using the services paid for by those taxes, such as schools and parks & rec. But I don’t mind paying MY SHARE for society. Unlike you, who begrudges every cent you may have to spend on the community and country in which you live.
I do happen to work for someone else at this time and I am a proven leader and excellent manager. I listen to people, attempt to understand where they are coming from, and motivate them in a way that is meaningful to them – NOT ME. What do you do? Pontificate, insult, and demean. I think the world is much better with people like me in it.
So go on and hear yourself talk. No-one else is interested. You big bag of wind.
Libby:
Assumed? You “owned” a business, you failed.
I begrudge every cent I give to the community? No. I know how the world works. You believe that everyone who does not share YOUR perception of how the economy works is begrudging taxes because you don’t know how to interpret what I write.
If businesses fail, you fail. If businesses don’t have more money to reinvest, they have less capital. If they have less capital, the economy has less capital. The more you take from a business, the less you have for people. The more you tax, you do NOT get more revenues or services or community assistance for the middle class. I have talked about specifically how everyone would benefit. Don’t be a moron.
I have pointed this out many times. I am all about community and the middle class. And businesses build that.
You failed at your business, and therefore are now relying on someone else. Good to know I didn’t assume. I knew. I could tell in your sob story type of talking. Just like your prior emotional post.
Further: While you state it’s not about YOU you just said that the world is a better place with people like you.
Now let’s just inform you further on this: You’re wrong politically and on the economy. In life issues, I let anyone do, anything they want and inform them in terms of themselves. I very much so doubt that you do. Because it isn’t about me. With economic issues I don’t owe you telling you that you’re right. We don’t tell business owners they are right and buy from them when they are wrong out of pity, which you seem to think we should. You either perform in business, or you fail. There is no “well I feel it should work this way so I should just get business”. I’m sorry, you cannot take an emotional form of advice method (telling someone what they need to hear) and assume you can apply it to business and it will work. Sometimes I need to hear my business plan is wrong. And if I can’t take hearing that (like you) then I’ll go out of business.
You are incredibly condescending and assume people are stingy on the right (proven again in your last comment about my begrudging every dollar lost). The rich give more to society than anyone. Even Mitt gave 15% of his entire millions to society. Bill Gates does similar. The more you take from these guys the less they have to build, whether it’s charitable contributions, jobs, or more money from them to get profit off of. If they invest 3 dollars and earn 6, the government can tax the 6. If they invest 1 dollar and earn 3 then the government can only tax 3. And your man Obama wants to double their taxes. That will bring in equal revenues while ensuring they product less, which is less for everyone. Including you. I’ve said it enough. And I won’t have you attacking my social positions and kindness based on your whack job bull%@#% economics. Maybe if I give you a hug and tell you you’re right your business would have succeeded. Grow up. You failed because you are weak minded.
Libby:
If you didn’t catch, in the beginning of my prior post: The fact that you failed makes my comment entirely correct.
I said you have not and will not do it. Meaning you will not build a business that provides for a community. You no longer run that business. You failed. You have not and cannot. Already proven in your failure. Assuming is not even close to why I drew my conclusion. I KNOW you do not know economics. I KNOW you do not know how to run a business. Otherwise my posts would make perfect sense to you, because I do know how these things work. I’m running a real estate rental agency as well as a card/board game company. I weigh costs. I know the effects of these tax plans on the small businesses. I know the effect of making start up costs high. For every additional $10,000 I have I could make $100,000 in revenues on a board game. Obama has every intention of taking between $10,000 and $30,000 from my business. This $100,000 could be taxed at the standard rate, and still bring in more over time than taxing me at a higher rate, and there would be about 2 additional jobs, or projects with me hiring another graphic designer. These are numbers Libby. Get over it.
You get over it, Bob. I am not a failure. I chose a different path for my life. I am not “relying” on someone else. I work hard and I’m very good at what I do. You conservatives are all alike. First you complain about the “freeloaders” that want a hand-out. Then you insult others that work for a living by calling them failures and telling them they are relying on someone else because they are weak minded. The arrogance of it is laughable. Where would all these brilliant business owners be without people “relying” on them? No-where. It’s because we rely on each other. So go f*&k yourself. I understand trickle down economics. I understand taxation and regulation. I also understand tax loopholes, write-offs, and off-shore tax shelters. That’s why I am a liberal. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Because of people like you. You are not superior to us weak minded failures just because you own two businesses. I handle multi-million dollar international accounts and deal with CEO’s that could eat you for lunch. None of them act like you. You are one of the most despicable people I have ever had the pleasure of NOT meeting. A hug from you? No thanks!
Libby:
Your business failed to take care of the community as needed. How many people does your tax dollar take care of? My business takes care of 10. If my business could expand an additional $10,000 of profit to reinvest I could employ an additional 2. Why is this relevant? It’s nothing to do with anything other than efficiency. The government taxing away two jobs makes two people need assistance. This is why raising taxes is harmful. We have the same revenues with a top 39.6 rate that we did with a 95%. You keep talking about how we need to raise taxes. Explain how that makes sense. How will raising taxes increase revenues? The average billionaire makes $106 million a year. There are 403 billionaires in the U.S. Taxing them at 70% (assuming it didn’t result in revenues decreasing to begin with) would bring in 30 billion. Moreover, getting that 30 billion means they don’t have $30 billion to re invest. Think about it, how big do you think 403 billionaires businesses are? If they take $30 billion and earn $60 billion you now have $60 billion to tax at the normal rate. This is why the lower rate of Clinton brought in as much as a 95% rate. NOT tax evasion. Even if the billionaires didn’t avoid taxes as I just showed they would only bring in 30 billion in revenues. This makes you WRONG. Millionaires do not have the ability to offshore revenues to create growth, which is the ONLY reason to offshore. You seem to think magically that offshoring somehow makes it so they never pay taxes. As soon as they spend that dollar it is taxed. It is taxed in the nation it is in. When you say our tax rates are low, why do you think a company would pay our tax rate less a deduction equal to another country’s taxes? That means by default, our taxes are higher. Offshore accounts are not tax exempt from other country taxes and are not exempt when used. You’re a fool with off shoring and have no clue how it works.
I have not once called people lazy in this site. I have said that youngin’s do not want to build a business, they do not do it, and that they rely on college to get a position under someone who built a job. That’s entirely accurate. And it’s entirely telling as to why we have a problem. We need to make start up costs essentially as low as possible. Business costs need to be as low as possible. Obama seeks to raise these costs.
You keep talking about off shore accounts, blah blah. What you don’t realize is off shore accounts only exist because they pay taxes in another country which are applied against their rate here. They are NOT avoiding taxes entirely. Their combined rate is a fair rate. Our tax rate here is unfair. The business is not the enemy, the tax code is. You are cluelss as to how taxes work. Moreover, the 1.6 trillion in offshore revenues taxed at 10% would bring in 160 billion. If we made our rate competitive businesses would bring that money back. Obama refuses. This is not about the crap you try to pretend it is about. I have given you tax numbers. And I am not despicable. In your post you three times made generalizations about republicans regarding bull crap stereotypes applied against me which I have never even come close to stating. I said it is better for ALL to go this route and have given numbers as to why.
1. “You keep talking about how we need to raise taxes”. I have never talked about raising taxes per se. I talk about how the rich do not pay their fair share because they shelter income off-shore. If they are paying taxes to Grand Cayman, that is not tax income to the U.S. That is cheating the American people.
2. “I have not once called people lazy in this site”. Where did I ever say you did?
3. “They are NOT avoiding taxes entirely”. See #1 above. I don’t care if they pay taxes to another country. They are not paying taxes on gains from income generated in the U.S. I understand it is legal. I think it is still wrong.
And your comment about “Even Mitt Romney paid 15% of his millions.” So what? He should! He doesn’t get a pat on the back because he paid his taxes. Any more than you or I do.
You mentioned the government is taxing away 2 jobs. How much is the net tax rate for your business? Or do you think you should pay NO tax?
Screw it, I’ll show you something. Ignore the opinion parts of this article from MSNBC. As I once told you, I use liberal sources to show people how they are wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8670108/ns/business-answer_desk/t/who-benefits-rising-gas-prices/
On a gas cost of 2.33 taxes made up 44 cents. That’s 19 percent, not even including the effective tax rate of an Oil company. No coincidence New York’s gas costs follow that New York is above average in tax costs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps-pay-megataxes/
You will probaly claim you have a liberal source stating their effective rate is 17%. And that’s true. In the U.S. As they are multinational, oil companies pay rates in other countries which are applied against the rate in the U.S. Total, they pay what Forbes shows. Over 40%. And Obama wants it to be higher.
So 18% of your gas costs are direct government taxes, and potentially another 40% due to operational costs. This is what we call government driven inflation of costs.
You are completely clueless as to how offshoring works. Oil companies do it more than anyone. They have offered to bring back all revenues for a 10% tax rate. We would have lower costs, and we would have more revenues by doing this. It’s estimated 1 trillion comes from these firms alone with 1.6 trillion total.
1. “You keep talking about how we need to raise taxes”. I have never talked about raising taxes per se. I talk about how the rich do not pay their fair share because they shelter income off-shore. If they are paying taxes to Grand Cayman, that is not tax income to the U.S. That is cheating the American people.
Obama has not stated one plan to stop that from happening. Romney has. You have talked about how the rich don’t pay their fair share. You need to correct your wording then. In this case this comes back to what I’ve been saying: If rates are fair here, companies will do business here. A deduction will not bring revenues home.
2. “I have not once called people lazy in this site”. Where did I ever say you did?”
See your comment where you said I was arrogant like all other republicans who would call people lazy and then would go off on some other tangent. If you were not linking that to me why did you say it?
3. “They are NOT avoiding taxes entirely”. See #1 above. I don’t care if they pay taxes to another country. They are not paying taxes on gains from income generated in the U.S. I understand it is legal. I think it is still wrong.
I don’t care either. I want them to pay taxes here, and for the cost of making goods in the U.S. to be lower. The only way to do this is with a lower corporate tax rate. Obama does not do this. I’m glad you agree Romney is correct. Romney had a deal to bring all this offshore revenue back to the U.S. for a 10% tax rate. Glad that you missed that deal which would have done it for sure. While Obama tries to find another way for 4 years we lost those annual 1.6 trillion revenues for 4 years taxed at 10% which is 160 billion a year or over 4 it would have been 640 billion. I’m so glad you support Obama in that decision because we should just talk about how to bring back revenues, not actually do it right?
And your comment about “Even Mitt Romney paid 15% of his millions.” So what? He should! He doesn’t get a pat on the back because he paid his taxes. Any more than you or I do.
This comment makes no sense. I was commenting that the rich help the community and gave several examples of how. The lower his taxes are the more capital he can build. This is not an opinion. If each dollar he has he can make several dollars off of (which he can, ergo why he is a millionaire) it’s best to keep as many dollars in his hands as possible which will go towards jobs, and actually as his revenues increase so will government revenues.
“You mentioned the government is taxing away 2 jobs. How much is the net tax rate for your business? Or do you think you should pay NO tax?”
You don’t know how to read. I said he will easily add $10,000 to my business costs. $10,000 could make me $100,000 reinvested. It could be a downpayment on another house in Idaho, bringing in an annual $8,400 revenues a year for 30 years. It could give me the money to produce another prototype for a board game which would earn me about $100,000 in revenues. The bottom line is taxes for businesses must be low to ensure they have high profits and thus can expand (thus expanding jobs and the economy).
You still didn’t answer my question. What is your net tax rate on your business?
And I don’t necessarily disagree that the corporate tax structure could be redesigned. But I do not agree that an individual business owner should pay any less taxes individually than anyone else. Freeing up income for Mitt Romney by lowering his personal income tax would not create any jobs. Freeing up income for any business owned by Mitt Romney would create jobs. Other than payroll taxes, payroll expense is deductible. So his income is not “double dipped” as you insinuated in another post. Many million/billionaires are no longer business owners. Giving them a tax break individually would only make them richer. It would not trickle down to create jobs. So let’s talk about adjusting corporate tax rates, but not individual tax rates. The rich need to pony up just as much as the rest of us working slobs or put-upon business owners like yourself.
I have no idea where you are going with your gasoline scenario. What in the heck does that have to do with what we were talking about. That 44 cents is directly charged to the consumer. It has nothing to do with the oil company paying corporate tax. What was you point?
You are right Bob. I have been a big critic of the 2,000+ page tax code for years which is rife with loopholes. Politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to have no interest in reform of the code. They like the Progressive code that increases rates for those who are successful and then they turn around and give refunds to those who pay no federal taxes. It is just crazy. We should have a flat or fair tax for everyone, not just 50% of the folks. My tax bill is enormous and I am supporting too many deadbeats. Enough is enough. We may not get anything done unless their is a taxpayer revolt and politicians should be held accountable and changed out if they don’t get serious about taxation and spending money they don’t have.
Bob, Planet & Libby have a hard time with facts and Libby admitted Economics was not her strong suit. When they are presented with facts and evidence, they just fall back to their factless Progressive nonsense since they mouth the talking points of the left. I think they both live in a cocoon and as long as they are not personally affected, they are most agreeable to the Progressive agenda. It is very easy to see that both have never owned or ran a business and had to make payroll, pay expenses and still try to make a profit somehow. Unlike them, “I did build this” and “I did do this” without government help. It is very difficult in this current environment, but we are survivors. We just need to make sure our government is changed out in November so business can be brought back and we can think about hiring and expanding again.
Agent – quit speaking out of your behind. I have owned my own business. You know nothing about me. I do work for someone else at this time, but all of you big, bad business owners have to have someone to work for you or YOU WOULDN’T HAVE A BUSINESS. We pay taxes too. You are not the only one in this country asked to pony up and pay when it hurts. So quit pointing fingers and bellyaching all the time. Progressive are people too and if you’d stop trying to sterotype me and put me in class with people you’ll never know, you might see I am not completely one-sided. Unlike you. No – economics is not my strong suit. So what. You bring that up in every other post. Just because economics is your strong suit doesn’t mean you opinions or beliefs are any more important than mine. That is arrogant and pompous. Watch out. You are sounding more and more like Bob. And that is NOT a good thing. Be a conservative economist. Fine. But don’t blanketly insult me and my opinions because I do not agree with all of yours. That is ignorant and very narrow-minded.
You are right about one thing Libby. I don’t want to know or associate with Progressives or listen to their name calling bluster when they are caught in a distortion or untruth. I am not a big, bad business owner. I am a small, good business owner who is very upset at what is going on in this country. The Progressive agenda is ruining the greatest country on earth. We will not be brow beaten into submission by people who think they are the smartest in the room and want to control, regulate and tax us all to death. We are in the beginning stages of a taxpayer revolt and politicians on both sides of the aisle had better beware because their days in office are numbered. What are we, less than 60 days before everything changes? I look forward to the adults stepping in and fixing the wrongs.
Bob, I see you and Libby are mixing it up again. I have a news flash for both of you. Some of our Progressive politicians like Jesse Jackson, Jr. among others are now proposing a 35% hike in the minimum wage to help the poor workers up to around $10 per hour. While it sounds good to help poorer workers, it is estimated to cost 786,000 jobs in the economy because small business will have to lay off workers to stay in business. This is just the opposite of what needs to be done to create jobs in this country. I had to laugh at another article about the Pizza store owner that gave Obama a big bear hug when he came to the store campaigning. Now, his store is being boycotted and he may not last long with little or no business. I wonder if Obama will bail him out.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. will not do anything. Relax. It won’t happen.
“I look forward to the adults stepping in and fixing the wrongs.”
And it’s the Progressives who think we are the smartest people in the room??? That’s hilarious, Agent. I’d think you were kidding, but I remember you have no sense of humor.
Libby, I guess you don’t listen to your leaders very closely or you would hear how pompous and arrogant and downright stupid they sound. Your President famously said to Republicans at the famous Blair House meeting on Health Care – “We won, you lost”. He took none of their suggestions on how to fix healthcare and later said they could get on the back of the bus because he was going “forward” with his plan. This is just one of his smartest man in the room statements. He also thinks there are 57 states and we have Army Corpse Men. Does that sound like the smartest guy in the room? I know you think he is brilliant, but if his teleprompter were taken away, he has a tough time thinking on his feet.
I do think Obama is brilliant. (You may not like his politics, but please don’t try to say the man is not smart.) He made a few gaffes and probably chose some words poorly, as well. I doubt Romney is without his share. I don’t want a rich, white, corporate goon running the country. Sorry. Here is his corporate credo at Bain Capital:
I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation. … The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors.
Great motto for the President to the United States!
And here is his record as Governor of Massachusetts:
Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts promising more jobs, decreased debt, and smaller government. Here’s what Massachusetts got instead:
•Jobs: 47th out of 50 states in job creation
•Taxes and fees: Increased by $750 million per year
•Long-term debt: Increased more than $2.6 billion
I have decided he will not get my vote. See you at the polls!
The only thing Obama is brilliant at is dividing the country along class & race and negative campaigning because he has absolutely no record of achievement to run on. The country has seriously declined and the middle class has seen 25% of their net worth go away. He is running business into the ground by taxation and over regulation and the threat of Obamacare looming on the near horizen. By the way, you should check the record of Duvall Patrick, the current governor of Massachusetts. Romney looks like a choir boy compared to how Patrick has governed. Romney did have a balanced budget and their schools were ranked at the top in the nation. They run a big budget deficit now and have declined noticeably under this Progressive Democratic governor.
I’ll vote for whom ever can get the job done. This guy from WI got was part of the crew that got the job done up there. OBama certianlly has not. Time for change – again! Jobless rate still too high. Taxxes too high. Health cost too high.
FFA, You and I see with clear eyes what needs to be done. Unfortunately, Planet & Libby have cataracts and can’t see what is right there in front of them. They actually think Obama is honest and noble. Perhaps their mom accidentally dropped them on their head when they were a baby to believe that nonsense. We have to stay the course and make sure we get the idiots out of office in November.
Hey FFA, I am sure you are in rapture that your esteemed mayor will be speaking at the Degenerate Convention. They have quite a line up of Pelosi, Reid, him, Jimmy Carter on video, the wicked witch Debbie Wasserman Shultz, among others of the same ilk. Top that off with 2 hours of Muslim prayers by their Imam brotherhood to open it up and it promises to produce a negative bump of 5-10 points. I am glad I have plenty of movies to watch next week.
You are right Bob. Progressives will never connect the dots because they don’t understand Economics and what makes the world go around. They are so invested in their ideology or Keysian theory or both, they have cataracts over their eyes. Frankly, I am surprised that any businesses are started up these days because the challenges are daunting, banks are hesitant about lending money even with a good business plan. Many fail in the first year despite all their sacrifices. We watch our expenses closely and watch our gross vs net profit and compare to last year at the same time. If something is out of line, we have to address it and make the needed adjustments. We are survivors and we mean to survive these times as well. After 30 years in business, I have not seen challenges like this even during the Carter years and that was bad.
Good try Bob! What you don’t realize is that the Progressive mind is one track. Punish success by taxing more! You didn’t build that! You didn’t do that! You haven’t paid your fair share. Never mind that you created jobs and more taxpayers. We want 70% of your money to fund our social programs. What, you say you will have to lay off people if we tax you more? Why can’t you just be satisfied with a pittance left over from your hard work? Bob, these are their arguments and it is useless to point out the errors of their ways. If I were Planet’s employer, he would be one of the first I would let go in a layoff because he doesn’t believe his employer should enjoy success.
THE PAUL RYAN SELECTION
The Koch Brothers Get Their Man – (from The Stone Zone)
I’ve waited a few days to lay out my analysis of the selection of Paul Ryan for the VP slot on the Romney ticket. Unlike politicos like Dick Morris who bad-mouths the selection privately and shills for it publicly, I’ll tell you what I really think. My sources tell me David Koch played a key role in Ryan’s selection and that Koch’s wife Julia had been quietly lobbying for Ryan. The selection was cemented at the July 22nd fundraiser Koch held for Romney at the former’s sumptuous Hamptons estate.
Koch pledged $100 million more to C-4 and Super PAC efforts for Romney for Ryan’s selection.
The upside of Ryan’s selection is clear. Romney, distrusted by party conservatives, won’t have to worry about his right flank or the base throughout the fall as John McCain did, theoretically leaving Romney free to seek independent swing voters in the middle. The downside is Ryan may be so tattooed by the Democrats for his “extreme” positions that Romney’s ability to win these votes may be limited. The shift of the debate from jobs and the economy to entitlement funding is not beneficial to the Republicans as it will allow the campaign to play out on the Democrats strong suit issue.
Meanwhile the idea of Ryan as a radical is laughable. Ryan put forth a budget proposal which did nothing to curtail Social Security and military spending. His famous budget allows the deficit to continue to grow. Ryan has worked almost his entire adult life (the last twenty years) cashing a government check in D.C. Ryan supported the auto and bank bailouts, voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2008 and for increasing the debt ceiling in 2011. Ryan voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002, keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely, against withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Balkans in 1999 and for the authorization for use of military force against Afghanistan in 2001. He also voted for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act in 2006 and 2011 and for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which allows the federal government to arrest and incarcerate a US citizen without bail, charges or a trial.
The idea of Paul Ryan as a libertarian is a joke. Ryan is a big government, Washington DC Republican who votes to fund foreign interventionism and the erosion of our civil liberties. Ryan began his political career as an acolyte of one of my heroes, Rep. Jack Kemp. Yet Ryan has wandered far from Kemp’s genuine concern about the poor and disadvantaged. Ryan has become more of a faux deficit hawk and less of a pro-growth proponent.
Then there is the question of Ryan’s clothes. I’m not sure if he gets his threads from the Salvation Army or the Goodwill. His suits are too large as are his dress shirts. He appears to be wearing a plastic belt. The Romney team should enlist supply-side guru Larry Kudlow to coach Ryan, not on economics but on how to dress. Shortly after his selection, Ryan headed to Las Vegas to kiss the ring of Las Vegas Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Problem is Adelson keeps his ring in his back pocket!
So, Planet, still up to slash and burn posts since your side has nothing to offer that will actually help the country. Your downgrading of Ryan cuts no ice with me. This man has a degree in Economics unlike your President and Biden. He has a fine family and the right values and actually has ideas that should be tried since Progressive ideas are the reason why the country is $16 Trillion in debt and has declined substantially in the past nearly 4 years. I look forward with relish to see his debate with gaffe a minute Hairplug Joe. I think the folks will see a stark difference in their viewpoints and Biden will be revealed as the lunatic that he is. Is this the best you got criticizing his wardrobe? I recall that Democrats critcized Sarah’s wardrobe saying Republicans were spending too much on her outfits. At least it wasn’t taxpayers money that was being spent.
Look at Ryan’s voting record, not the wardrobe stuff. I didn’t write the article, a Republican did:
http://stonezone.com/about.php
Truth hurts at least 1 blogger out here. Maybe Paul Ryan is a Ryano.
Let’s look at what Paul Ryan has actually done and then compare it to what he says. He has requested funds from government to “create jobs” but then says “government doesn’t creat jobs”. He recently asked congressman Akin to withdraw from the Senate race in Missouri because of what Akin said about rape and abortion yet it exactly what Paul Ryan has statedin his attempt to get legislation on anti abortion passed and the Republicans have now put it in their platform. Could go on but this should be enough to show he can’t be trusted.
Ryan is no different from any other “flip flopper” whose position changes depending on the proverbial political wind.
Another example of the need for Tort Reform that was left out of the oBumba Care – see the article of the knuckle head suing the Dallas Cowboys for sitting on a hot bench.
And yet, Obumba (and every other law maker for that matter) ignors the obvious.
You sue me and lose, you pay every nickle out of my pocket and then pay me what you were looking for out of me. See if that gets health care affordable.
I’m just a small business man and I can figure that out.
Hey FFA, most of us with brains all know the Trial Lawyers are among the biggest bundlers/contributors to the Obama campaign. That is why they didn’t put Tort Reform in the bill and the lawyers all know he will continue the gravy train for them if he is re-elected. Gee, I wonder why Obama and his wife gave up their law degrees if they like the lawyers that much.
Suppose Libby is an unemployed Lawyer? Hows your college degree working out for you these days Libby? Tired of the same old same old???? OBama isnt the answer for jobs. Hes proved it over the past three years. Sis in law losing her job she has been in since High School cuz she dont want to move to the Mid East. Daughter In Law lost her job since High School cuz she dont want to move to Mexico. Obama did not bring it on, but he sure could have stopped it. Instead, lets put more taxxes out there and by the way, increase Health Care Cost Dramatically. Lets not address one of the driving forces of the cost of it all – TORT REFORM!
OBama has done nothing for our country. Granted, he inherited a mess, but we are a bigger mess now then we were under Bush. Damn Dumberthencraps. Damn Republicans! Damn, another election of the lessor of two evils. This ship is sinking.
Hard to do federal tort reform. Usually done on the state level. Not sure what you would want Obama to do on that front.